Dalit Christian case for reservation
T. FRANKLIN CAESAR, BETHEL, SOOSAIYAPURAM NEW ST., MANAKKAL, LALGUDI PO, TN - 621 601

Dalit Christians are about 75% of the total Christian population. They are socially, educationally, economically and culturally most backward. The Central Govt. must amend the Presidential Order (1950) to extend constitutional reservation to Dalit Christians. Already so many State Govts. have asked the Union Govt.to amend Presidential Order.

Dr. Ambedkar support: By accepting the prevalence of untouchability in the church and outside, Dr. Ambedkar (W&S, Vol.V, p. 470) had strongly condemned the untouchability hurdles upon Dalit Christians. Babasaheb had also supported our stand.

The National Commission for SC/ STs in its report (Vol.1, June 14, 1983 para 13) had strongly recommended that recognition of Dalit converts to Christianity as Scheduled Castes be accepted.

The Parliamentary Forum of SC/STs on June 16-17, 1992 passed a resolution to extend SC reservation to Dalit Christians. A memorandum signed by about 200 MPs was given to Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao. Another memorandum signed by 325 MPs was submitted to the Prime Minister in May 1995. In all, at least 500 MPs have signed in one or the other memoranda to the PM on this issue.

Supreme Court verdict: Various State Govts., Govt. of India Social Welfare Exploration Committees for extending reservations had recommended to the Central and the State Government for extending SC reservation to Dalit Christians. (Commissions like that of Mandal Commission, Backward Class Commission of Andhra Pradesh, Kumara Pillai Commission report in Kerala, Elaya Perumal Commission, Satanathan Commission, Chidambaram Commission Report, Kaka Kalelkar Commission Reports and Union Minorities Commission Reports 1981-1982 page 55 and so on).

Leaders of all national, regional parties in their election manifesto have also supported our claim. In the Supreme Court the following judgements had clearly given verdicts to support Dalit Christian stand to be considered as Scheduled Castes:

(1) Supreme Court 1976 SC 1094, (2) Supreme Court AIR 1984 SC 411, (3) Supreme Court AIR 1922 SC 273, (4) Mandal Case Judgement on Nov. 30, 1992, (5) Srish V state of Tripura A 1990 SC 91 (15-20)3 Judges, (6) AIR 1965 SC at 1184 Bhaiyalal vs Harikrishnana A 1965 SC 1557 (1560), (7) Ganpat vs Returning Officer (1975) 1 SCC 589 at pr.12, (8) Principal, Guntur College vs Y. Mohan (1976) 3 SCC 5411 at pr 5, (9) S. Anbalagan vs B. Devarajan (1984) 2 SCC 112 at pr 13, (10) Supreme Court 1954 Sc. 236.

Sikhs & Budhist case: The only legislation directly impinging on caste autonomy was the Caste Disabilities Removal Act (Act XXI of 1850 also known as the Freedom of Religious Act), which provided that there should be no forfeiture of civil or property rights by reason of renouncing or having been excluded from the communion of any religion or being deprived of caste. This is entirely against the Constitution Scheduled Caste Order 1950, paragraph 3 Presidential Ordinance. The said para 3 is ultravires of the constitutional Articles 15 (2), 16 (2), 29 (2) which stresses fundamental and equal rights.

Though Sikhism and Budhism do not recognise caste system, Dalit Sikhs and Budhists were given SC reservation. Similarly by considering the geographical isolation of Tribal Christians, they were considered socially backward and treated as Tribals. No religion was referred for giving tribal privileges to Tribal Christians. In the same manner Dalit Christians may be extended SC reservation.

In 1997, special reporters on religious intolerance committee of the UN Human Rights Commission had published a Document (Ref. No. E/CN.4/1997/91/Add I dt. 14.02.1997). In a written reply, the Union of India had agreed to solve the injustice to Dalit Christians by giving them SC privileges. To prove that Dalit Christians are socially, educationally backward for getting reservation, the above letter written by the Law Secretary is a prima facie, cogent and authoritative evidence from the Central Govt. side. (see also p.18)

DV April 16, 2005 p.8: "Dalits must not oppose Dalit Christian reservation".

DV Edit March 1, 2005: "DV supports Dalit Christian quota: Church must force govt. by mobilising support".

V.T. Rajshekar: "Why Dalits Hate Hinduism? - Christian Services to be written in letters of gold", DSA-2004.

