Affirmative action on the basis of ‘Caste’ is a practice of Colonial India for a different purpose other than the apparent one. The first reference for affirmative action in 1881 by the rulers was “Need to take special interest in socially backward “Entities”. These ‘Entities’ were identified as non-Brahmincal Castes’ was an out come of the ‘Divide and Rule policy’ triggered to rule the hearts of ‘poor Masses’. 

Anti Caste movements in various corners of the Country evolved a consensus to weed out ‘Caste’ with an objective to have a strong nation. This objective is asserted by the debates of the ‘Constituent Assembly’. In the entire course of the debate over the clauses of ‘Affirmative action’ Dr. B.R.Ambedkar used the term ‘Communities’ instead of ‘Castes’ though affirmative action is in practice on the basis / name of ‘Castes’. A Secular, Unified and casteless society is a basic feature of the Constitution as per the discussions on the Preamble. Thus, Caste is a prohibited ground of distinction under the Constitution. It ought to be erased altogether from the Indian Society is the Premise of the egalitarianism of Indian Constitution. 

This objective can be refuted if the ‘Three Organs of the State fail to understand the Philosophy of Constitutionalism’ was the apprehensiveness of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar. It was expressed just as the Constituent Assembly was about to finish its task. Dr. B.R.Ambedkar, Chairman of the Drafting Committee, said in his reply to the debate on November 25, 1949 that 

“However good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad, because those who are called to work it, happen to be a bad lot. The working of a Constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature of the Constitution. The Constitution can provide only the organs of the State such as the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The factors on which the working of these organs of the State depends are the people and the political parties they will set up as their instruments to carry out their wishes and their politics. Who can say how the people of India and their parties will behave?” 

He added that it is futile to pass any judgment upon the Constitution without reference to the part which the people and their parties are likely to play.

This is the Objective directed the Apex court in 1951 to set aside the "Communal G.O." of the Government of Madras, coming down from pre-Constitution, pre-Independence days, providing reservation by "communal rotation" in educational institutions, in two cases known as the ‘Champakam Dorairajan and Venkataramana’ cases. This Judgment resulted in the 1st amendment to the Constitution even before the 1^st Parliament sat on business. 

The first Amendment - as clause 4 of Article 15: 

“Nothing in this article or in 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”.

Please note that it doesn’t speak about ‘Caste other than SCs and STs’ but speaks about ‘Backward Classes’. 

Further, the terms of reference to the first ‘Backward Classes Commission’:

“(a) To determine the criteria to be adopted in considering whether any sections of the people in the territory of India (in addition to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes specified by notifications issued under the Article 341 and 342 of the Constitution) should be treated as socially and educationally backward classes; and, in accordance with such criteria, prepare a list of such classes setting out also their approximate number and their territorial distribution;”

It does not mention anything about identifying ‘Castes” as Backward but ‘Determine criteria’, which was not met by commission. 

The Chairman of the Commission was not only aware of consequences in identifying “Castes” as backward but also guided by the ‘sprit’ of Egalitarian Concepts of Indian Constitution. He resists deviating from the Terms of Reference and wrote a separate letter to PM, requesting him not to accept the recommendations in his wisdom. 

The Union Home Ministry had two objections to the Kaka Kalelkar Commission Report.

First, if the bulk of the country's millions were to be regarded as coming within the category of Backward Classes, no useful purpose could be served by separate enumeration of such classes. 

Second, the caste criterion was seen as a remedy worse than the evil of backwardness itself - even though the Commission itself had suggested, citing the proverb `use the thorn to remove a thorn', that the evils of caste could be removed by measures considered in terms of caste. Therefore, the Centre did not find any merit in drawing a national list of OBCs and said that it would be left to the State governments to draw up their own OBC lists. - V. VENKATESAN – Frontline May 5, 2006 Page – 12 

Even the second Backward Classes Commission failed to evolve Criteria irrespective of Caste and on the contrary recommend affirmative action on the Basis of ‘Caste’. The Apex court in “Indra Sawhney’s case para 83 page 554 S.C AIR1993 “There is no set or recognized method. There is no law or other statutory instrument prescribing the methodology” to identify ‘Backward Classes’ indicates the need to have a Statute for this purpose. This was conveniently overlooked by the State even after the ‘Mandal Judgment’. The impact of ‘Caste’ criterion in identifying the ‘Backward Classes’ were experienced by the Society on every sphere of Social life as presumed by the ‘Kaka Kalelkar’ and the then ‘Home Ministry’. 

