How a DGP in Andhra Pradesh is leading a movement seeking exclusive SC panchayats

DGP Sunil Kumar’s AIM has six lakh members -including 500 police personnel – working towards Dr Ambedkar’s 1945 argument on separate electorates

By Bhaskar Basava

Around 500 serving police personnel in Andhra Pradesh, hailing from Dalit communities, are part of a six-lakh strong movement seeking reforms in the Panchayat raj system.

A charitable Trust, Ambedkar India Mission (AIM), spearheads the movement. IPS officer and Andhra Pradesh Disaster Response and Fire Services DGP PV Sunil Kumar founded the trust with a vision to bring marginalised communities together.

“There may be some sympathisers from the department but this is a people’s mass movement,” Sunil Kumar told South First.

The organisation boasts six lakh registered members, with around 11,000 functionaries working towards the creation of separate panchayats for Scheduled Castes (SCs) electorate.

Their reason is alleged bias towards community members and their decades-long underdevelopment.

Who is Sunil Kumar IPS?

DGP Sunil Kumar has been one of the prominent IPS officers under the YSRCP-led YS Jagan Mohan Reddy government in Andhra Pradesh.

During his tenure as the CID chief, he handled several high-profile cases, including the Amaravati land scam allegedly involving TDP chief N Chandrababu Naidu, the Inner Ring Road scam, the SSC question paper leak, the skill development scam, and the fibre grid scam, as well as the sedition case against YSRCP rebel MP Raghu Ram Krishna Raju, among others.

However, in a surprising turn of events, the 1993-batch IPS officer was transferred out of the CID within a month of his promotion to the DG rank. He was posted in the Fire Services Department, which is considered an insignificant office.

Kumar has been projected as a pioneer of Dalit rights on social media and among the people.

His groundwork as an IPS officer for a political entry or his reported closeness to Jagan is allegedly aimed at garnering Dalit support.

Refuting the allegation, Kumar and the AIM stated that there was a higher ambition at play, transcending politics for separate, exclusive SC panchayats.

Two worlds: Ooru and Vada

Born into a Dalit family at Chintalapudi in the Eluru district, Kumar reportedly witnessed discrimination in development between the ‘Vada’, a habitation away from the village where people belonging to the SC community reside, and the ‘Ooru’, where people from the forward community live.

In 2014, while in the CID, Kumar and a network of 15-20 people initiated the AIM to realise separate panchayats for the SC community as a solution for the underdevelopment.

With the IPS officer rising in the department to one of its top posts, the DG rank, the trust continued to see a spike in more police personnel and Dalit activists joining the cause.

“Today, it has eight zonal in-charges, 26 district presidents, 175 constituencies, 400 mandal incharges, and 10,000 village committees. The structure is similar to any political party and is distinct from any Dalit organisation in Andhra Pradesh,” an SI who is a district President of AIM, told South First.

Interestingly, as per the AIM reports, it included 500 Dalit police personnel ranging from constables to DSPs.

At least three constables, two SIs, and a CI have been serving as district in-charges. Additionally, other senior officers in the ranks of SP to DCP were liaising with the organisation, including a group of doctors and advocates.

However, the police officers’ move seemed to conflict with the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

“No government employee shall be a member of, or be otherwise associated with, any political party or any organisation in respect of which there is slightest reason to think that the organisation has a political aspect and takes part in politics; nor shall he participate in, subscribe in aid of, or assist in any other manner, any political movement or activity,” Rule 19. (1) reads.

Ambedkar’s pitch for ‘separate settlements’

Part IV of the Indian Constitution mentions the Panchayat system as part of the state policy in Article 40, and it was only in 1993 that the Government of India passed a series of constitutional reforms intended to empower and democratise India’s rural representative bodies – the Panchayats.

The 73rd Amendment to the Constitution formally recognised a third tier of government at the sub-state level, thereby creating the legal teeth for local self-rule – or Panchayati Raj.

Further, through Article 243D, one-third of all seats must be reserved for women. Likewise, reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) are made proportionately for their population.

However, Dr BR Ambedkar had a separate view of the panchayats and pitched for separate settlements for Dalits. In his book States and Minorities, he identified separate settlements as an empowering tool for the Dalit community.

In Article II – Section IV – Part II, he introduced a clause advocating separate settlements for Dalits, which he presented to the Constituent Assembly’s Sub-Committee on Fundamental Rights in 1947. However, the proposal was not accepted.

Ambedkar believed that separate settlements were necessary due to the social segregation faced by Dalits, who were easily identifiable as untouchables.

The proximity of Dalit colonies to main villages facilitated their exploitation. Additionally, he underscored the economic dependence of Dalits on the upper castes, which further perpetuated their exploitation.

“At present, the Hindus live in the village, and the untouchables live in the ghettoes. So long as the present arrangement continues it is impossible for the untouchables to free themselves,” Ambedkar said.