______________________________________________________________________________

Courts blocking Backward Caste reservations in AP
Dr. E. VENKATESU, ASST. PROFESSOR, CENTRE FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, HYDERABAD - 500 030

The Andhra Pradesh High Court once again repeated the judgment, as it did in the case of BC reservations since the formation of separate state, with regard to 5% reservations for the Muslims in education and employment provided by the State Govt. according to GO no. 33/2004 and to include in the "E" category of BC list. The existing 27% reservations for the nomadic tribes, occupational groups, Dalit Christians and agricultural labour and small and marginal farmers of A,B,C, and D categories respectively also came into existence after a long legal battle. So, once again there is serious debate on BC reservations which is more "controversial" than any other public policy since the formation of AP. That is why it would be appropriate to give historical account of the BC/OBC reservation policy in AP.

NON-BRAHMIN MOVEMENT

The reservation issue has a long history in India. By 2003, it completed 100 years. For the first time Shahu Maharaja of Kolhapur introduced the reservations for the deprived sections of the society in 1903. In 1922, Madras Govt. announced reservations to non-Brahmins following Periyar E.V. Ramaswamy's agitation.

The former Madras province included the Coastal and Rayalaseema districts of AP. The non-Brahmin movement was so vigorous that it gave rise to a political situation forcing the Justice Party to form the ministry under the Mont Ford reforms. The system of communal rotation in public services was in full force from then onwards till "independence". After the Constitution came into force, the upper castes filed a petition in the Madras High Court which said it was not possible to identify some castes as the socially and educationally backward classes. The Madras Govt. then got the order stayed by the Supreme Court. The first amendment to the Indian Constitution was then moved to provide the special treatment to the socially and educationally BCs.

CASTE CRITERION

When the Constitution came into force there were many states in which special preferences were available to BCs. During 1951-52, educational concessions were available in about 11 states (Andhra, Bihar, Gujarat, HP, Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Punjab, TN and UP) four of which also provided reservations in govt. posts. All these states followed the caste criterion in preparing the lists of BCs.

With the formation of Andhra Pradesh, the ruling govt. did not implement the reservations for the OBCs till the appointment of the first Backward Classes Commission in 1968. However, the first landmark in the history of BC movement after the separation of Andhra in 1953 from Madras was that the State Congress constituted a sub-committee under the presidentship of Pragada Kotaiah to look into the problems of BCs. However, this step of the Congress was treated as an attempt to divide the BC movement on party lines.

After the formation of AP, in 1956 there was a startling development, the Sanjeeva Reddy Govt. decided to prepare the BC list not on the basis of caste criteria but on the basis of income. This led to difference of opinion among BCs.

In 1963, the AP Govt. brought out a new list of BCs for the purpose of reserving 25% seats in medical colleges invoking Article 15(4). However, the AP High Court struck down the order on the ground that it has been made exclusively on the basis of caste. The state failed to explain the reasons for taking the caste as the sole criteria for determining the backwardness.

POVERTY YARDSTICK

The State Govt. revised its stand saying that the criteria for determining backwardness should be economic and it should be applied to an individual family rather than the caste. In 1964, a new order was issued that financial assistance be given only to the economically poor whose family income was less than Rs, 1,500 a year. A cabinet subcommittee adopted six factors as criteria for the preparation of the BC list:

1) poverty, (2) low standard of education, (3) low standard of living, (4) place of habitation, (5) inferiority of occupation and (6) caste. The govt. issued a new order on the basis of this criterion and made 20% reservation of seats for OBCs.

A batch of 104 writs were filed in the High Court challenging this new order. The High Court (Oct.7, 1967) struck down the list of BCs for the reasons that the list was not based on any statistical data and that it was only a list of castes without the test of poverty. The AP Govt. appealed to the Supreme Court which upheld the AP High Court judgment.

The AP Govt. then appointed a commission (1968) headed by Manohar Pershad to enumerate the socially and educationally BCs.

SANJEEVA REDDY BIAS

The first AP BC Commission under the chairmanship of Anantharaman was asked to determine the criteria to backwardness and make suitable recommendations for the uplift of the BCs. The Commission prepared the criteria and prepared a list of 92 BCs taking into consideration their cultural background, economic, educational and social backwardness and submitted its report on June 25, 1970 recommending 30% reservation of seats in education and other recommendations. The State Govt. (23-9-1970) announced 25% reservations to BCs.

The Govt. recognised 93 communities as BCs giving them 25% reservations from 1972 onwards. The upper castes again challenged this order and the High Court quashed the same. Chief Justice Pingali Jagan Mohan Reddy said BC list was not valid because the socio-educational profile of the listed BCs was not studied. The then Chief Minister Sanjeeva Reddy did not challenge the High Court verdict because he deliberately avoided the reservations for BCs.