Caste based reservations were initiated in 1979 by PS Krishanan, the then appointing authority of BP Mandal Commission and met the presumption of Dr. Ambedkar “it is perfectly possible to pervert the Constitution without changing its form by merely changing the form of the administration and to make it inconsistent and opposed to the spirit of the Constitution.” ( CAD Vol. Vii, p. 38). The consequences of this not only perpetuated ‘Castism’ in Indian Society but also invented / inventing ‘Castes’ and debarred Majority of eligible people as they are not practicing ‘Caste’. On the contrary forced them to adopt Caste practices which were getting erased. Affirmative action only on the basis of caste, religion, sex, race and place of birth is unconstitutional and at the same time State cannot reject affirmative action only on the grounds of ‘identity’, if community as whole is backward.

The Best example of this is Andhra Pradesh ‘Muslims’. Except the ‘five’ groups identified as ‘Backward’ in 1970s there is no visible ‘Caste / zat / Biradari and group’ stratification among AP Muslims. Now for the purpose of Reservations inventing the Groups basing on the old records without any empirical data / study and making the people to think on those lines for the benefit is a wicked idea with a great political purpose. Making use of the knowledge to direct the polity in the power to rebut the objectivity of the Constitution is a fraud.

The report of the advisor to the Government of Andhra Pradesh 2007 on the issue of ‘Muslims reservations’ in para 4.2.18 referring to 1931 census says:

Another important factor incidentally emerging from this Census report is the candid admission that Christian communities are not able to free themselves from caste differences and prejudices, while among Muslim converts they disappear in a couple of generations and origins are forgotten. This is not entirely true but it is partly true about south Indian Muslim society including the Muslim society of Andhra Pradesh as will be explained later. 

Again in para 4.9.2.5 referring to the Study of Yogender in 1973 discussing the situation of 1920’s :

The process of islamization, namely, shedding of un-Islamic belief customs and rituals, a process noted by Mandelbaum and Yogender Singh emerged among Bhiwandi Muslims in the 1920s. Under the influence of all these factors, endogamic barriers among Kokni Muslims with the exception of Telis have begun to relax, but not between Koknis and Momins. Occupational mobility has also come into existence. The attitude towards caste distinctions and caste privileges have become less rigid.

We should note the above two crucial references and the time they referring to. It eventually says that ‘Caste’ among ‘Muslims’ is in the process of erasing in 1930 and it hardly takes 2 or 3 generations. 

In specific to Andhra Pradesh the report in para 6.1.1 says:

Of the regions of India, Andhra Pradesh is one of the least studied. This lacuna is substantially overcome by the picture of Muslim social stratification in India as a whole and particularly in the South, with which Andhra Pradesh shares many cultural traits.

Again in para 6.3.2 :

“Among the Gazetteers of the post-Independence period, the District Gazetteer of Cuddapah (revised edition) 1967 by B. H. Sivasankaranarayana, State Editor, District Gazetteers, mentions that the social pattern of Muslim life in the district is similar to that of the entire region. He notes the contradiction that “Islam knows no caste, but there are what may be called racial divisions among the Muslims of the locality”. He refers to three such divisions namely Dakhani, Mughal and Pathan. He finds intermarriages between the first and the latter two are rare, but “this inhibition is now fast disappearing”. He also says that “caste system on a professional basis has also permeated the lower grades of the Muslim population”.

The para 6.3.5 says:

The District Gazetteers of the coastal districts like the East Godavari Gazetteer 1970 and the Krishna District Gazetteer 1977 also mention the same four important groups of Muslims, viz., Shaik, Syed, Moghul and Pathan and give the information that the Shaiks outnumber the others. Further, they point out that generally speaking the Muslims are not to be found confined to any particular profession and are to be found in almost all walks of life.

The para 7.4.7 :

Unfortunately, sociological research and knowledge in Andhra Pradesh was not available to perceive this difference and bring out to the full extent the existence and process of inequality in Muslim society in the State. I have tried to fill this lacuna in this Report.

These references in accordance to the time frame reiterate that there is no Empirical study on Andhra Pradesh ‘Muslims’ and the old records which were revised / reprinted note the disappearance of ‘Inhibitions’ of Caste Practices along with the attrition of ancestral occupation.

The purpose of the Report and the Reservations based upon this report is clear from the above reference. After considering that :

“Muslims are often not able to avail of the reservation benefits available to OBCs as the officials do not issue the requisite caste certificates. It was also alleged that many eligible Muslim OBCs were not included in the official list which results in denial of several benefits to the Community.”     Page 24 para 2 of the Sachar Report

It reaffirm that its purpose is entirely different and distained to achieve the opposite not only to the Constitutional objective but also to the ‘Islamic’ practice.

In conclusion, Four things has to be considered and questioned in the whole exercise:

1. When the Constitution says:

 Article 15 (1) : The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.

