40 reasons why Scheduled Caste converts to Christianity and Muslims cannot be included in the Scheduled Caste list! A mind-boggling Analysis
A detailed factual and legal analysis
See the petition that numerous Christian organizations have submitted asking for the inclusion of scheduled caste converts to Christianity( referred to as Dalit Christians) below:
In similar terms, numerous Muslim organizations have also submitted petitions asking for the inclusion of so-called scheduled caste converts to Islam ( referred to as Dalit Muslims )
I have looked into the petitions and the arguments put forth, and I have recorded my observations and actual facts that may help decide the case on merits and available facts. This is also based on the innumerable messages shared with me on my social media handle. This would help in consolidating the arguments into precise points so that they can be used in the final arguments in court. This is a long read.
Argument 1:The Christian converts had to undergo the same level of subjugation even after conversion, which is far from reality.
Looking back, the majority of Hindus who converted to Islam did so before the Mughal era, and it wasn’t just the Dalits who made the switch; many Brahmins and Kshatriyas did so as well. There is no historical evidence, however, to suggest that any religion practiced untouchability against those who converted. There is a wealth of information about the social standing of Christians who converted from low-caste Hinduism during the British Raj in India, when the majority of Hindus converted to Christianity. The 1901 census abstracts are included below.
Several details regarding the experience of a dalit who embraced Christianity were documented in the census. The aforementioned passages are all derived from Chapter 8-Religion of the 1901 Census document
Following is what it says:
“But once a youth from among these people becomes a Christian, his whole horizon changes. He is as carefully educated as if he were a Brahman; he is put in the way of learning a trade or obtaining an appointment as a clerk; he is treated with kindness and even familiarity by missionaries who belong to the ruling race; he takes an equal part with his elders and betters in the service of the church; and in due time, he can choose from among the neat-handed girls of the mission a wife skilled in domestic matters and even endowed with some little learning. Nowadays, active persecution of converts to Christianity is rare. “
This proves without a reasonable doubt that converts experienced significantly less persecution after their conversion. There is no evidence to support the claim that Christians were persecuted at the same rate as Hindus. Individual cases do not indicate widespread victimization.
Now there is strong evidence that Christians who converted from other religions were given the same access to high-quality education and employment as Brahmins. The census documents the efforts made to elevate converts to higher social classes throughout the British Era. Please find enclosed the corresponding census data extracts.
The aforementioned data from the 1901 census for Madras converts demonstrates unequivocally that the social status of indigenous Christians increased as a result of their efforts to better themselves through learning and creativity.
“ (4) The improved status of the native chrisitian community who, by their education, intelligence and energy have won for themselves a much higher position than they held formerly “
This demonstrates that the converts had advantages that the Dalits lacked, including sufficient status and access to English and western education. They also had high employment rates compared to the Hindu Dalits.
The persecution of the Hindu Dalits cannot be compared to the persecution of Muslim Dalits or the Christian Dalits
Argument 2: The conditions of education and social backwardness remained the same for Christians even after conversion
This is far from reality. We demonstrate how Christians' had access to English education while most Dalits remained uneducated and illiterate during the British era.
The aforementioned excerpts show that native Christians were highly educated and fluent in English, while lower-caste Hindus faced severe discrimination. Since higher-caste Hindus never let untouchables into the school, this argument was used to justify conversion. Even teachers would not teach an untouchable because they were considered unclean, but the statistics of literacy among Native Christians were one of the highest, proving that upper-caste Hindus did not discriminate against the converts.
The upper caste Hindus were reluctant to teach the lower caste Hindus, which is why British India pushed for impure caste schools. This victimization was not seen with Christian converts, however. Actually, the British Indian government was on the side of the Christians, and Christians were among the first to benefit from the country’s separate electorate system, which was also open to Muslims and Sikhs. For a very long time, members of scheduled castes and tribes were not only excluded from participating in politics but also denied the right to vote. Ambedkar wanted a separate electorate for the lower-class communities because of this.
The extracts of English education literates showed that Christians had one of the highest numbers of people who knew English compared to even Hindus. The native Christians, which included the converts too, were also part of this, and it is very clear that they had access to high-quality English education better than the Brahmins. See the table below.
If you see the above statistics, it can be inferred that Pariayan, Mala, Madiga did not have one English educated soul. Eurasian and Brahman had very high number of educated. Native Christians were equivalent to Brahman in access to English education which is clearly proven from the Madras statistics where the conversion was the maximum. So the plea that the converts continued to be victimized is far fetched story and is not substantiated by available census data.
It is a baseless argument to state that the upper caste Hindus discriminated against the native Christians and untouchables at the same level. The above statistics clearly showed that Christians had better education than even Brahmins, and they were never ill-treated in schools by upper-caste teachers. There is no documented evidence of the denial of temples or public amenities like water to these converts to Christianity. They enjoyed sufficiently high status compared to the untouchables.
Argument 3: Castes among Hindus are the same as those among Christians or Muslims
Dr. Ambedkar clarified that the caste system among Hindus is radically different from the caste system among Muslims. Extracts from his book “Annihilation of caste”, where he argues that the persecution of Dalits among Hindus is real and cannot be compared with other religions like Muslims and Christianity, are enclosed below
If we apply these considerations to castes among Mohammedans, Sikhs and Christians on the one hand and to castes among Hindus on the other, you will find that caste among Non-Hindus is fundamentally different from caste among Hindus. First, the ties, which consciously make the Hindus hold together, are non-existent, while among Non-Hindus there are many that hold them together. The strength of a society depends upon the presence of points of contact, possibilities of interaction between different groups which exist in it. These are what Carlyle calls “organic filaments” i.e. the elastic threads which help to bring the disintegrating elements together and to reunite them. There is no integrating force among the Hindus to counteract the disintegration caused by caste. While among the Non-Hindus there are plenty of these organic filaments which bind them together. Again it must be borne in mind that although there are castes among Non-Hindus, as there are among Hindus, caste has not the same social significance for Non-Hindus as it has for Hindus. Ask Mohammedan or a Sikh, who he is ? He tells you that he is a Mohammedan or a Sikh as the case may be. He does not tell you his caste although he has one and you are satisfied with his answer. When he tells you that he is a Muslim, you do not proceed to ask him whether he is a Shiya or a Sunni; Sheikh or Saiyad; Khatik or Pinjari. When he tells you he is a Sikh, you do not ask him whether he is Jat or Roda; Mazbi or Ramdasi. But you are not satisfied, if a person tells you that he is a Hindu. You feel bound to inquire into his caste. Why ? Because so essential is caste in the case of a Hindu that without knowing it you do not feel sure what sort of a being he is. That caste has not the same social significance among Non-Hindus as it has among Hindus is clear if you take into consideration the consequences which follow breach of caste. There may be castes among Sikhs and Mohammedans but the Sikhs and the Mohammedans will not outcast a Sikh or a Mohammedan if he broke his caste. Indeed, the very idea of excommunication is foreign to the Sikhs and the Mohammedans. But with the Hindus the case is entirely different. He is sure to be outcasted if he broke caste. This shows the difference in the social significance of caste to Hindus and Non-Hindus. This is the second point of difference. But there is also a third and a more important one. Caste among the non-Hindus has no religious consecration ; but among the Hindus most decidedly it has. Among the Non-Hindus, caste is only a practice, not a sacred institution. They, did not originate it. With them it is only a survival. They do not regard caste as a religious dogma. Religion compels the Hindus to treat isolation and segregation of castes as a virtue. Religion does not compel the Non-Hindus to take the same attitude towards caste. If Hindus wish to break caste, their religion will come in their way. But it will not be so in the case of Non-Hindus. It is, therefore, a dangerous delusion to take comfort in the mere existence of caste among Non-Hindus, without caring to know what place caste occupies in their life and whether there are other “organic filaments”, which subordinate the feeling of caste to the feeling of community. The sooner the Hindus are cured of this delusion the better
Caste is embedded in the Hindu religion, and its relevance is not so great in other religions. The victimization of lower castes is much more prevalent in Hinduism than other religions
Argument 4: An argument is made that if Scheduled caste status is not given to Christians or Muslims , they will all convert to Buddhism or Sikhs to take the reservation benefits.
Lower castes have seen the maximum conversion from Hinduism to other religions. The recorded evidence of the conversion of lower castes to other religions started with the Lingayat movement in Karnataka, which was considered a separate religion earlier on. Now Muslims have also converted a large population through the Wahhabi movement, where a large number of untouchables moved into the Muslim religion. Once the British came into India, there was again conversion from low-caste Hindus to Christianity. There is actually no factual evidence to prove that large-scale conversion from other religions to Hinduism has happened. There is no evidence for reverse migration.