The State Govt., however, approached the Supreme Court which upheld the Govt. order as also the list of the socially and educationally BCs in its judgment of June 1972.

CASTE IS CLASS

The Supreme Court also observed that a caste is also a class of citizens and as such a caste can be socially and educationally backward, the reservation made of such persons will have to be upheld not withstanding the facts that a few individuals in that group may be both socially and educationally above the general average. This judgment gave some relief to the BCs from 1972 onwards by way of reservations. The concept of social justice for the BCs became a reality because of the Supreme Court verdict.

MURALIDHAR RAO COMMISSION

The next important landmark in the history of BCs is the Backward Classes Conference conducted by the AP Govt. The State Govt. under the leadership of Dr. M. Chenna Reddy realized the force behind the upliftment of weaker sections and the need to tackle this problem on a war-footing. It announced extension of reservations for further period of ten years from 1980.

The Muralidhar Rao Commission appointed in 1981 submitted its report in 1982 but it gathered dust for 4 years. N.T. Rama Rao announced to implement the Muralidhar Rao Commission's one recommendations to increase the reservations from 25% to 44% in 1986. But the AP High Court rejected the Government decision. None challenged the order.

N.T. Rama Rao said, the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and minorities together constituted about 30% of the state population.

LOCAL BODY RESERVATIONS

The remaining 70% are to be shared between the BCs and the forward castes. Since no caste-based census was taken after 1931, Muralidhar Rao chose to go by the estimate of the Mandal Commission which had put the upper caste population at 17.58% and concluded that the BCs constitute 52% in AP. Hardly any recommendations of the Muralidhar Rao Commission is implemented so far in the state.

To accommodate the BCs and reduce the upper caste hegemony in the local bodies, the N.T. Rama Rao Govt. introduced 34% reservations in the local bodies (1986). There are 21,943 gram panchayats, 1,093 mandal parishads, 22 zilla parishads in the state. Out of these 34% will be reserved for the BCs which means that 7460.62 gram sarpanches, 371.62 mandal presidents and 7.48 ZP chairmen and in the same proportion in the MPTC and ZPTC and the Municipalities seats are reserved for the BCs. With the introduction of reservations the representation of the Backward Classes has been increasing but it is not in proportion to their population.

But there is the criticism from the Backward Classes Associations on two points. One is that the candidates to contest in the reserved local body elections are decided by the upper castes at the local level rather than the BCs themselves. The reservations in the local bodies is not having constitutional status. So the Govt. or the judiciary may abolish these reservations since the matter is before the Supreme court.

PUTTASWAMY COMMISSION

As the term of Muralidhar Rao Commission recommendations completed by 1999, the Kotla Vijay Bhaskarareddy Govt. appointed Justice Putta Swamy Commission for identification, inclusion and exclusion of castes in the BC list. The commission appointed a research team to study the socio-economic position of all castes in the state. The "forwardness" and "backwardness" of every caste in AP has been measured and ranks have been given.

Three years (2000) ago, the period of ten-year for BC reservations is over. The State Govt., however, extended the reservations through a GO but it is not based on any commission recommendation. The 5% reservations to the Muslims (8.5%) are also given through a GO by the Rajasekhar Reddy Govt. The High Court rejected the GO on the ground that the decision was taken without consulting the State Backward Classes Commission, creamy layer was not identified among the Muslims and exceeding the Constitution limitation of 50%. The court also directed the state govt. to constitute the BC Commission for the identification of the backwardness and creamy layer among the Muslims and submit the report within six months.

The State BC Commission was expected to submit its report by May 24, 2005 but the High Court recently objected to submit its report without hearing the arguments of the Backward Classes Associations in the state. Therefore, once again the BCs reservations are facing a question mark.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Godse book makes history
NAGESH CHOUDHARY, NAGPUR - 440 022

The Marathi translation of the English book, Why Godse Killed Gandhi? has created publishing history.

Since it's first edition published in 1990, so far six editions of 1,000 copies each have been sold. A new 7th reprint is just published.

The book (Rs. 25, pp.IV-52) was translated by me and available at: Bahujan Sangharsh, Udhoji Premises, Rahate Colony, Wardha Road, Nagpur - 440 022. Meanwhile, its English original (DSA-1997), which itself went into three editions, is sold out. There is a big demand for the book and the author is under pressure to enlarge edition of this "Explosive book".

Nagesh Chaudhary has translated into Marathi yet another booklet of V.T. Rajshekar, Three Commandments of Dr. Ambedkar (DSA-2005). The booklet is titled Shika, Sangharsh Kara, Sanghatit Vha (Educate, Agitate, Unite) Rs. 10.