This all happened because on August 4, 1932, Dr B.R. Ambedkar secured reserved seats for the untouchables from the British rulers in the run-up to the 1935 Indian Constitution formation. Along with the untouchables, minorities such as Muslims, Sikhs, Indian Christians and Europeans also secured reserved seats. But Mahatma Gandhi objected to the representation of untouchables and went on a fast unto death and eventually an agreement, the ‘Poona Pact’ was agreed on, by which Gandhiji ensured a formula whereby an untouchable candidate’s election would be decided by the majority Hindu voters. In such a formula, the untouchable voters have no role to elect their ‘own’ representatives, unlike Muslims and other minorities, who had their own ‘separate’ seats. Before Independence, India had two elections, in 1937 and 1946.
Ambedkar, forced by the fast-unto-death threat of Gandhi to sign the pact in 1932, went on to later analyse the 1937 results when untouchables were elected for the first time in history. Trying to save Gandhi’s life, Ambedkar had said on September 19, 1932: “I however trust the Mahatma will not drive me to the necessity of making a choice between his life and the rights of my people. For I can never consent to deliver my people bound hand and foot to the caste Hindus for generations to come.” But the Mahatma ensured the latter.
In his 1945 magnum opus, What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to Untouchables, Ambedkar commented on the status of untouchable (SC) legislators in a political party: “They were completely under the control of the Congress party executive. They could not ask a question which it did not like. They could not move a resolution which it did not permit. They could not bring in legislation to which it objected. They could not vote as they chose and could not speak what they felt. They were there as dumb driven cattle. One of the objects of obtaining representation in the Legislature for the Untouchables is to enable them to ventilate their grievances and to obtain redress for their wrongs. The (party) successfully and effectively prevented this from happening.” He observed that the political parties chose less qualified SC persons while selecting candidates for election. “And in the case of the Untouchables, those with little or no qualifications were selected in preference to those who had.”
When the new India Constitution was framed after Independence, the same election formula continued and, as feared, untouchables were “bound hand and foot to the caste Hindus for generations to come”. To vitiate it further, at the fag end of 2012, a Scheduled Caste member of Parliament elected from a Scheduled Caste reserved constituency in UP, did something unprecedented. Under the directions of his upper caste-dominated political party, during a Parliament session, he snatched and tore up a legislative bill intending to restore promotions in jobs to Scheduled Castes—a community he belongs to and was elected from.
What made the MP act against the very purpose for which he was elected from a reserved constituency? Well, the anti-defection law under the Tenth schedule of the Constitution in 1985 grants such power to the political parties whereby no member can speak or vote against the party position in Parliament. Political parties have created a fear psychosis over the anti-defection law and further bound elected members to their commands.
The irony is that a political party from Uttar Pradesh—10 of its 22 MPs are from SC-reserved constituencies—employed these very MPs to act in such a deplorable manner. In such a situation, there is no doubt that it’s time the anti-defection law is amended so that its draconian nature does not compel reserved seat legislators to use it against the very purpose for which reserved seats were created by the founding fathers of the Constitution.
(The author is an IAS officer. Views expressed are personal.)
In his opinion piece Bound Hand and Foot (Feb 4), Raja Sekhar Vundru makes the important point that it was the Poona pact that permanently sealed the “non-representation” of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The only way to correct this mistake is to reopen the debate on this issue and see how the excluded communities get the true right to elect their representatives. I must extend my congratulations to Dr Vundru, for giving the debate a historical context.
The time has come to end the unfortunate practice of getting ‘dummy’ SC/ST legislators elected. Vundru is right in suggesting that there should be a minimum qualification for candidates contesting from reserved constituencies so that they are able to recognise their rights and responsibilities.
Meenakshi Malik, Bangalore
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
Somewhat interesting article but deeply flawed. There is no causal connection shown between the anti-defection law and the actions of the SC Member of Parliament. No details are presented either. Which party did the Member belong to? What were his stated reasons for tearing up the bill? Who presented the bill and what were its provisions? Why would the anti-defection law force the MP to tear up the bill? So many aspects that need to be addressed have not even been alluded to in this pathetic article. It's quite clear that the author is trying to manipulate the mind of the reader while withholding crucial facts. It wouldn't be far fetched to say that the author is attempting to bind the mind of the reader "hand and foot".
Very interesting article from Dr.Raja Sekhar Vundru. It was good to know the history and how the reservation system was evolved over a period of time. The stand taken by Gandhi ji and INC on the so called ‘communal award’ was very calculated move to deny the rights to the untouchable(SCs) communities to elect their own representatives rather than by the entire population, where SCs population was in minority. On the face of it, this decision of Gadhi ji to oppose the ‘communal award’ comes from a position of ‘nationalistic’ stand but underneath lays a strong political and obviously to deny an important right to untouchable communities to elect their own representative. It remains a mystery in the life of Gandhi ji who fought against the practice of untouchability but not against the caste system! A similar tactics of representation based on Poona pact was followed in the post-Independence. This debate needs to be understood in the post Poona pact, where Gandhi ji and other signatories have miserably failed to address key issues of SCs as stated in Poona pact. The consequences of such decision had far reaching impact on SCs and STs. The Poona pact and the discourse around this issue had exposed two important leaders of Indian history, namely Gandhi ji and Dr.Ambedar on issues of ‘representation’ and ‘right to determination’ and ‘caste’. It was interesting to note the observations made by Dr.Ambedkar in 1945, which seems to reflect the present position on the status of elected representatives of SCs and STs. It was interesting to see Dr.Vundru linked this debate with the recent incident happened in the Parliament. It was irony that one elected representatives of SCs was in forefront to disrupt the protective measures of SCs in employment. I doubt how come this MP involved in this episode could be allowed to continue to be a representative of SCs and STs in the Parliament? I fully agree with the author that the seeds of ‘non-representation’ was indeed permanently sealed in “Poona pact”. The only way to correct this historical mistake is to ‘re-open’ the debate on this issue and see how the excluded communities will get their true right to elect their own representatives. Making changes in Anti defection law alone will not address this problem but examining the whole system of representation might throw some alternatives. I congratulate Dr.Vundru for putting this debate in both historical and present context and linking this to future discourse.
It is bad enough that through government policy the likes of Vudru are selected as IAS officers - because of their caste.
Its even worse to listen to their foul mouthed tantrums, which are casteist, attacking even the father of the nation.
Truth be told, Mr. Vudru, the real casteism in the 21st century is the one based on gender.
A very nice article.There are many myths in India and they being perpetuated.Minorities have been the victims.More and more people like this author must voice their concerns and a change would happen sooner or later.
@Charan Dewry: You are right and Dr.King said the same.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT