Myth verses Reality of Indian Polity

 

Debunking Myths About India's First Prime Minister: Setting the Record Straight on Nehru's Legacy

Vidya Bhushan Rawat

Recent social media posts have sparked controversy by claiming that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has surpassed Indira Gandhi’s uninterrupted tenure as India’s prime minister. These narratives conveniently omit that Indira Gandhi served not only from 1966 to 1977 but also from 1980 until her tragic assassination on October 31, 1984. More disturbingly, some have falsely labeled Jawaharlal Nehru as an “unelected” prime minister from 1946 to 1952, alleging he swore allegiance to the British Crown rather than the Indian Constitution. Such claims, often propagated by ideologically driven groups, distort India’s political history and undermine the legacy of its freedom struggle. This article sets the record straight by examining the facts surrounding Nehru’s tenure and the interim government of 1946–47.

The Interim Government of 1946: A Diverse Coalition

The interim government, formed on September 2, 1946, under Jawaharlal Nehru’s leadership, was a critical step in India’s transition to independence. It was not a unilateral appointment but a coalition reflecting India’s diverse political landscape. The first cabinet included:

1. Jawaharlal Nehru – Vice-President of the Executive Council, External Affairs & Commonwealth Relations
2. Vallabhbhai Patel – Home Affairs, Information & Broadcasting
3. Baldev Singh – Defence
4. John Matthai – Finance
5. C. Rajagopalachari – Education
6. C.H. Bhabha – Commerce
7. Rajendra Prasad – Food & Agriculture
8. Asaf Ali – Transport & Railways
9. Jagjivan Ram – Labour
10. Sarat Chandra Bose – Works, Mines & Power (resigned; replaced by Vallabhbhai Patel)
11. Syed Ali Zaheer – Law
12. Cooverji Hormusji Bhabha – Commerce (later handled Works, Mines & Power)

On October 26, 1946, the Muslim League joined, adding members like Liaquat Ali Khan (Finance), I.I. Chundrigar (Commerce), Abdur Rab Nishtar (Posts & Air), Ghazanfar Ali Khan (Health), and Jogendra Nath Mandal (Law, representing Scheduled Castes). This coalition, formed under British oversight, required all members to take an oath of allegiance to their office, administered by the Viceroy. There is no evidence suggesting Nehru’s oath differed from that of his colleagues, including Patel or Mandal.

The First Cabinet of Independent India

After independence on August 15, 1947, Nehru led India’s first cabinet, sworn in under Governor-General Lord Mountbatten. This cabinet was equally diverse, comprising:

1. Jawaharlal Nehru – Prime Minister, External Affairs & Commonwealth Relations, Scientific Research
2. Vallabhbhai Patel – Home Affairs, Information & Broadcasting, States
3. Baldev Singh – Defence
4. Rajendra Prasad – Food & Agriculture
5. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad – Education
6. John Matthai – Railways & Transport
7. Rafi Ahmed Kidwai – Communications
8. Rajkumari Amrit Kaur – Health
9. B.R. Ambedkar – Law
10. R.K. Shanmukham Chetty – Finance
11. Syama Prasad Mookerjee – Industry & Supply
12. C.H. Bhabha – Commerce
13. Jagjivan Ram – Labour
14. N.V. Gadgil – Works, Mines & Power

This cabinet included luminaries like Patel, Ambedkar, and Mookerjee, all of whom took the same oath of office as Nehru. Claims that Nehru alone swore allegiance to the British Crown are baseless and lack documentary evidence. The oath was a standard procedure for all ministers during the transitional period.

Debunking the “Unelected” Myth

The assertion that Nehru was an “unelected” prime minister from 1946 to 1952 is a gross misrepresentation. The interim government was formed following the 1946 provincial elections, where the Indian National Congress secured a significant mandate. Nehru was chosen as the leader by elected representatives, not appointed by the British. The Constituent Assembly, tasked with drafting India’s Constitution, was also elected indirectly through provincial assemblies. To dismiss Nehru’s leadership as “unelected” is to question the legitimacy of the entire Constituent Assembly, including the contributions of figures like Ambedkar, who drafted the Constitution, and Patel, who unified the princely states.