The extracts from the census, which are enclosed below, show a large number of castes, including upper and lower castes, initially converted into Christians. It is very difficult to identify a low-caste or a high-caste Christian once conversion has happened. Please see the extracts below
In the current context, in the absence of caste in Christianity, all the castes like Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Chetties, cultivating castes, and shepherd castes who converted to Christianity will call themselves as Dalit Christians' and come into the reservation fold. These conversions happened centuries ago, and it is almost impossible to trace the origins of the current generations using the old data. The converts have assimilated into the Christian religion, and there have been numerous religious alliances within themselves, which has resulted in a oneness among themselves.
If you ask a christian, his/her religion. You will stop once he/she tells their religion? You will not proceed to ask their caste as in Hinduism. “
Which caste/sub caste is a mandatory question in Hinduism but not in Christianity or Islam? “
So the reverse conversion from Christianity to Hinduism is a myth.
Argument 5: The converts continue with the old customs and rituals and hence they need to be included in the scheduled caste list
If the convert continues to follow certain rituals of the old religion, it does not mean that the same religion continues. The amalgamation of religious cultures does not mean that religion has to be included in the scheduled caste list. Please see the pew research data on the essential practices of religions across various religions below
The above data showed that 8% of Muslims visited Hindu temples and 6% of Hindus visited Mosques. 22% of Christians visited Hindu temples.
Does this religious amalgamation have any relevance to caste? It has no relevance.
Many Muslims celebrated Hindu festivals; does that mean they have become Hindus?
The fallacious argument of linking religious practices to untouchability is completely baseless.
Argument 6: Hindu Scriptures codify the varna system, while Islam and Christianity recognize equality among all human beings. Is caste an essential religious practice of Islam and Christianity?
The Hindu Scriptures actually gave legality to caste system, while the word caste, varna, does not form part of the Muslim or Christian Scriptures. The varna system has its origins in Purusha Sukta, Book 10 of the Rig Veda. The same is extracted below:
12 The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms was the Rājanya made.
His thighs became the Vaiśya, from his feet the Śūdra was produced.
The origin of the varna system gives the very severe divisions in Hindu society legal legitimacy, something that is lacking in other religions.
The Supreme Court has evolved the essential practices theory to rule out whether a practice is essentially sanctioned by a religion or not.
In Mohd Hanif Quaresh v. State of Bihar, a question came up on laws prohibiting the slaughter of cattle during Bakrid. The court placed reliance upon the Islamic religious texts to determine that the sacrificing of cows at Bakrid was not an essential practice for Muslims.
“13…No reference is made in the petition to any particular Surah of the Holy Quran which, in terms, requires the sacrifice of a cow. What the Holy book enjoins is that people should pray to the Lord and make sacrifices. It is therefore optional for a Muslim to sacrifice a goat for one person or a cow or a camel for seven people. It does not appear to be obligatory that a person
must sacrifice a cow. The very fact of an option seems to run counter to the notion of an obligatory duty.”
(Emphasis supplied)
In the above judgement, the court laid down a crucial precedent that references in Holy books like the Quran are essential in examining the essentiality of such practices.
In Shayara Bano v Union of India (“Shayara Bano”), a constitution
The bench of the Supreme Court considered whether the practice of triple talaq was an essential practice for the Hanafi school of Sunni Muslims. Based on an examination of Islamic jurisprudence that established that triple talaq constitutes an irregular practice of divorce, the majority opinion, in a 3–2 split, held that triple talaq was not an essential practice. The excerpts are enclosed below:
“54. It is clear that Triple Talaq is only a form of Talaq that is permissible in law but, at the same time, stated to be sinful by the very Hanafi school that tolerates it. According to Javed (supra), therefore, this would not form part of any essential religious practice. Applying the test stated in Acharya Jagdishwarananda (supra), it is equally clear that the
fundamental nature of the Islamic religion, as seen through an
Indian Sunni Muslim’s eyes will not change without this
practice.”
We need to see whether caste is an essential practice of Islam and Christianity. Let us look at the Bible first.
If one looks at the Bible, it states the following:
James 2:1–10
My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him?
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither slave nor free; there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Romans 2:11
God shows no partiality.
James 2:8
If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well.
Colossians 3:11
Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, or free; but Christ is all and in all.
Acts 10:34
So Peter opened his mouth and said: Truly, I understand that God shows no partiality,
Genesis 2:7
Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
James 2:1
My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory.
Ephesians 6:9
Masters, do the same to them and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven and that there is no partiality with him.
Ephesians 2:14
For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility
Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek
Islam does not recognize caste divisions.
Equality in the Quran is like this:
In the Quran, Allah says:
“O mankind, verily, We have created you from a single pair of male and female and have made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other. Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Almighty Allah is the most righteous” (Quran, 49:13).We should not consider ourselves superior to others because we are all equal according to Almighty Allah, except for distinction in piety.
Equality in Islam stems from basic principles such as:
- All men are created by One and the Same Eternal Creator, the Supreme Lord of all.
- All mankind belongs to the human race and shares equally in the common lineage of Adam and Eve.
- Allah is just and kind to all his creatures. He is not partial to any race, age, or religion.
- The whole universe is Allah’s, and all people are His creatures.
- All people are born equal in the sense that none brings any dominion with them, and they die equal in the sense that none brings any possession with them, and they die equal in the sense that they take back nothing of their worldly belongings.
- Allah judges every person on the basis of his own merits and according to his own deeds.
- Allah has debated man; man as such is a title of honor and dignity.
So, it is clear that the religious scriptures in both Christianity and Islam do not recognize the caste system and are more egalitarian than the Hindu religion.
Caste is a essential religious practice in the Hindu religion. The use of distinctive marks, sur names, vegetarianism makes caste a essential religious practice in the Hindu religion. In Christianity and Islam, caste is not integral to their religion. It is not a essential religious practice. For example, a Hindu would be asked his religion first and immediately he would he asked his caste. The same does not happen in Christianity. Nobody ask some one’s caste in Christianity or Muslims. There are economic gradation between various class, but what we call has caste divide does not exist in Christianity and Islam. So caste is not a essential religious practice of Christianity and Islam.
Argument 7: Christian Dalits and Muslim Dalits have experienced the same victimization as Hindu Dalits
Hindus often commit atrocities out of a sense of caste pride.
Ambedkar includes the following in his essay “Untouchability and Lawlessness:
Other religions have never experienced the untouchability that touchable view as an offense. This is exclusive to the Hindu Religion. There is sufficient documentation of atrocities experienced by Dalits all over India before and after independence. The same evidence is not available for Muslims or Christians'.
Although isolated incidences may occur, caste oppression, as seen among Lower caste Hindus, is not seen among Dalit converts to Muslims and Christians.
Argument 8: Christian Dalits and Muslim Dalits are oppressed, so they need reservations.
It is now surprising to note that Muslims are one of the prominent members who commit atrocities against Scheduled Castes in Maharastra.
It is shocking to see that, apart from the upper caste Marathas, Muslims were next to commit caste atrocities against the Untouchables.
Argument 9: Many Christian and Muslim Dalits are doing manual scavenging jobs; hence, they should be included in the Scheduled Caste List
This is a completely baseless argument. The number of safaikarmachari employed category-wise is given below
The above data clearly showed that among Group C-Safai Karmachari’s, 32.56% of them from Scheduled castes, 7.05% from the Scheduled Tribes, 19.39% from other backward classes, and the rest were 59% from the General class.
If one agrees with his argument, then all the castes in OBC’s, General( that may include even Brahmins), may have to be included in the Scheduled caste list. This is a completely baseless argument.
Inclusion of Scheduled castes just based on occupation or one’s economic condition is not possible.
Argument 10: Sikhs were included only in 1956, and they were never included earlier.
This is a completely baseless argument. Since the 1950 order clearly shows that the depressed classes among Sikhs were included, The extracts of gazette notification of order is enclosed below
Paragraph 3 of the above order clearly states that
“Provided that every member of the Ramdasi, Kabirpanthi, Mazhabi or Sikligar caste resident in Punjab or the Patiala and East Punjab states union sall, in relation to that state, be deemed to be a member of the scheduled castes where he professes the Hindu or the Sikh Religion “
Sikhs have always been on the SC list. Read the 1950 Order. It is clearly written that there will be SC among Sikhs. Congress MP and retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Ranganath Mishra first spread this lie through his report.
Where would the 1950 order be available to the common people? So this lie started that Sikhs got SC status in 1956 is a lie
Now the 1950 order is on dozens of government websites. Millions of people are reading.
The 1950 order has not been amended for Sikhs. They are in SC list since 1950. So this argument is wrong.
Argument 11: Why should only Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists get the reservation under SC?
The Constitution of India provides a comprehensive definition of Hinduism. Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists are explicitly included in the definition of “Hindu” in Article 25. That’s why Hindu law also applies to them. The Provisions of Article 25 are enclosed below for everyone’s perusal.
