RESERVATION
The Christian Union of India: Open Letter to
Parliament on Dalit Christians
The BJP argument that Christian Dalits do not qualify for the reservations because Christianity does not sanction caste will apply equally to Sikhs and Buddhists also. Neither of these religions approve of the practice of caste. The real ground for the extension of reservations to Dalits of non-Hindu faiths is that the notion of pollution of caste and the disabilities arising out of the Hindu caste system have been so deep-rooted that conversion to other faiths has not been able to obliterate them either in the Dalits or in the rest of society. Conversion to Christianity has not liberated all the Dalit converts from their social and economic disabilities. Most of the Christian Dalits continue to experience the state of deprivation and the indignities of untouchability in the larger caste-ridden society, contrary to Article 17. As long as this reality continues, the Christian Dalits as well as Dalits of any other religion should be made eligible for the reservation.
Another argument is that the Christian community is comparatively better educated and owns a number of institutions in the fields of education and health care. We would like to point out that the Christian institutions benefit people of all faiths, and their policy has been not to run institutions exclusively for Christians. Though many Dalits Christians have benefitted from these institutions, the majority of Dalit Christians, unfortunately, remain untouched.
We do recognize the responsibility of the Christian churches to be concerned about the condition of their Dalit members. But there are serious limitations to their ability to uplift all their Dalit members because, with the exception of Kerala and North East India, about 85 per cent of the Christian Community in India are poor Dalits. The percentage of Dalits among the Hindus is far less. It would be legitimate for Hindu Dalits to expect substantial assistance from the more affluent Hindus. However, we are not aware of any case where the state has abdicated its responsibility for the welfare of a section of its citizens on the argument that this is the responsibility of the rest of the community alone.
Article 341 providing for reservations to Scheduled Castes (Dalits) and some other categories in the name of social reform and justice places no limitation of religion on the eligibility of these communities to benefit from the measures that might be introduced in the implementation of this Act. The limitation was arbitrarily introduced only by the Presidential Order mentioned above.
The Presidential Order in its effect on Dalit Christians violates their freedom of conscience by discriminating against them and excluding them from its benefits solely on the basis of religion. They end up by being punished in this way for exercising their right to freedom of religion (Article 25[1]) in converting to Christianity. This also acts as a disincentive to freely chosen conversions to one particular religion. This indirect protection to Hinduism (in this case) by the state is untenable in a secular state as it is violative of the secularism enshrined in the constitution.
Further, the later amendments of the original order to include Sikhs and Buddhists shows that there is now no bar to extending the scope of the order to SCs (Dalits) of religions other than Hinduism,
It is well-known that Dalit Christians are subjected from time to time and in various parts of the country to atrocities and denial of civil rights in the same way as Dalits of other religious persuasions. Yet, because of their exclusion from the Presidential Order, the Dalit Christians are denied protection and relief which Acts like the Civil Rights Act 1955/76 and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 provide to other Dalits.
(Source: The People's Reporter, 16-31 July, 1996)
Proportional Representation for Minorities
Iqbal A. Ansari in The Radiance
Viewsweekly, 28 July - 3 August, 1996
Under the JP movement in 1970s - all parties, except the then ruling Congress, had committed themselves to adopt FR instead of first-past-the post- British system for which a schism had been worked out by the Citizens for Democracy Committee headed by Justice V.M. Tarkunde. Unfortunately, neither the lanata (1977-80) nor the National Front (1989-91) governments assigned any priority to this reform. During the last decade the domain of electoral reforms has been limited to making it fair and free from money and muscle power. But the distortion that the Westminster model introduces in the political process by making the legislatures unrepresentative of the diversity of political opinion and interests of the groups and sections that obtain in the country, has been (accepted). The first-past-the post the winners take almost all. A swing of, say, five per cent system marginalizes smaller parties and groups, enabling of votes in favour of a party gets converted into disproportionately large number of seats. The terms of reference of Goswami Committee on electoral reforms appointed by the then Prime Minister, Mr. V.P. Singh, included review of electoral system. But it was shelved "for the time being", and continues to be ignored by all.
From the Muslim point of view the election has again proved that given the electoral system and distribution of population and delimitation of constituencies they can never expect to get adequate representation in the Parliament and State legislatures according to their population, Under representation has been the fate of Muslims in all Parliaments from the first to the present. Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat Assemblies (1993) have no single Muslim member.
The Motilal Nehru Committee report of 1928 commended the Proportional Representation system for ensuring all groups their due share in legislatures. During the Constituent Assembly Debate on Minority Rights Report in July-August 1947 again the PR system was strongly and convincingly advocated by several members, not all of whom were from among the minorities.
A promise was made to Muslims in the Constituent Assembly in May 1949 while deleting the provision made for reservation of seats for minorities on the basis of population under the joint-electorate, that even without such a Constitutional safeguard minority would be ensured their fair share in political power.
Some variant of PR would seem to be overdue in India from the point of view of giving due share to all social groups. The apprehension about PR perpetuating. even aggravating caste and (religious) divisions are ill- founded (as) is possible to work out a suitable form of PR.