The transfer of power was a gradual process, beginning in the 1930s with the Government of India Act, 1935, which introduced provincial autonomy and elections. The Indian National Congress boycotted the 1930 elections but participated fully in 1937 and 1946, winning majorities in most provinces. Nehru’s appointment as head of the interim government and later as India’s first prime minister was rooted in this democratic mandate, not British fiat.

The RSS and Historical Revisionism

Certain groups, often aligned with the RSS, have propagated narratives that vilify Nehru while ignoring the collective contributions of his contemporaries. These narratives falsely single out Nehru for taking an oath of allegiance, conveniently ignoring that Patel, Mookerjee, and others took the same oath. Such selective storytelling aims to discredit Nehru’s legacy while whitewashing the contributions of others who worked alongside him.

The claim that Nehru was solely responsible for post-independence challenges is equally misleading. The partition, communal violence, and economic difficulties were complex issues tackled by the entire cabinet. Patel’s role in integrating princely states, Ambedkar’s work on the Constitution, and Azad’s contributions to education were integral to India’s early years. To pin all failures on Nehru while ignoring the collective responsibility of his cabinet is intellectually dishonest.

A Unified Vision for India

Nehru, Patel, Ambedkar, and their contemporaries had differences, as is natural in a democracy. However, they shared a commitment to a secular, democratic, and inclusive India. Their debates—whether between Nehru and Patel on governance or Nehru and Ambedkar on social reforms—were rooted in a shared vision for a united nation. The Constitution, a product of their collective efforts, embodies this vision with its emphasis on secularism, socialism, and republican democracy.

Critics who reject secularism or socialism as foundational principles are, in effect, challenging the very framework of India’s Constitution. The freedom struggle, led by these leaders, was not a gift from the British but a hard-won victory through decades of sacrifice. To reduce it to petty political point-scoring is to diminish the legacy of India’s independence movement.

Conclusion

India’s rise as a global power owes much to the visionary leadership of Nehru, Patel, Ambedkar, and others who laid its foundation. Distorting their contributions for political gain undermines the nation’s history and the sacrifices of its freedom fighters. Nehru was not an unelected leader imposed by the British; he was a democratically chosen prime minister who led a diverse cabinet through tumultuous times. The facts are clear: Nehru, like his colleagues, took the same oath, worked for the same nation, and shared the same dream of a free, inclusive India. Let us honor their legacy by embracing truth over propaganda. Moreover, it is equally important that a prime minister might have a short tenure but might be much more respected for his life. Two of India's greatest prime ministers were Lal Bahadur Shastri and Vishwanath Pratap Singh and their term was limited but when history was written then their role as political leaders, their simplicity of life, honesty of ideology would always be remembered. Let us be clear that a nation wil not count days and years of somebody's prime ministership. Leaders remain in our heart with the empathy they have for people and the vision for the future which is inclusive in nature and respect for diversity, liberal values and social justice. 

Colonialism and Christianity in Colombia

 

Remnants of the colonial past in Colombia and liberation theology of Abya Yalla

Vidya Bhushan Rawat

 

 

Colonialism spread all over the world not by merely subjugating the native and indigenous communities physically but also suppressing their culture and language while imposing its own value system. The impact of Church and Christianity in spreading the European order in Latin America is well known but always kept as ‘international secret’.  It is also a fact that the later stage, Church became the biggest force in bringing peace and order in the country. It also became the symbol of the resistance against the colonial power. The beautiful church that I visited in central Bogota, also witness to various processes of change that Colombia had undergone since 15^th century till date. Established by some Spanish merchants later it becomes the symbol of Colombian national identity.

Veracruz

Church of the Veracruz stand taller near the Bolivar Square and is a reminder of the history of Christianity in Colombia. My dear friend Juan Manuel Quinche, took time off from his busy schedule to accompany me to have a city walk in the old Spanish area of Bogota. Apart from the grand Bolivar Square and lively streets, this Church is known for its grandeur and historical connection with Colombia’s independent movement. It started in 1631 with Veracruz Brotherhood

This church is actually the national identity of Colombia as num

erous heroes of the independent movement are buried there. It is said that between June and November 1816, approximately 80 heroes of Colombia's independence were shot dead during the Spanish reconquest and were buried in this church, since the Brotherhood of Veracruz was responsible for assisting those executed and burying them in the grave of this church.