Explanation II in sub clause (b) of clause states that Hindus shall include Sikh, Jain or Buddhist religion. Thus, it is crystal clear that Hindus are compared to Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists in the constitution. The inclusion of the Buddhist and Sikh faiths within Hinduism is strongly supported by this argument.
The Hindu Marriages Act also includes the sects of Jainism, Sikhism, and Buddhism as legitimate members of the Hindu faith.
To determine this, we will look at Section 2 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred as HMA)of 1955 to determine who is considered a Hindu .
As per Section 2(1)(a) of the HMA, any person who is a Hindu by religion in any of its form including Virashiva, Lingayat or a follower of Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj. The word ‘including’ suggests that the list is not exhaustive.
Section 2(1) (b) of HMA lays down that any person who is a Buddhist, Jain or Sikh is also considered to be a Hindu.
A person will be considered to be a Hindu if:
The person is domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends.
He/she must not be a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew.
So there is a strong case to treat Buddhist, Jains and Sikhs as Hindus itself and hence they are entitled for the benefits of the Scheduled castes
Argument 12: Buddhists are casteless; they are included in Scheduled castes. Why should Christians' and Muslims not be included in the list?
This is the wrong interpretation. The Scheduled Caste Order of 1990 brought in Neo-Buddhists, especially those Buddhists who were converted in 1956 by Ambedkar. The majority of them are from Maharashtra, and the conversions happened post-1956. These individuals were Scheduled castes as per the 1950 order, and hence they continue to hold the same status once they convert to Buddhism. However, the cases of Muslims and Christians are somewhat different. We are talking of many generations of conversions, which are not documented anywhere in Muslim or Christian society.
The debates of the Rajyasabha make this point clear. The link is provided below
https://rsdebate.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/251134/1/PD_154_08051990_6_p289_p388_14.pdf
The extracts make it clear that it was mainly aiming for castes like Mahar who have converted to Buddhism when Ambedkar gave a call for religious conversion in 1956. These group were already in scheduled castes list from 1931 to 1950. So there is no harm in extending the benefits to the recent converts.
This clarification makes it abundantly clear that only neo-Buddhists are included and not all Buddhists. The changeover ought to have occurred not too long ago. You'll find many Maharashtrian Neo-Buddhists on this list.
For example, the Tamil Nadu High Court held that Buddhist Adi dravidar cannot be termed a scheduled caste. The gist of the order is enclosed below.
14. Further, there is no entry as “Buddhist Adi Dravidar” in the Presidential Order issued in accordance with the procedures prescribed under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India. In the absence of any Notification by the Government of India, listing “Buddhist Adi Dravidar” as a Caste in the Schedule, no such Community Certificate could be issued. The Community Certificates could be issued only in the name of the communities, which are mentioned in the Presidential Order issued under Article 341 of the Constitution of India and it is only “Adi Dravidar” community which has been mentioned in the list of Scheduled Castes relating to the State of Tamil Nadu. Moreover, there is no category with the nomenclature “Buddhist Adi Dravidar”.
Only Neo-Buddhists would be entitled to reservation benefits and not others.
Argument 13:Sikhs and Buddhists were included without any data. Why not include Christians and Muslims as well?
The attached graphic above from page 471 of the 1931 census clearly shows that Muslims and Christians were excluded from the scheduled caste list since they were not subjugated to untouchability practices.
It is not correct to say that the exterior class was recognized without any data.
The 1931 list of exterior castes recognizes only a few exterior castes, which eventually were added. The extracts are enclosed below
The 1951 estimation of scheduled castes for Punjab also included these castes. Many castes were recognized as early as 1921. It is wrong to say that these were included only in 1956. Extracts of the same are enclosed below
These amendments for Buddhists referred to above were supported by Explanation II of Article 25 of the Constitution of India, which reads as follows: “In sub-clause (b), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jain, or Buddhist religions, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly”. It may be mentioned that the Scheduled Castes converted to Buddhism in large numbers after the 1950 Order and were already enlisted as Scheduled Castes. They converted voluntarily to protest against the unseemly practice of untouchability. The notification continued the recognition so that they could benefit from the special protection and facilities already available to them. So it is wrong to state that there was no data with the central government for the said amendments.
Argument 14: Scheduled Castes were always formed on the basis of untouchability as the main criteria.
In order to understand who the Scheduled Castes are, it is important to go into their genesis. The term “Scheduled Caste” appeared for the first time in the Government of India Act, 1935. The Government of India Scheduled Castes Order 1936 was issued under this Act. Paragraph 3 of this Order issued on April 30, 1936 provides that “No Indian Christian shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste”. The concern for selected Hindu castes, however, dates back to 1880, when Sir Denzil Ibbetson, the then Census Commissioner in British India, classified certain marginalized caste groups involved in diverse occupations into 17 groups. However, when apprehensions were raised regarding their Hindu background, more stringent criteria for identifying those who were 100 percent Hindus were adopted. The criteria for identifying them were based on the relationship of the castes with the Brahmins, their authority to worship God and recognize Vedas, their entry into temples, and whether or not their touch and proximity caused pollution. It is obvious that even as early as 1880, the identification of depressed classes came from within the Hindu religious community.
An elaborate attempt was made by the Census Commissioner, J.S. Hatton, in the 1931 Census Report to specify criteria for identifying the untouchable groups. The extracts from the census document are enclosed below:
The extracts and graphs above show the extracts from the 1931 census where the definition of exterior class, which is the current scheduled caste, is defined.
It states that depressed castes are castes, contact with whom entails purification on the part of high caste Hindus.
Scheduled castes were initially carved out of Hindu society and were meant only for Hindu communities.
The possible tests for scheduled castes were also defined in 1931 census
A snap shot from 1931 census attached below
Various criteria were used in the 1931 census for defining a depressed class.
The British India knew that identifying depressed classes would be extremely difficult. So they came up with the following possible tests, which are defined below:
(1) Whether the caste or class in question can be served by clean Brahmans or not
(2) Whether the caste or class in question can be served by the barbers, water carriers, tailors, etc who serve the caste Hindus
(3) Whether the caste in question pollutes a high caste Hindu by contact or by Proximity?
(4) Whether the caste or class in question is one from whose hands a caste of Hindus can take water?
(5) Whether the caste or class in question is barred from using public conveniences such as roads, ferries, wells or schools
(6) Whether the caste or class in question is barred from the use of Hindu temples
(7) Whether in ordinary social intercourse or not, a well-educated member of the caste or class in question will be treated as an equal by high-caste men of the same educational qualifications.
(8) Whether the caste or class in question is merely depressed on account of its own ignorance, illiteracy or poverty, it would be subject to no social disability.
(9) Whether it is depressed on account of the occupation followed and whether, but for that occupation, it would be subject to no social disability
For all intents and purposes, the above criteria—wwhich essentially amount to discrimination based on the abhorrent practice of untouchability—mmay seem to be adequate for identifying the Scheduled Castes. This meant that the historical practice of untouchability, which led to social, educational, and economic decline, was used as a litmus test.
Traditional untouchability in Hindu society, which has persisted for hundreds of years and has resulted in the social, educational, and economic backwardness of such castes, was the very basis for the inclusion of certain castes in the Schedule to the Government of India (Scheduled Castes) Order 1936 and later in the Schedule to the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950, which was based on the earlier Order. To a large extent, untouchability-related practices and prejudices informed the parameters or criteria used by British authorities to identify depressed classes, which later became known as scheduled Castes. “The roots of untouchability in this country’s religion and government run deep. The practice of untouchability is deeply rooted in Hinduism “. # Castes were thus added to the list of “Scheduled Castes” in 1936 and again in 1950 on the basis of religious affiliation.
Argument 15: It has been argued that paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, is discriminatory and violates Articles 14, 15(4), and 16(4), as well as Articles 15(2), 16(2), 25, and Article 341.
Equal protection under the law is guaranteed throughout India thanks to Article 14. Article 15 forbids hostility based on a person’s religion, race, caste, gender, or country of origin. The right to hold public office without regard to race or gender is guaranteed by Article 16. Articles 15(4), 16(4), and 16(5) make special provisions for social and educational backwardness and for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, respectively, while also guaranteeing equality before the law, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion, caste, etc., and/or guaranteeing equality of opportunity for employment (4A). The Constitution recognizes the unequal status of different groups and the resulting need for special protection and ameliorative measures for several categories of people from among the socially and economically disadvantaged. Relevant provisions include Articles 15(4), 16(4), 46, and 341. The Constitution explicitly recognized the existence of religious discrimination within Hinduism and designated a specific group, the Scheduled Castes, as a protected minority. The 1936 Order already listed Hindu castes that were distinguished by criteria related to ‘untouchability. Due to their remote location, the Scheduled Tribes were also granted special treatment. In addition to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Articles 15(4), 16(4), and 46 made provisions for identifying socially and educationally backward classes and the weaker sections and providing for their advancement. As a result, the Constitution protects those who face religious discrimination, geographical isolation, a lack of resources, or social and economic disadvantage. These are the kinds of exemptions that can be found in the articles that guarantee things like equality and the absence of discrimination.
