In Rajasthan, Dalit faces voice concern over SC ruling; flag ‘threat to unity’, quota backlogs .

 In Rajasthan, Dalit faces voice concern over SC ruling; flag ‘threat to unity’, quota backlogs.

Some Dalit leaders welcome top court’s verdict ensuring “quota within quota” for more backward SC/ST groups, saying there was no “level-playing field”

Written by Hamza Khan

In a majority 6-1 verdict, the seven-judge Supreme Court Constitution Bench rejected the argument that once enumerated in the Presidential List under Article 341 of the Constitution. (Express file photo)

The Supreme Court’s judgment allowing the states to sub-classify the Scheduled Castes (SCs) / Scheduled Tribes (STs) to ensure grant of quota to more backward castes in these groups has evoked mixed reactions among the Dalit leaders in Rajasthan. Most of them, however, say that such a sub-classification would lead to a division within communities.

Dalit thinker and writer Bhanwar Meghwanshi told The Indian Express: “This decision will increase the sub-caste identity struggle among Dalits in future. There was a growing unity among Dalits, which will be broken.”

He added that while it is “valid” that “some communities say that they’ve been left behind and haven’t got a fair chance”, sub-categorisation poses a “threat to Dalit–Bahujan unity”.

Meghwanshi said the decision on sub-categorisation should have been taken by Parliament and called the judgment “an encroachment on the legislative by the judiciary”.

“And the question of participation and justice is secondary. Has the SC/ST backlog (in recruitments) been rectified? When the backlog itself hasn’t been filled, how can it be said that some have benefited more and others haven’t?… If you look at judiciary and universities too, there still isn’t enough participation (of SCs and STs). There is currently no data on castes, so on what basis will the sub-categorisation be done?”

With four of the seven apex court judges favouring the exclusion of the creamy layer from the SCs / STs over quota, Meghwanshi said that reservation which was given on the societal basis is being shifted towards an economic criterion. This, he said, is “is ultimately a path towards ending reservation.”

Echoing Meghwanshi, B L Bairwa, who leads the Dr Ambedkar Memorial Welfare Society and All India SC ST Railway Employees Association, said: “Earlier they (SCs and STs) used to fight anti-reservation forces. Now, they will fight among themselves. This comes at a time when even the specified reservation isn’t being given.”

He also said that the SC and ST reservation “is on the basis of caste, not economic basis” and that “SC’s judgement comes under the category of policy making while the SC has no right for addition, deletion or modification in the Constitution.”

However, in a majority 6-1 verdict, the seven-judge Supreme Court Constitution Bench rejected the argument that once enumerated in the Presidential List under Article 341 of the Constitution, the Scheduled Castes constitute a homogeneous class, which is incapable of further sub-classification and that any attempt to sub-categorise them would amount to tinkering with the Presidential List.

Also read | Explained: Supreme Court’s verdict on sub-classification of SCs and STs

Bairwa added: “In these difficult circumstances, all the Bahujans of the country should come together to protect their constitutional rights and to stop the process of abolishing reservation, one by one, on the basis of court decisions.”

Retired IAS officer S R Chordia, who heads the Anusuchit Jati Karamchari Adhikari Association, also said that the judgement “is an attempt to end reservation”. “It is not a new agenda and the government is involved in it too. They had been trying for it for the last 20-30 years and have been successful now. There is immense anger in the community,” he said.

While there have been demands for sub-categorisation and exclusion of creamy layer, it wasn’t a major demand at the SC/ST Mahapanchayat held in Jaipur in April 2023. The main demand, instead, was the increase in reservation of SCs and STs by two percentage points from 16% and 12% respectively.

BL Arya, who was the convenor of last year’s Mahapanchayat, says: “The judgement is good in spirit but it will lead to conflict within SCs and STs… If a family continues to get the benefit at the cost of others, that is not fair.”

“The judgement will create a lot of complications in society because it will be very difficult for any (state) government to fulfil the criteria laid down by the SC. Those communities which are slightly better off will gang up against the poor, who will not be in a position to hold up on their own,” Arya said.

Arya also flagged the “lack of time frame in the judgement”, with the states now “free to identify the different degrees of social backwardness and provide special provisions (such as reservation) to achieve the specific degree of harm identified,” as per the SC’s directions.

Among those appreciating the decision, G L Verma, general secretary of Ambedkar Memorial Welfare Society, said: “It is necessary to see how honestly it will be implemented by the governments … It would be unfair to say that this decision will help in dividing the castes.”

 “While the fourth generation of a family is taking advantage of reservation in government services, not even one generation of a family has taken advantage of the reservation… Even within reservation, an elite class has emerged. Those who are not from the elite class are sent to work at such places where no one else wants to go,” Verma said.

 “How can we expect the children of poor and illiterate families of these communities to compete with the children of the elite class who have received education in good schools and good educational institutions. There was no level-playing field for certain communities and this decision may provide some relief although a lot still remains to be done,” he said.

Courtesy: Indian Express

Note: This news is originally published on  indianexpress.com and is used only for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights.