Full religious freedom sought for Scheduled Castes
Speaking on the 75th anniversary of the Scheduled Caste Presidential Order of August 10, 1950, Prof Joseph stated that this order stripped SCs of complete religious freedom, a right enjoyed by all other communities (ST, BC, OC) in India. He noted that Christians have marked this date as a 'Black Day' for decades.
Prof Joseph highlighted that while constitutional amendments in 1950 and 1990 protected the SC reservation status for those who converted to Sikhism and Buddhism, respectively, the same protection has not been extended to those who convert to Christianity or Islam. This, he argued, has resulted in 75 years of ongoing discrimination.
He recalled the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission, which was constituted in 2004 to study the issue. In its 2007 report, the commission recommended that reservations be granted to SCs regardless of their religion. The report stated that Dalit Christians face discrimination not only from Hindu-dominated society but also from upper castes within their own religion. It further noted that removing SCs from the reservation list upon conversion would violate fundamental rights and worsen their social and educational status, contradicting Article 16 of the Constitution. However, the then-Congress government failed to implement these recommendations.
Prof Joseph also criticised the current government's stance, which appointed the KG Balakrishnan Commission to re-examine the issue. He mentioned that the government's argument — that since there are no castes in Christianity and Islam, converted individuals should not receive caste-based reservations — is flawed. He contended that caste discrimination persists even within these religions.
'It is a misconception that untouchability exists only within Hinduism. People who see others as untouchable because of their caste continue to do so even after they convert to Christianity,' he said.
Prof Joseph also clarified a common misunderstanding. 'The demand should not be for 'SC status for Dalit Christians' but rather for 'full religious freedom for Scheduled Castes.' The term 'Dalit' is not defined in the Constitution, which recognises 56 sub-castes as Scheduled Castes. Using the term 'Dalit' is misleading and can be misinterpreted as a demand to include new castes in the SC list.'
He concluded by calling on the Central government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, to provide full religious freedom to Scheduled Castes, a step he believes the Congress government failed to take. He noted that several State governments, including Andhra Pradesh under Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu, have already passed resolutions in their State Assemblies urging the Central government to take action.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
26 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Minutes from now, Delhi's hottest contest – between two BJP leaders
A stone's throw from Parliament, Delhi's Constitution Club was unusually crowded on Tuesday, as MPs and ex-MPs queued up to cast their vote for what has become the hottest contest this season in the steaming Capital. Generally considered a routine affair, the polls to the administration of the club are the cynosure of all eyes this time, away from the brouhaha over the Election Commission — the reason being the two leaders, both belonging to the BJP, at the heart of it. Former Union ministers Rajiv Pratap Singh Rudy and Sanjeev Balyan are fighting it out for the post of Secretary (Administration), considered the club's most powerful post. Rudy has been holding the post for over two decades now, which makes him both entrenched and vulnerable. Officially, the BJP has kept out of the election, but there is buzz among MPs across parties that challenger Balyan has the tacit blessings of the party's top leaders. Those supporting Rudy cite the vast improvements at the club, saying the sea change from how it was run earlier has happened under the Bihar leader. However, there are many MPs and ex-MPs who feel that the long time Rudy has occupied the post is precisely the reason that change is due. The electorate that lined up to vote Tuesday, numbering about 1,200, included Union Home Minister Amit Shah, BJP president and Union minister J P Nadda, Union minister Piyush Goyal, Congress leader Sonia Gandhi and Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Mallikarjun Kharge. Speaking to reporters, Balyan said that whatever the result, the dignity of the club must remain intact and that, as a platform for MPs and ex-MPs from across party lines to engage with one another, it was a good thing the club was in the news again. One common complaint of those backing Balyan is that MPs no longer get the same importance as they once did. BJP Lok Sabha MP from Jharkhand Nishikant Dubey told reporters Tuesday: 'Dr Balyan will win because this club has gone into the hands of IAS, IPS, IFS and pilots. It has to be retrieved for the MPs and should be back in the hands of MPs and ex-MPs. That is why we will make Dr Balyan win.' Rudy is no longer an MP. Some other MPs and ex-MPs also talk of officials 'frequenting the place' and non-MPs being found using the gym and other facilities. 