The Supreme Court reviewed the order’s legality in Soosai v. The Union of India and Others, Writ Petition No. 9596/83 (AIR 1986 SC 733). The court had previously stated, “Now it cannot be disputed that the Caste system is a feature of the Hindu social structure,” in paragraph 7 of the ruling. It is a cultural phenomenon unique to Hinduism. In paragraph 8 of the aforementioned judgment, the Supreme Court added, “It is quite evident that the President had before him all this material indicating that the depressed classes of the Hindu and the Sikh communities suffered from economic and social disabilities and cultural and educational backwardness so gross in character and degree that the members of those Castes in the two communities called for the protection of the Constitutional provisions relating to the Sikh community.” It was clear that interventions by the State, using its legislative and executive powers, would be required to provide for their improvement and progress. Remember that the declaration in paragraph 3 that makes them Scheduled Castes automatically makes that determination only for constitutional purposes. It was a proclamation required by paragraph one of Article 341. According to the Supreme Court, “it is therefore not possible to say that the President acted arbitrarily in the exercise of his judgment in enacting paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950” (paragraph 8).
The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order identifies the groups that are entitled to Scheduled Caste benefits. Communities are identified under Article 341 based on how far behind they are in terms of social and educational development as a result of the centuries-old practice of untouchability. Nothing in this Article or clause (2) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens, or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, as provided for in Article 15(4) of the Constitution. Since the Constitution allows the State to provide for the backward classes, including the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, these groups are entitled to special treatment. For this reason, it’s important to keep in mind that Article 15(4) of the Constitution, which clarifies that the communities recognized under Article 341 are distinct groups of Hindus deserving of special protection from the government due to centuries of discrimination, should be read in tandem with Article 341.
This is further supported by the Constituent Assembly debate, which acknowledged “That the Scheduled Castes were a backward section of society who were handicapped by the practice of untouchability” and “that this evil practice of untouchability was not recognized by any other religion,” i.e., other than Hinduism. There can be no doubt that the Hindu caste system is at the heart of the Constitution (SC) Order, 1950. It is not the intent of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, to be an all-inclusive list of all socially backward castes in India. This only applies to discrimination based on Caste within the Hindu faith. Due to its protection of a protected class—tthe Scheduled Castes—tthe Constitution (SC) Order, 1950, does not discriminate against any individual or group and does not run afoul of Articles 14, 15, 16, or 25 of the Constitution.
It is not the intent of Article 341 or the Constitution to include all economically and socially disadvantaged groups; similarly, reservations are not limited to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Article 16(4)’s protection is broader than that of Article 341 and is intended to cover all disadvantaged groups. The groups that fall under scheduled Castes are included because of their shared historical experiences with discrimination.
It could also be argued that failing to recognize the specific historical discrimination suffered by those classes included in Scheduled Castes would amount to including all socially or economically backward classes, regardless of religion, in paragraph 3 of the 1950 Order. Inclusion of all backward classes in the 1950 Order would be discriminatory towards the Scheduled Castes because it would equate discrimination against all backward classes with the discrimination that the Scheduled Castes have historically faced in India.
The Constitution (SC) Order, 1950 is thus neither unconstitutional nor ultra-vires of the Constitution nor it is violative of any fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.
Argument 16: The detailed discussions on the Christian and Muslim reservations in Scheduled caste list were already made in Constituent assembly
Pillai was a nominee to constituent assembly who got elected from Madras and his speech clearly states that converts cannot be included in the SC list
Pillai remarked (CAD, 1999b: 1640–1):
I would like to inform this House of the background that brought out the special name of Scheduled Castes. It was untouchability, the social evil that has been practiced by the Hindu Community for ages, that was responsible for the Government and the people to know the section of people coming under the category of Hindus and who were kept on the outskirts of the Hindu society. Going backwards to 1916, it was in that year that the government found that something had to be done for the untouchable classes (when they said untouchable classes, they were always understood to be Hindus) and they had to be recognized. In Madras, there were six communities that came under this classification. During the Montago-Chelmsford reforms, they were made ten. In 1930, when the great epoch-making fast of Mahatma Gandhi came about, only the country saw who the real untouchable classes were. And in the 1935 Act, the Government thoroughly examined the whole thing, and as far as the Province of Madras is concerned, they brought 86 communities into this list or category, though there were some touchable classes also. Now, after further examination, the Provincial Governments have drawn up a list, and I think, according to the amendment mover’s suggestions, all those communities that come under the category of untouchables and those who profess Hinduism will be the Scheduled Castes, because I want to emphasize the religion. I emphasize this because of late there have been some movements here and there; there are people who have left Scheduled Castes and Hinduism and joined other religions, and they are also claiming to be Scheduled Castes. Such conversion cannot come under the scope of this definition (emphasis added). While I have no objection to the government granting any concessions to these converts, I feel strongly that they should not be clubbed along with Scheduled Castes.
Argument 17: Some communities like christians did not demand reservations at all in constituent assembly
Report of the sub committee on minorities in 1947
The extracts of sub committee report is enclosed
(Source: https://constitutionofindia.net/committee-report/report-of-the-sub-committee-on-minorities/)
5. Reservation in Services: (1) The sub-committee voted on the general proposition that there shall be reservation in the public services for the different communities mentioned in groups A, B and C of paragraph 3(3).
It was agreed that the provisions, if any, regarding reservations should appear in a schedule to the Constitution Act and should have the force of a directive of Government policy. The decisions were as follows:
(i) Agreed by a majority of votes (16 to 1) that there shall be reservation in the services for the Scheduled Castes.
(ii) Agreed by a majority of votes (9 to 7) that there shall be reservation in the services for Muslims.
(iii) Agreed by a majority of votes (6 to 1) that there shall be reservation in the services for Sikhs.
(iv) Agreed by a majority of votes (12 to 1) that there shall be reservation in the services for Plains tribes in Assam.
(v) Agreed by a majority of votes (12 to 3) that there shall be reservation in the services for Anglo-Indians.
Note: The Parsees and the Indian Christians did not ask for reservation in services.
(2) Mr. Ali Zaheer moved the following resolution:
This committee recommends that in the Provincial as well as Central services, the claims of all the minorities should be kept in view in making appointments to such services consistently with the consideration of efficiency of administration. The committee further recommends that suitable provision to this effect may be embodied in some form in the Constitution or in some other way.
When this proposition was put before the sub-committee, Chaudhari Khaliquzzaman raised the point that the proposition was out of order in view of the decision already taken in para 5(1) above. The Chairman did not accept this view.
Nine members voted for Mr. Ali Zaheer’s proposition and 9 against.
(3) The sub-committee then considered the question as to whether seats should be reserved even for posts for which competitive examinations are held. The decisions were as follows:
(i) Agreed by a majority of votes (11 to 6) that there should be reservation for Scheduled Castes in services to which recruitment was made by competitive examination.
(ii) Decided by a majority of votes (8 to 7) that there should be no such reservation for Muslims, Sikhs and tribesmen. Note: Anglo-Indians did not want reservation in services of this category. Parsees and Indian Christians did not want reservation in any whether filled by competition or otherwise.
(4) Chaudhari Khaliquzzaman, before these proposals were put to vote. raised a point of order that as the sub-committee had already decided on reservation in the services for certain communities in unqualified terms, it was not in order now to break up the proposition into compartments and vote on each of them separately. The Chairman did not accept this view on the ground that it had from the very beginning been understood that these matters would be considered separately. On this ruling being given, Ch. Khaliquzzaman and the Hon’ble Mr. Ismail Chundrigar abstained from taking part in the voting on the above propositions.
It is crystal clear that Indian Christian communities have always opposed reservations.
Argument 18: Muslims or Christians' never demanded for Scheduled castes reservation or Separate electorates
Mr. Tajamul Hussain argued in the Constituent Assembly that scheduled caste should be given reservation rather than Muslims.
Here are some excerpts:
Mr. President, Sir, reservation of seats in any shape or form and for any community or group of people is, in my opinion, absolutely wrong in principle. Therefore I am strongly of opinion that there should be no reservation of seats for anyone and I, as a Muslim, speak for the Muslims. There should be no reservation of seats for the Muslim community. (Hear, Hear). I would like to tell you that in no civilised country where there is parliamentary system on democratic lines, there is any reservation of seats. Take the case of England. The House of Commons is the mother of parliaments. There is no reservation of seats for community there. No doubt they had reservation of seats for the universities but even that has been abolished. What is reservation, Sir? Reservation is nothing but a concession, a safeguard a protection for the weak. We, Muslims do not want any concession. Do not want protection, do not want safeguards. We are not weak. This concession would do more harm than good to the Muslims. Reservation is forcing candidates on unwilling electorates. Whether the electorates wants us or not, we thrust ourselves on them. We do not want to thrust ourselves on unwilling electorates. The majority community will naturally think that we are encroaching upon their rights. We do not want them to think that. We must expert ourselves. Separate electorates have been a curse to India, have done incalculable harm to this country. It was invented by the British. Reservation is the offspring of separate electorates. Do not bring in reservation in the place of separate electorates. Separate electorates have barred our progress. Separate electorates have gone for ever. We desire neither reservation nor separate electorates. We want to merge in the nation. We desire to stand on our own legs. We do not want the support of anyone. We are not weak. We are strong. We are Indians first and we are all Indians and will remain Indians. We shall fight for the honour and glory of India and we shall die for it. (Applause). We shall stand united. There will be no divisions amongst Indians. United we stand; divided we fall. Therefore we do not want reservation. It means division. I ask the members of the majority community who are present here today:-Will you allow us to stand on our legs? Will you allow us to be a part and parcel of the nation? Will you us to be an equal partner with you? Will you allow us to march shoulder to shoulder with you? Will you allow us to share your sorrows grief and joy? If you do, then for god’s sake keep your hands off reservation for the Muslim community. We do not want statutory safeguard. As I said before, we must stand on our own legs. If we do that, we will have no inferiority complex. We are not inferior to you in any way, Do not make us feel inferior by giving us this concession. I say emphatically there is no difference between you and me. Because we worship the same God by different names, in a different way, that is no reason why we should be considered a minority. We are not a minority. The term ‘minority’ is a British creation. The British created minorities. The British have gone and minorities have gone with them. Remove the term ‘minority’ from your dictionary. (Hear, Hear). There is no minority in India. Only so long as there were separate electorates and reservation of seats there was a majority community and a minority community. I ask the majority community not to distrust the minorities now. The minorities have adjusted themselves. I will give you a concrete example. You remember the Hyderabad incident; you remember that before you took police action against Hyderabad, what happened. The majority community were afraid that there would be rioting of the Muslims if action was taken against Hyderabad. I was first man to speak about it about a year and half ago in the Central Legislature. I criticised the Government of India. I am sorry Sardar Patel was not present at that time when I was dealing with his portfolio, but my honourable Friend Mr. Gadgil was in charge. I criticised the action of the Government, I told them that they were absolutely mistaken in thinking that the Muslims would rise; they would adjust themselves. I said to them: “You march an army against Hyderabad and within couple of days, you would take the whole of Hyderabad.” I made a long speech and after my speech was over, there was a reply by the Honourable Minister in charge, Mr. Gadgil. He never spoke a single word about it and he never replied to my criticism, but I asked him: “You have replied to everybody’s criticism. Why not mine? I asked you to march an army against Hyderabad; you would take Hyderabad within a couple of days and there would be no rioting.” Mr. Gadgil “You are perfectly right and we will do it.” I appeal to all minorities to join the majority in creating a secular State. In the new state of things, I want that every citizen in India should be able to rise to the fullest stature and that is why I say that reservation would be suicidal to the minority. I want the minorities to forget that they are minorities in politics. If they think they are minorities in politics, they will be isolated. If they are isolated, the feeling of frustration will cripple them. I do not want to remain minority. Do the minorities, I ask, expect to form part of the great nation and have a hand in the control of its destinies. Can they achieve that aspiration if they are isolated from the rest of India? The minorities if they are returned as minorities, i.e., by reservation of seats can never have an effective voice in the affairs of the country. They can never form a Government. Disraeli could never have formed a Government and could never have become the Prime Minister of England had there been reservation of seats for the Jews in England. I want the minorities to have an honourable place in the Union of India. National interests must always be placed over group interests. The minorities should look forward to the time when they could take their place not under communal or racial labels, but as part and parcel of the whole Indian community. Now, Sir, with your permission, I want to say a few words with regard to the speeches made against the motion of Sardar Patel. I take first Mr. Muhammad Ismail of Madras. He wants separate electorate. I appeal to his not to ask the charity. Asking for separate electorates is nothing but asking for charity. I tell him that the consequences will be terrible. The majority community will never trust you then. You will never be able to expert yourself. You will be isolated, you will be treated as an alien and your position will be the same as that of the Scheduled Caste. You are not poor. Like the Scheduled Castes, you are not weak, you are not uneducated; you are not uncultured; you can always support yourself. You have produced brilliant men. So do not ask for protection or safeguard. You must have self-confidence in you. You must expert yourself. You must get into the Assembly by open competition. The times have changed. Adjust yourself. You admitted yesterday in your speech that the atmosphere is better now. I entirely agree with you that the atmosphere is better now. I appeal to you, do not spoil that atmosphere. Improve it, but do not spoil it and if you insist on separate electorate, you will spoil atmosphere very badly. If you get separate electorates, it will again become as bad as before. Say to yourself, Mr. Ismail, that you are an Indian first and an Indian last. Then you will forget all about separate electorates. You will never think of it again. I will tell you, Sir, that when I had sent in my amendment to clause 292 that it should be deleted, that there should be no reservation of seats, then several Muslim friends to mine, who were for reservation of seats asked me. “Do you realize that the mentality of the Hindus is such at present that if there were no reservation of seats for the Muslims, the Muslims can never succeed?” That honourable gentleman for whom I have got great esteem told me: “Look at us. We have always been with the Congress; we have been to jail and all that. No doubt we will get a ticket from the Congress; many Muslims will get tickets from Socialists and Communists and from other organisations, but what about the electorates? They will never elect you and they will never elect us. So, if there is no reservation, no Muslims will get in because of the mentality of the Hindus.” I told him, Sir, what I am telling you now. I said that I entirely agreed with him that the mentality of the Hindus is such at present. I say to Mr. Ismail also that as long as there is reservation of seats or separate electorate the mentality of the Hindus will never change. You do away with these two things and the mentality will automatically change. I do not want to go into the history of this mentality. I am not going to apportion blame as that will take a long time and you have allotted me a short time and I want to be brief and finish my speech within that time. You all know how the mentality of the Hindus became such, but we have to live in this country, we must change their mentality and it is our duty to change their mentality and the only way the mentality can be changed is to become a part and parcel of the Indian Union. You should say that they are no longer our enemies and then they will be like brothers to us. Now, Sir, with regard to Mr. Lari, he does not want separate electorates; he does not want reservation of seats; he has condemned both the systems and he says that both the systems are dangerous. He has said that, and I entirely agree with him. He has always opposed separate electorates, reservation of seats and the partition of the country. He is right. But he wants cumulative voting, that is, proportional representation by means of a single transferable vote, or something like that. My honourable Friend, Mr. Saksena has told us that it is a very cumbrous system of mathematical calculations; I am not dealing with that now. The only thing I want to say is that Mr. Lari wants to get into the Assembly by the back door. For example suppose there is a constituency that has to elect four candidates for the House or the People, and there are five candidates. One will be defeated and four will be elected. Out of these five, four are Hindus and one is a Muslim. The votes of the Hindus will be divided among the Hindus and there will get elected. The Muslim will get in on the Muslim votes. Again separate electorates, again reservation of seats. I should like to say to my honourable Friend Mr. Lari if I may say so, that is worse than separate electorate, as the method is not clean. It is not straightforward. I quite understand Mr. Mohamed Ismail’s view when he asks for separate electorates. That is a straightforward method. What is this back-door method of Mr. Lari. I do not understand. I am sure the Muslims do not like these crooked methods; they want a straight, honourable fight. In spite of the fact that Mr. Lari has always openly opposed Pakistan, separate electorates and reservation of seats he still feels inferiority complex. I would ask him to shed this inferiority complex. The country will change for the better. Last of all, I come to the speech of my honourable and esteemed friend, for whom I have very great regard, Sir Saadulla, the Ex-Premier of Assam. He complains before us that the majority of the Muslim members of the Advisory Committee on Minorities Fundamental Rights etc., did not support the resolution that there should be no reservation of seats for the Muslims. I have already told you, Sir, that I have very great esteem and regard for the Ex-premier of Assam, but I am afraid I must differ from him on this point. I sent my resolution to the Committee to the effect that there should be no reservation of seats. My resolution was discussed under the Chairmanship of the Honourable Sardar Patel. I spoke on my resolution. Begum Aizaz Rasul supported me. Maulana Azad was present there; he did not oppose me. The only person who opposed me was my honourable friend Jafar Imam, from Bihar. There too, I had a majority: Begum Aizaz Rasul. Maulana Azad and myself as against one. The meeting could not be finished and was adjourned sine die. Then it was held on the 11th of this month. I wanted to attend that meeting, particularly because my resolution was there I wanted to move it again. But I never received notice of the meeting. The notice was lying in Delhi; it never reached me. If I had got notice of the meeting. I would have attended it. When I came to Delhi, I learnt that there was the meeting that day. I was happy to learn that the substance of my resolution had been accepted though I was absent. I sent a statement to the Press why I could not attend the meeting that day and it was published in all the papers. Sir Saadulla could not attend the meeting; I do not know why. That meeting was attended by four honourable members: Maulana Azad, Maulana Hifizur Rahman, Begum Aizaz Rasul and Mr. Jaffar Imam. Maulana Azad and Maulana Hifizur Rehman did not oppose my resolution that there should be no reservation of seats. Every member of this House does not speak. If he oppose, he opposes. If he does not speak, but says “I vote for it“, then he is with it. Maulana Azad was present. If he wanted to oppose, he would have opposed. The two Maulanas did not oppose begum Aizaz Rasul supported my resolution in substance. The resolution was moved by my honourable Friend Dr. Mookherjee. It was the same as my own. Begum Aizaz Rasul supported it. My honourable Friend Mr. Jaffar Imam opposed it. If the Maulana were not with my resolution, they would have sided with Jafar Imam. They said nothing. Votes were taken. There was a clear majority. The Honourable Sardar Patel, I understand, declared that the Muslims were in favour of the motion in spite of the two Maulanas remaining silent. It means that they were with me: three to one voting: there was a majority. I believe, -I do not remember exactly-there are seven Muslim members on the Committee. Only two are opposed to my resolution; five are with me. The two who are against me are my Hon’ble friends Sir Saadulla and Mr. Jafar Imam. The five who are in favour are , Maulana Azad, Maulana Hifizur Rahman, Begum Aizaz Rasul, Mr. Husseinboy Laljee and myself. Mr. Laljee’s views are well known. He opposed Mr. Jinnah. I know his views. In fact,he wrote to me once, “For God’s sake do something to remove reservations.” Therefore, I had an overwhelming majority. There was another member Syed Ali Zaheer. He is now an Ambassador; I know his views. He is also of the same view as I am. The next point of my esteemed Friend Sir Saadulla is this. He says, ‘let us take the vote of the Muslim Members here.’ That is a challenge thrown to us. I accept the challenge. I may remind my honourable Friend Sir Saadulla that when the Muslim members came here to Delhi for the first time there was a meeting of all the Muslim members in Western Court. All of them were present. I was the first man to have got up and said that there should be no reservation of seats. I sent my resolution to the Constituent Assembly when you, Sir, were presiding. I regret to say, except one, not a single member supported me. I found that the Muslims wanted reservation. So, I did not move my resolution. That was the first meeting in which the Muslims were against me. The next meeting was in the house of Nawab Muhammad Ismail, about which he also has told you, in 18, Windsor Place. There my view was accepted by an overwhelming majority. The same Muslim members who were present in the Western Court were present here also, and it was passed by an overwhelming majority that there should be no reservation of seats. See how the time had changed. The only member who opposed it was my honourable Friend Sir Saadulla. He is honestly of that opinion; I respect his view. I hope he will respect my view. He said, ‘no there must be reservation of seats‘. But, one thing he said: ‘personally I am not in favour of reservation, but the Muslims want it’. Most humbly I wish to tell him that he is wrong. The Muslims do not want it. Sir Saadulla was the only opposing member. Then there was the Madras group. They are a group by themselves, Sir, I understand their opinion. They have throughout been saying, ” No reservation, but separate electorates; let us have separate electorates.” At the Western Court, they said, “let us have separate electorate,” at Nawab Ismail Sahib’s place also they asked for separate electorates and here also they ask for separate electorates. They are welcome to their opinion. But that there should be no reservation was passed by an overwhelming majority. All of us were present. And after that I sent in my amendment saying that the whole section be deleted or that there should be no reservation for Muslims.
In contrast, the CA Debates held on 24 August 1949 and 14 October 1949 show that members of religious minorities had voluntarily given up their reservation, which was provided by the colonial government. Although the focus here is notably on reservations for separate electorates, no one else but Patel himself narrated this development-
…the minorities themselves began to feel that we should reconsider our decision and, headed by the great patriotic Christian leader, they brought in a Resolution that they want to give up the reservations. And what reservations? — Not this Petty [sic] reservation of minorities in the services — but the big reservations in the Assemblies, both in the Centre and in the provinces.
They agreed to have joint electorates and to have nothing to do with this communal separatism. When they desired that, I called a meeting of the minorities [sic] Committee and the Advisory Committee. At their instance decisions were taken.
Article 292 originally stated that there would be reservations for the Muslim community, for Indian Christians, and others,” and M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar’s intervention lends further credence to this argument.
However, they have voluntarily relinquished this privilege, and reservations will only be given to members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the future.
Jaspat Roy Kapoor, who was pleased by this turn of events, claims that the decision to drop claims of reservation regarding seats for separate electorates was made in the Minorities Committee.
By that agreement our Muslim friends and our Christian friends as also our Sikh brethren have agreed to give up reservation of seats in the different legislatures. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate them all for this wise and bold decision that they have taken in the larger interest of the country. I would particularly like to congratulate my Muslim brethren because for so many years past they have had separate electorates and separate representation and they had begun to think that therein only lay their salvation.
So it is amply clear that christians and muslims voluntarily gave up reservation demands.
Argument 19 : Christianity does not remove the earlier handicaps
While the “slave caste” (the present Scheduled Castes) converted to Christianity in Kerala and Tamil Nadu (i.e., the erstwhile Princely State of Travancore, Cochin, and Madras Presidency), studies conducted by Rev. Samuel Mateer, a British Missionary, and published during his stay of over 25 years in India, in the form of two books titled “Land of Charity” and “Native Life in Travancore,” in 1870 and 1883, respectively, show that native Christians were educationally and economically in a better position than the rest.
Link to the book
Argument 20: Can Constitution introduce caste system in Muslims and Christians
Islam and Christianity both reject the caste system that is central to Hindu society. It’s worth noting that reintroducing people into the caste system from which they opted to join an egalitarian religion isn’t the solution to the problem of discrimination based on caste/untouchability within a religious community that doesn’t recognize, much less sanctify, caste system.
Giving such converts Scheduled Caste status by the Government could be seen as the formal introduction of caste system in Islam/Christianity and a change to the fundamental tenets of the religion, which is beyond the purview of Parliament and the Judiciary.
Argument 21: Multiple committees have recommended the inclusion but it has been purposely delayed
Report on Minorities, where the member secretary wrote a dissenting note, has mentioned the following
Even though those who profess Christianity or Islam were never treated as Scheduled Caste in British India or in India after independence, efforts have been made from time to time to seek conferment of Scheduled Caste status on persons of Scheduled Caste origin professing Christianity. Private Members Bill had been moved more than once. The National Convention of the Parliamentary Forum of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes in 1992 also passed a resolution for extending reservation facility to persons of Scheduled Caste origin to Christianity. Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order (Amendment Bill) was also prepared in 1996 though never introduced.
The views of the various Central Ministries/Departments and State Governments were obtained in this regard. They drew attention to the debate of the Constituent Assembly and pointed out the need for determining the precise number of persons who would be covered. The absence of any suggestion on the cut off date for determining who would benefit was also pointed out. It was also mentioned by several States and Commissions that there was no justification for including Scheduled Caste converts to Christianity in the Scheduled Castes list. There would be enormous difficulty in identification of the original caste in the absence of authentic records. Besides, their representation in services was adequate and that they were already getting the benefits of reservation etc. as OBCs.
Argument 22: Protection against atrocities is not available in case of Muslims and Christians
This is not completely correct.
The Protection of Civil Rights Act of 1955 is a religion neutral Act.
It is applicable to all “religions and religious denominations throughout India”
There is no factual basis for the petitioners’ claim that Christians and Muslims are excluded from the Act’s protections.
The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is, however, specific to these two categories only
Argument 23: Difficulty in finding the real converts to Christianity and Muslims from Dalits is extremely difficult
Christianity and Islam are two religions that did not begin in India. Over the course of hundreds of years, these individuals, along with traders, invaders, and preachers/missionaries, migrated to India from other parts of the world and eventually entrenched themselves there as more and more native people converted to Islam and Christianity. Both faiths reject the practice of caste. An estimate of the current Muslim/Christian population in India that includes the descendants of these traders/invaders/preachers/settlers from foreign places and Scheduled Castes may be extremely difficult to make. The bulk of Muslims and Christians in India today are converts and their offspring, this much is known with some certainty.
If this theory is correct, there will be significant challenges in tracing the identities of Muslims and Christians.
A fair and equitable judgment for selecting those actually eligible is jeopardized by any technique established to identify the SC converts to Christianity and Islam at this point, even if a cut off date is fixed.
Abuse is possible, as can benefit theft by the ineligible at the expense of the legitimately needy. Evidence suggests that even for the designated Castes, people are obtaining certificates that misrepresent their identity.