 (4) Nothing in this article or in 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.

What is the purpose to find / invent / ‘Caste / Biradari / Zat / Group’ among ‘Muslims’? When they are eligible for affirmative action as the State cannot discriminate against them only on the ground of their religion.

2. When the State has given affirmative action / reservation to the entire population of particular ‘Caste’ (many) without any creamy layer norms on the grounds of the above Article, Why it is necessary to invent ‘Caste / Biradari / Zat / Group’ among ‘Muslims’?

3. The State by definition of ‘Schedule Caste’ through the 1950s’ Presidential Order debarred the people of different faiths excluding ‘Hindus’ later included Sikhs and Buddhists even though the debarred groups were there in the original list of 1935, Is it not a Religious discrimination?

Even if the Basis of the reservation in Andhra Pradesh is admissible according to the P.S Krishnans’ Report -para 7.4.29 (12) discussing about Shaik Community says that the 80% of them are converts from Mala and Madiga ( Present SCs)

Here different communities belonging to the lower castes including “untouchable” castes assumed the name and identity of  Sheikh. After moving into this larger collectivity they have tended to lose their separate caste identities making Sheikh a single large group.

This has been explained in Chapter IV and Chapter VI. In this connection it is useful to recall the mention I have made in Chapter IV of the movement of 1,70,000 persons of the communities of Madiga, Mala, Adi-Andhra and Arundhatiar, comprising 2.2% of the total 1921 (subsequently re-named as Scheduled Castes) depressed classes population during the period between 1921 and 1931, as reported by M.W.M. Yeatts Superintendent of Census, in the Report of the Madras Volume of Census 1931. This has also been mentioned by Kingsley Davis.

They are eligible for SC Status, Why can’t the State Recommend the President to include these ‘Shaiks’ in ‘SC’ list. Does this not amount to double discrimination?

4. When the

in Indra Sawhney’s in para 83 page 554 S.C AIR1993 says:

Muslim community as whole may be found socially backward (As a matter of fact, they are so treated in the State of Karnataka as well as in the State of Kerala by their respective State Government)

Why not in the State of ‘Andhra Pradesh’, where the Human development indicators of Muslims are far below the Majority and on par with SCs, put them in BC list?

All the exercise is a new means of ‘Suddhi’ movement and the provisions of Constitution were intelligibly used for the purpose by evading the duty to evolve and determine the ‘Criteria’ to identify the ‘backwardness’ irrespective of Caste, religion, race, Sex and place of birth. Denying the legitimate fundamental right to the people adopting Non-indigenous religions is one part of the Objective.

In other words it is a deliberate attempt to subjugate a Group of people to avail the benefit of reservations (which won’t be grounded) by adopting the practices of a particular religion in day to day life. This is under the Mind-set indoctrinated by this:

The foreign races in Hindusthan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but those of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture, i.e., of the Hindu nation and must loose their separate existence to merge in the Hindu race, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu Nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment — not even citizen's rights. There is, at least, should be, no other course for them to adopt. We are an old nation; let us deal, as old nations ought to and do deal, with the foreign races, who have chosen to live in our country.

-- Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar's, We or Our Nationhood Defined

The game of ‘Muslim’ reservation is solely dependent on the interpretation of – Affirmative action on the Only grounds of Caste, race, religion, sex and place of birth is unconstitutional and on the other hand Only on the grounds of Caste, race, religion, sex and place of birth State cannot deny affirmative action when the people of that particular ‘group’ as a whole are ‘Backward’ The meaning of the first part of the sentence to the second part of sentence is entirely opposite. The people in the Policy making / influencing / evolving / interpreting bodies refuse to accept this when it is the case of ‘Muslims’ / Christians.

This amounts to the rebuttal of Article 25 of the Constitution and diluting various UN accords on which India is a signatory.

Does these Organs of the state abiding the Indian Constitution or the agenda indoctrinated by ‘We or Our Nationhood Defined’! ?

 Ref:

1. Report and Recommendations of Sri.P.S.Krishanan, Advisor to Andhra Pradesh Government 2007.

2. Indra Sawhney’s case S.C AIR1993.

3. Shorter Constitution of India by Basu.

4. Frontline May 5, 2006.

5. Constitutional Assembly Debates Vol. Vii.

6. http://www.socialjustice.in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

Add New Search RSS

Write comment
Name:
Title:
UBBCode:	-color-aquablackbluefuchsiagraygreenlimemaroonnavyolivepurpleredsilvertealwhiteyellow -size-tinysmallmediumlargehuge

Powered by JoomlaCommentCopyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved.Homepage: http://cavo.co.nr/