'Will IAS officers or defence officers allow MPs in their clubs? If not, why is it that officials are seen to be controlling the Constitution Club?' a former Congress MP said. 'Wives of MPs have also complained. There are also complaints that the prices are too high.' A former BJP MP claimed that many MPs and former parliamentarians may rally against Balyan, given the charges against him in the 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots. 'Rudy may also get significant support from MPs who are fellow Thakurs like him,' said a former BJP MP. Therefore, many believe that Congress MPs would play a major role in determining the outcome. A former Congress MP, however, said the votes of the party members could go both ways, with Rudy seen as favourite of the Lutyens Delhi crowd. A former BJP MP agreed with Balyan that the best part of the election was that a largely 'passive' club had come alive – and that many parliamentarians have woken up to its importance. Elections are typically held for Secretary (Administration), Secretary (Sports), Secretary (Culture) and Treasurer and 11 posts of Executive Members in the club. Congress MP Rajiv Shukla earlier won the post of Secretary (Sports) uncontested after BJP Rajya Sabha MP Pradip Kumar Varma withdrew his candidature. Similarly, DMK MP Tiruchi Siva won the Secretary (Culture) post after former BJP MP Pradeep Gandhi withdrew his candidature. The post of the treasurer, too, saw no contest after former Bharat Rashtra Samithi MP AP Jithender Reddy withdrew his candidature, with DMK MP P Wilson winning. Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla is the outgoing treasurer. Standing for elections for the 11 executive member posts are 14 MPs, including former BJP Rajya Sabha MP Naresh Agarwal, former BJP Lok Sabha MP Pradeep Gandhi, former Congress Lok Sabha MP Jasbir Singh Gill, BJP Lok Sabha MP Naveen Jindal, former Congress MP Aslam Sher Khan, TDP Lok Sabha MP Krishna Prasad Tenetti, BJP Rajya Sabha MP Pradip Kumar Varma, Samajwadi Party Lok Sabha MP Akshay Yadav, TMC Lok Sabha MP Prasun Banerjee, former Shiv Sena Lok Sabha MP Shrirang Appa Barne, former BJD Lok Sabha MP Kalikesh Singh Deo, the RSP's N K Premachandran as and former MP Anoop Singh. Formed in the 1940s for parliamentarians, the club has conference rooms, coffee clubs and an outdoor cafe. Along with lounges for MPs, there is also a billiards room, a gym, a unisex salon, and a swimming pool.
Economic Times
26 minutes ago
- Economic Times
SC agrees to examine if benefit of quota must be given to communities who continue to be socially, economically backward
The Supreme Court will review quota benefits. The court wants to ensure the most backward communities benefit. A petition was filed by members of SC and OBC communities. They seek to prioritize the neediest within reserved categories. The court acknowledges the sensitivity of the matter. It will consider if economically advanced members should still avail reservation. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine whether benefit of quota in government employment and admissions to state-run institutions be first given to those members of quota-covered communities who continue to be the most socially and economically backward.A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi has asked for a response from Union government on a joint petition filed by two people, one belonging to the SC community and the other an OBC. Following brief arguments from advocate Reena Singh. the top court had a was careful in its observations. "This is a sensitive issue requiring careful consideration." Singh said petitioners do not seek any change in quota percentage for scheduled Justice Kant said that many form SC, ST and OBC communities had been uplifted socially and economically by gaining the elite categories of government employment because of the reservation system. He added that they could provide for the best of education and facilities to their children, adding that it was probably the time to consider whether such a class of people should continue to avail reservation at the cost of their own community members who really require the provisions.A seven-member bench, authored by Justice B R Gavai, only the second member from the Dalit community to become CJI, had on August 1, 2024 permitted states to sub-categorise castes within SC communities based on degrees socio-economic backwardness and and under-representation in government jobs to ensure that the larger pie of 15% quota went to the most the time, the court had directed state governments to devise suitable criteria to bar the ' creamy layer ' among SCs from availing petitioners have argued, "Candidates from affluent SC, ST and OBC families often secure reserved jobs and seats. Individuals from extremely poor backgrounds and needy aspirants seldom get a chance to get a job or admission to government colleges despite the reservation policy . This defeats the purpose of social justice and perpetuates inequality within reserved categories.""By incorporating an economic threshold within reservations, the policy would align with the broader constitutional mandate of creating an egalitarian society. Furthermore, such reforms would prevent monopolisation of benefits by a privileged few, ensuring that affirmative action remains a dynamic and effective tool for socio-economic upliftment ," they argued.(With ToI inputs)
Hindustan Times
29 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Why Donald Trump is wrong to take over the DC police
AMERICA'S CAPITAL city was designed as a showcase for its democracy: sweeping boulevards, white-marble palaces of administration, monuments aplenty. This week, however, Washington, DC has become a manifestation of something less inspiring: the grandstanding instincts of the current president. This time, Donald Trump's preoccupation is violent crime. Mr Trump has been banging this drum for decades. 'Roving bands of wild criminals roam our neighbourhoods dispensing their own brand of twisted hatred,' warned Mr Trump nearly 40 years ago. The occasion then was the rape and assault of a white woman in New York's Central Park, for which five black and Hispanic men were later wrongfully convicted. On August 11th Mr Trump all but quoted himself: 'Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged-out maniacs and homeless people,' he said from the White House briefing room. Then he deployed the National Guard to Washington; took control of its police force; and promised to 'get rid of the slums' and clear out its homeless population. This is not the president's first use of the armed forces for civilian law enforcement in a city that reviles him and that he reviles right back. Earlier this summer Mr Trump sent National Guard troops to protect federal property during protests over immigration raids in Los Angeles. In 2020 he ordered them to disperse Black Lives Matter demonstrators in Washington. In neither instance did local Democratic leaders ask for his intervention. Now Mr Trump hints that the Washington deployment could be a blueprint for other troublesome (ie, Democratic-run) places. That will be easier said than done, however. The capital has an unusual legal status as a territory of the federal government granted qualified home rule. Elsewhere the president would face more legal impediments. The practical impact of the president's order may be modest. He has authorised the DC National Guard—which is tiny—to act as cops. About 200 troops will support law enforcement. By law his control of the city police can last for only 30 days; after that Congress would need to extend it. It is a far cry from a federal takeover of Washington. Seeking to justify his order, Mr Trump cited several awful attacks against government workers. In early August carjackers beat up and bloodied a former DOGE staffer. In June stray gunfire killed a congressional intern. Last year an official at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission was shot to death in a carjacking. In 2023 a Senate aide was stabbed and a congressman was robbed at gunpoint. 'It's becoming a situation of complete and total lawlessness,' said Mr Trump, likening the capital to Baghdad and Bogotá. The president is right that violent crime in Washington surged in 2023 and that it numbers among the most dangerous cities in America. He neglected to say that crime there has since tumbled. This year's murder rate is falling towards the pre-pandemic trend. The number of carjackings, which doubled between 2022 and 2023, is declining too, though they are still more frequent than they were before the pandemic. Overall the capital is considerably safer than it was in the 1990s, when it had the highest murder rate in the country, and it is a bit less dangerous than it was a decade ago. Mr Trump's action will irk the 700,000-odd citizens of Washington, whose elected government is being sidelined. And it is hypocritical. Mr Trump and his fellow Republicans in Congress have been impeding the city government, preventing it from spending the taxes it has raised and forcing cuts to services like policing. Republicans have thus exacerbated Washington's crime problem. Mr Trump's focus on the city over more violent ones is not just because he can see it from his bedroom window. It is because the federal government retains more authority over the capital than over states or even other federal territories. The president commands the DC National Guard—in states, governors have that job—and he can take temporary control over the police department. Washington's unique status means these same tactics cannot easily be replicated outside the capital. To 'federalise' the National Guard for arrest purposes elsewhere—to empower troops to act as cops—Mr Trump would have to invoke the Insurrection Act. Only then can the armed forces legally be put to use to quell a domestic uprising. The act was last used in 1992. Invoking it again would be immensely controversial. Mr Trump's approach in Washington, then, is clever when viewed through a lawyer's lens. Which is not to say that his order is justified or good policy. Stay on top of American politics with The US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important political news, and Checks and Balance, a weekly note from our Lexington columnist that examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.