Converts from Hinduism or any other faith to another who remain socially and economically behind need to be treated fairly to guarantee they are protected and have access to resources that will help them rise out of poverty. There is already a body of uniform law prohibiting and punishing untouchability. Everyone is covered by the PCR Act.
Argument 24: British were biased in not including the Muslim converts and Christain Converts
It may be difficult to fault the rationale adopted during British rule, and continued after independence, behind identification of depressed classes/scheduled castes on the basis of untouchability related disabilities which were peculiar to the Hindu society, arising from a highly rigid caste system. As already mentioned, the SC Order of 1936 was based on ‘caste’ and its application to the Hindu religion is apparent from the fact that paragraph 3 of the order issued on 30th April, 1936 provides clearly that “No Indian Christian shall be deemed to be member of a Scheduled Caste”. The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 was based on the Constitution (SC) Order of 1936 and adopted the same criteria for identification of castes i.e. practices and prejudices arising from untouchability that had plagued Hindu society for centuries and had resulted in the social, educational and economic backwardness of the castes enlisted. The 1956 and 1990 amendments to the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950 have been justified on the ground that Sikh and Buddhist religions were primarily homegrown sects within Hindu religion rather than being independent religions in the nature of Christianity or Islam. Besides they draw support from Explanation II below Article 25 of the Constitution which provides that reference to Hindu in subclause(b) of clause(2) of Article 25 shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jain or Buddhist religion
Argument 25: Not all states are in favor of reservations for Dalit Muslims and Dalit Christians
The decision of whether or not to confer Scheduled Caste status to Scheduled Caste converts to Christianity and Islam is heavily influenced by governments, Chief Ministers, other political heads, institutional heads, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
Seven states out of a total of 35 support the idea, while five states reject it and ten offer no feedback. Some haven’t made up their minds yet.
Scheduled Caste Christians and Muslims have received opposition from many members of the Scheduled Caste community who believe that their decision to practice a religion other than Hinduism was motivated only by the prejudice they experienced as a result of their status as an untouchable.
Similarly, Buddhist organizations in a number of states argued that Buddhists should not be included in Scheduled Caste lists because many of them converted to Buddhism as a response to discrimination based on their caste within Hinduism.
Argument 26: Dalit Muslims and Dalit Christians can be included without any enumeration of data.
Lokur committee, which was set up to advise on procedural aspects of inclusion of a caste or tribe in SC/ST list, has mentioned the following:
(1) As per Paragraph 7 of Chapter 2 of the report, it mentions the following regarding Scheduled caste inclusion:
“ 7. The relevant records show that in drawing up the list of Scheduled castes, the test applied was the social, educational, and economic backwardness arising out of the historical custom of untouchability. The list of Scheduled castes drawn in 1950 was a revised version of the list of Scheduled castes under the Government of India (Scheduled Castes) Order 1936 made under the Government of India Act 1935, which in turn was the continuation of the earlier list of “depressed classes”. The depressed classes, it is well known, were systematically categorised in 1931 by the census commissioner for India, who had given the following instructions for the purpose of such categorisation :
“I have explained depressed castes as castes, contact with whom entails purification on the part of high caste Hindus. It is not intended that the term should have any reference to occupation as such but to those castes that, by reason of their traditional position in Hindu society, are denied access to temples, for instance, or have to use separate wells or are not allowed to sit inside a school house but have to remain outside or suffer similar social disabilities.“
(2) As per para 8 of Chapter 2 of the report, it mentioned that only Hindus can be included in Scheduled caste List, which is reproduced below
“8. “In the matter of scheduled castes, the criterion is clear. Untouchability is the criterion, and being peculiar to the Hindus, those Hindu castes that were regarded as untouchables by society are included in that particular schedule. Non-Hindus cannot be included in it.“
The above two points clearly clarify that Muslims and Christians cannot be included in the Scheduled Caste list.
(3) Paragraph 10 of Chapter 2 of the report mentions that those tribes that have assimilated with the general population cannot be termed scheduled tribes. The extracts are reproduced below
“ 10. The list of scheduled tribes was prepared in 1950 by making additions to the list of the backward tribes under the Government of India Act 1935: in considering fresh proposals for inclusion in the list, it was noted that “ care was necessary in drawing up the schedule in order to ensure that communities which had been assimilated in the general population were not at this stage invested with an artificial distinctiveness as tribes and that communities which might be regarded as tribes by reason of their social organisation and general way of life but which were really not primitive should not now be treated as primitive.“
(4) Paragraphs 11 and 12 of Chapter 2 of the report mention how Scheduled tribes should be listed. The extracts are reproduced below
“ 11. The scheduled tribes can also be generally ascertained by the fact that they live apart in hills, and even where they live on the plains, they lead a separate, excluded existence and are not fully assimilated into the main body of the people. A scheduled tribe may belong to any religion. They are listed as Scheduled Tribes because of the kind of life they lead.
“12. It will be observed that in 1931 and 1935, as well as in 1950 and 1956, it was acknowledged that every tribe need not be regarded as special treatment; the list of 1931 was of “primitive tribes,” while the list of 1935 was of backward tribes, and primitiveness and backwardness were the tests applied in preparing the lists in 1950 and 1956. In revising the list of Scheduled Tribes, we have looked for indications of primitive traits, distinctive culture, geographical isolation, shyness of contact with the community at large and backwardness; we have considered that tribes whose members have by large mixed up with the general population are not eligible to be in the list of scheduled tribes.”
Process of making of an SC/ST
Process of making of an SC/ST
(1) Based on a decision taken in 2002 by the union cabinet’s committee on SC, ST, and Minorities, no proposal for inclusion of SC or ST can be taken without a formal proposal and explicit recommendation of the state government and union territory. In case of Manipur, the state government should also seek the approval of the Hill Areas Committee
(2) The recommendation would be examined by the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India under the Union Home Ministry. Both should explicitly agree to the inclusion. Only after this the inclusion would be forwarded to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs
(3) National Commission for ST, the constitutional body under Article 338A, would do a technical assessment of whether the inclusion is correct or wrong
(4) The National Commission for ST will form a panel of expert individuals or institutions in the fields of anthropology, ethnography, and other social sciences in addition to state officials. Registrar General representatives and the Anthropological Survey of India would hold public meetings in the concerned geographical areas.
(5) Even if state government has given a recommendation, if National commission of ST finds its unsuitable, the proposal would be junked and not be forwarded to cabinet
(6) Cabinet approval for amendment of SC/ST list
The same process is there for the inclusion of SC and ST under Article 341/342.
In the Dalit Muslims scenario, there are no recommendations from any state government that would warrant an initiation of discussion of Dalit Muslims in the final list.
Even for Dalit Christians, the courts cannot take up all these issues in the absence of the detailed process laid down in the constitutions.
The National Commission of SC has not recommended the inclusion of Dalit Muslims and Dalit Christians in the SC/ST list. Instead, the National commission has strong objections in one of its reports.
The RGI’s approval for the inclusion of communities was made mandatory in the modalities framed in 1999.
Notwithstanding the view taken by the Union government in its 2019 affidavit, the RGI linked Dalit Christians to Dalit Buddhists when explaining why they should not be added to the list of SCs in a note prepared in March 2001.
In both instances, the RGI’s office argued that the converts to these religions did not represent a “single ethnic community” and hence could not be granted special status under Article 341 (Clause 2) of the Constitution.
According to the report, both Dalit Christians and Buddhists lose their caste identity following conversion. It also notes that a similar view was provided to the Ministry of Home Affairs in 1978, however the report notes that the amendment to include Buddhist converts was made in 1990.
According to a letter from April 2001, the RGI similarly determined that Dalit Muslims cannot be listed as SCs in Bihar.
However, the Center has justified the inclusion of the Buddhist converts based on Explanation II of Clause 2(b) of Article 25, which defines Hindus to include Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists to provide for “social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus”.
The due process defined for identification of caste/tribe for inclusion in SC/ST should be followed. In case of Dalit Christians and Dalit Muslims these procedures have not been complied with.
Argument 27: Muslims and Christians had higher wealth index than SC/ST as per NFHS survey 2015–16
As per the above analysis, more than 51.1% of the Scheduled caste population is in the lowest two wealth quintile and only 11.3% of the Scheduled caste population is in the upper wealth quintile.
The situation among Scheduled Tribes is even worse with more than 70.7% of the population being in the lowest two quintiles and just 5.4% of the population is in the upper wealth quintile.
This is dismally low compared to OBC’s and Other General Category castes, where more than 34% is in the upper wealth quintile and just 24.8% of the total population is in the lower wealth quintile.