He further said that the “Untouchables, therefore, demand that the nexus should be broken and the untouchables who are as a matter of fact socially separate should be made separate geographically and territorially also, and be settled into separate villages exclusively of untouchables in which the distinction of the high and the low and of Touchable and Untouchable will find no place.”

Ambedkar also argued against the inclusion of the Panchayat system in the constitution.

On 4 November 1948, he said, “I hold that these village republics have been the ruination of India. I am, therefore, surprised that those who condemn provincialism and communalism should come forward as champions of the village. What is the village but a sink of localism, a den of ignorance, narrow-mindedness, and communalism? I am glad that the Draft Constitution has discarded the village and adopted the individual as its unit.”

But later, after much debate, he agreed to include as the directive principle of the state policy, which states, “The state shall take steps to organise village panchayats and endow them with the necessary power and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-government.”

Control of forward castes even in reserved seats

However, 30 years after the 73rd Amendment, Sunil Kumar, speaking to South First, said that reservations in panchayats for SC candidates were of not much help, as local dynamics were controlling SC sarpanches, with the forward caste members in the villages having a larger say.

“The SC candidates in the village can’t make any decision against the views of the forward community, who are also in the majority in terms of numbers and possess socio-economic resources. If a water tank is to be installed in one place, can the SC sarpanch demand or get it installed in the place near SC habitations?” he questioned.

Kumar reiterated that Ambedkar’s vision of separate settlements would be the only way forward for Dalit empowerment.

The AIM also alleged diversion of SC sub-plan funds, which further necessitated action as SC habitations were left behind.

The SI quoted above said AIM activists were visiting SC habitations daily and preparing reports on the availability of facilities such as access to drinking water, burial grounds, and roads. These reports were later collated and submitted to constituency-related departments and respective officers. However, he added that officers alleged a lack of sufficient funds.

The central government has allocated funds to SC/ST development since 1974, and with numerous protests held in undivided Andhra Pradesh, the state government enacted SC/ST sub-plan funds in 2013 for the exclusive development of the respective communities.

The SI argued that since its inception, the funds had not been properly utilised exclusively for development but were diverted for many schemes meant for the general population.

He claimed that during the TDP tenure, the funds were used for general schemes, and under the current YSRCP dispensation, they were being used for the nine welfare schemes meant for everyone but accounted for as funds spent for SCs.

He cited an example: Consider the pension scheme YSR Pension Kanuka, where the state government has been disbursing a pension of ?3,000 to around 66 lakh women above 60.

“This scheme is not exclusively for the SC community as per the SC sub-plan, but they show in the accounts that SC beneficiaries were getting the money under the SC sub-plan funds. This makes it necessary for the AIM to build pressure for separate panchayats,” he stated.

Constituency-level in-charges have been organising awareness meetings advocating separate panchayats besides enrolling members. “Through such ground-level activities, AIM intends to put pressure on the government,” he said.

Why the demand for separate SC panchayats?

When asked why the AIM allegedly has not been condemning attacks on Dalits, Sunil Kumar replied that there was a pattern to the atrocities and crimes.

“It’s the underdevelopment and lack of socioeconomic power that makes the Scheduled Caste community vulnerable, further leading to atrocities,” he opined.

So, AIM’s motive was not to limit itself as a reactionary body to SC atrocities but to fight the root cause. As most of the SC community members have been living in villages, their upliftment would end this.

“Have you seen atrocities against socially and economically empowered families?” the IPS officer asked.

“The Panchayats Extension to Scheduled Area (PESA) Act 1996 was enacted to provide self-autonomy to tribals in 5th Scheduled Areas of the country. Similarly, the state government should create SC panchayats for the development of the SC community,” he demanded.

He further argued that through such a move, the SC community would be empowered, as the sarpanch would work for SC habitations without any limitations. There would be more participation from other members in the panchayat sabhas and opportunities to improve socio-economic conditions, which would put an end to vulnerability and atrocities.

“In decisions such as burial grounds, access to water, installation of water tanks, and schools, the SC community would have better access than in panchayats where an SC sarpanch would exist. Because an SC sarpanch is not highly powerful in villages dominated by other castes,” he reiterated.

The AIM would hold a public meeting on 10 February. Political parties have now taken note of AIM and are now reaching out to it for support ahead of the elections. However, the members clarified that they would only do so if their demand for separate panchayats for SC were included in the manifesto.

They referred to former IPS officer JD Lakshmi Narayana as the first politician in Andhra Pradesh to include their demand in the state manifesto and look forward to putting more pressure on other parties.

Editor’s note: This report has been updated with a quote from Sunil Kumar on AIM being a people’s movement more than a police initiative. Name of an SI quoted in the report has also been withheld as requested.

Courtesy : TSF

Note: This news piece was originally published in thesouthfirst.com and used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes exclusively for Human Right