The sequential inequality of castes and religion mix based on the lowest two wealth quintile is given below
In terms of castes
Scheduled Tribe (70.7%) > Scheduled Caste(51.1%) > Other Backward Class (37.8%)> Others (24.8%)
In terms of religion
Hindu( 41.4%) > Muslim (38.3%) > Christian (27.3%) > Buddhist (28.7%)> Sikh ( 5.4%)
So, if we merge both
Scheduled Tribe (70.7%) > Scheduled Caste(51.1%) >Hindu( 41.4%) > Muslim (38.3%) > Other Backward Class (37.8%)>Christian (27.3%) >Buddhist (28.7%)> Others (24.8%)> Sikh ( 5.4%)> Jains (1.3%)
So clearly Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled caste have the lowest wealth compared to others. Look at Christians who are better than even OBC’s. There is no basis for showing social, educational backwardness of these religions
Argument 28: Muslims and Christians better index than SC/ST in all parameters like per capita income etc
Please refer the Paris School of Economics paper on Wealth Inequality, Class and Caste in India 1951–2012 written by Nitin Kumar Bharti which gives some exciting interpretation of the sequential inequality of wealth among various groups.
Average annual income of a household in India is Rs.113,222(Rs.∼ 9,435 per month). The annual income of ST and SC group stands at 0.7 times and 0.8 times lower than the all-India average income as per IHDS 2011 survey.
OBC and Muslims both have around 0.9 times household income of the overall average income.
Forward castes (FC), have average household income at 1.4 times the all-India income (with a slight difference between Brahmin and Non-Brahmin).
There is sequential inequality (SI) based on average income with ranking
ST < SC < Muslim < OBC < OVERALL < FC(Non — Brahmin) < FC(Brahmin) < Others .
SC/ST were worse off than Muslims in all parameters
Argument 29: Land inequality was very high among Scheduled castes and tribes.
When there is negative value between wealth share and population share it shows that there is high inequality. Notice that Forward castes who have lesser population share own majority of the wealth in India. The worst situation is with the SC population.
There is also perceptible land inequality among SCs compared to other populations.
Now this is also visible in Education levels, where again there is sequential inequality among various groups
ST < Muslim < SC < OVERALL < OBC <
FC(Non-Brahmin) < FC(Brahmin) < OthersSo clearly the SC/STs are at the lowest level of income capabilities. While in terms of Education, Muslims appears to be even lower than SC. The three groups SC/ST/Muslims are at the lowest rungs of the development indices
Argument 30: With in SCs, also Hindu SCs were the worse off.
Now let us dissect this data and see among various groups with in SCs and ST. Can we dissect the data across various religions and who are benefitted and who are benefitted with in the SCs and STs?
Now the above data is for different religions within the SC/ST/OBC groups.
We can see that within ST, Christians have 1.6 times income and assets than all-India average and their educational level is better than many other groups. Muslim ST’s economic parameters are closer to all-India average but education wise they are behind. Hindus and Other/No religion ST’s which forms 78% and 12% of all ST’s are the worst performing groups.
In the SC group, Hindu (93%) and Others (6%) are two major groups and we see that SC’s from other religions have outcomes at par with the all-India level. Hindu SC’s have worse outcomes and their mean assets have declined from 2005, which is a worrying issue.
In OBC, the two big groups are Hindu (82%) and Muslim (16%). Hindu OBC’s have better educational averages than Muslim OBC’s. On the economic scale they look almost the same. The small group of other religion in OBC’s are in
no way backward.
So, it is evident from the above analysis is that Hindu SC’s have worse outcomes compared to others.
Argument 31: Recent data also shows SC/ST are the worse off.
Although Muslims had many poor, but SC/ST were much worser than them. Please see point 3 and 4 where individual aggregation are mentioned.
Argument 32: Muslims are better represented than SC/ST in Central Universities
I had a look at the UGC annual report for 2021–22. The enclosed graphic gives the representation in central universities category wise and for Muslims as a whole.
An increasing order of representation at various levels is given below, including Muslims.
Professors : General (93.91%) > Muslims (45.20%)> SC (4.43%)> Other Minorities (2.86%)> OBC (1.11%)> ST (O.55%) >Pwd(0.37%)
Associate Professors: General (87.95%) > Muslims (14.78%)> SC (6.05%)> OBC (3.67%)> Other Minorities (3.03%)>ST (2.10%) >Pwd(0.41%)
Assistant Professors General (62.93%) > > OBC (18%)> SC (11.97%)> Muslims (11.51%)> Other Minorities (6.16%)> ST (6.01%) >Pwd(2.08%)
So it is clear from the above data at the higher levels like Professors, Upper Caste Hindus and Muslims have very high representation compared to their population.
The traditionally underrepresented classes SC/ST/ continue to have dismal representation at various levels.
This is only a representative data and representation shows that Muslims were better represented than SC/ST.
Link to annual report: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_UY_CX0q7T4OpI1EcrUoqsObaG85rONa/view?usp=sharing…
Argument 33: Social determinants for Muslims and Christians were better than SC/ST
Muslims and Christians also had better toilet facility than SC/ST
Percentage of households having access to a toilet facility by selected background characteristics, according to residence, India, 2019–21 is given below which shows Muslims were ahead of SC/ST
Argument 34: Muslims had better wealth index than SC/ST as per 2019–20 NFHS survey
Please see the lower two wealth quintile and it is visible than SC/ST position is worse than Muslims
Argument 35: Muslims had better media exposure than SC/ST as per 2019–20 NFHS Survey
Argument 36: Caste Hierarchy is present even among Lingayats. There will be new demands for inclusion in Scheduled caste list
Based on caste census data, many groups, within Christians and Muslims are claiming that they belong to Scheduled castes. Interestingly, a large population of Lingayat’s also has a caste hierarchy as per the 1901 caste census.
Argument 37: Only 1.5% of Muslims feel they are Scheduled castes as per NSO surveys
NSO 1999, 2004, 2009 has collected some data on this to find out caste share in different religion.
Among Hindus (82.0%)
ST-9.3%, SC-22.8%, OBC-43%, Others-24.9
Among Islam (12.7%)
ST-0.9%, SC-1.5%, OBC -42.8%, Others-54.7
Among Christianity (2.25%)
ST-34.7%, SC-11.0%, OBC-25.3%, Others-29%
Media reports suggest that almost 85% of the Muslims Population are coming under Pasmanda Muslims and the demand is for all Pasmanda Muslims. This wide variation is because of no proper enumeration of who actually are the Dalit Muslims. It is also not known whether a separate ethnic group called Dalit Muslims actually exists.
Argument 38: Pew Research Found that just 4% of Muslim population actually feels that they are Muslims
Pew Research, leading research agency had carried out a broad survey in 2020 where the question of caste was asked across all religions. This survey recognises castes even in other religions like Islam and Christianity.
In the 2011 census, the question of whether you are a scheduled caste was posed only to Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists. This gives the idea that the census usually predicts a lower population than the real dalit population. Total SC/ST population as per the pew research is around 34%. So in case Christians and Muslims are included among Dalits, the reservation % should be raised to 30–35% for sc/st.
But Pew Research covered other religions too.
Please see the snap shot enclosed with this tweet.
Among Muslims, only 4% of the population felt that they belonged to the Scheduled Caste community. 3% felt that they belonged to the Scheduled Tribes community.
Among Christians, 33% of the population stated that they belonged to the Scheduled caste community. 24% felt that they belonged to the Scheduled ST.
The problem of Dalit Christians mixing up with Dalit Muslims, which is really insignificant, has added a new dimension to this problem.
I don’t understand why Dalit Christians are mixing up with Dalit Muslims. Frankly speaking, with such a low percentage feeling that they are Dalits among Muslims, it would be extremely difficult to build a case for including Muslims in the scheduled caste list.
(Source :https://pewresearch.org/religion/2021/06/29/religion-in-india-tolerance-and-segregation/ )
Argument 39: Many of the Dalit Muslims and Dalit Christians are already getting OBC reservations in many states
In Andhra Pradesh, there is a separate category for SC converts to Christianity, and they are included in OBCs. There are many states that have included SC converts to Christianity as OBCs. List is enclosed below
So, the question now is how can these communities be included in SC list when they are already getting the benefit of OBC reservation?
Argument 40: Reservations are already at 60%. There is no space to increase the reservations in SC/ST because of the 50% limit. This will be reverse discrimination against SC/ST communities
SC population is around 20.6% getting 15% reservation
ST population percentage is around 9.2% getting 7.5%
So already there is a big gap, although the constitution mentions that reservations should be based on population % for SC/ST reservations. ( See the data enclosed above )
Currently, there is no space for including the 14% population of Muslims in the SC reservation.
Even if it is done, the overall percentage of reservation for SCs should be raised to a population % of SCs + Muslims that is around 30%, a net increase of 15%.
Best solution is to create a separate class with in OBC for Muslims and create a separate 5% to 10% reservation for Muslims with two block (1) Backward Muslims (2) Most Backward Muslims. This should solve the problem.