Inside church looked more amazing. It is a history church that way. Flags of different countries ‘emerged out’ of Gran Colombia are flying high apart from a Vatican Flag. Interestingly, Gran Colombia included Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Panama.

Juan gives me the details, ‘the flags, from left to right, those correspond, to Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, (I think the yellow and white is one from the dioceses -which is the religious territorial authority elected by the Pope-), Colombia, Venezuela and I think Chile of what I remember. They are the flags of what intended to be 'The big Colombia', the big nation promoted by Simón Bolívar and other liberators that followed him. And as Veracruz was a church where the many heroes of the independence war were buried, those flags are also a memory of that idea’.

A military person too, is there inside the church, as this is an important national monument. Arnold Perez, welcome me and Juan. He can’t speak English but Juan act as my interpreter. ‘Where are you from and what made you visit here’, he says. I am from India and want to see this historical church. ‘Are you a Christian, he asks. I am a humanist and respect all the faiths, I said. I have tremendous respect for the Christians for the amount of work they have done in our country, I says particularly in the field of health, education and developmental work. Arnold, give me details about how important this church is in the life of Colombian people as it is witness to the resistance movement against the colonial power. I tell him that it is a grand church and beautiful one. I proudly show us the Vatican flag too. He listens to my interaction carefully and feel humbled by my appreciation. Finally, he says, ‘All religion speak of peace and equality’. He tells Juan to show me other places too.

It is evening time so there is not much public inside the church but there are several individuals who are there praying with their heads bowed down. Suddenly, an old woman appears in front of the idol of Jesus Christ. She bows for some moment and then come towards me. I don’t know what she wanted but she just holds my hand. With tears in her eyes, she asks me to pray for the well being of the leader of opposition in her country who had been shot at a couple of days earlier. I told her that I am from India but definitely wish the leader early recovery.

Though Simon Bolivar is the most iconic leader of this country yet in the modern time, it is Gabriel Garcia Marquez who made Colombia known in our part of the world with his extraordinary writings. Just a few hundred meters away from the famous Bolivar square is a beautiful library and Book shop in memory of Marquez. What impressed me in the streets in and around Bolivar Square was the numerous books being sold which suggest that literary tradition flourishing in this part of the world.

 

 

Plazoleta Del Rosario

As I walk through the lively yet crowded streets in and around the Bolivar Square, I come across beautiful traditional Spanish style houses. As we walk onward, it is Rosario Square or locally known as Plazoleta del Rosario established on August 6^th, 1974 to remember the ‘Spanish heritage’ of the city. In 2017, the government of Colombia put it in historical perspective with installing a statue of ‘founder’ of Bogota Gonzalo Jimenez de Quesada. There was no statue now. When I was taking some photograph of this place, suddenly Juan narrated me an interesting story. He says that this place has a tall statue of Gonzalo Jiménez de Quesada, considered to be the founder of Bogota. On May 7, 2021, a wide protest by an indigenous community protested against government policies and toppled the statue. Perhaps, that was the time when anti colonial protests in various places in the United States too found, idols and statues of various European ‘explorers’ in USA, UK and elsewhere got demolished by indigenous communities as well as other such native movement who felt that all these European explorers were not really ‘explorer’ but oppressors of the native indigenous communities. Juan says, Gonzalo Jiménez de Quesasa was a Spanish conqueror that proclaimed himself a founder of Bogotá, on August 6, 1538, as Santa Fe de Bogotá (a city that was actually founded over an indigenous Muisca territory called Bacatá). He and his acquaintances decided to change the name and to initially put it 'Santa Fe de Bogotá' (like The Holy faith of Bogotá). He is also known for being one of those who participated in El Dorado (The Gold) search, which means an exploration where they tried to search a ton of gold under the water and in the territory nearby to Bacata (with the stealing s and dispossession s associated to it). Gold and mineral exploration was one of the basic targets of those who voyaged through Antarctic Ocean to reach this part of the world. Moreover, that exploration would not have been possible without dispossessing the native communities. Juan is a human right defender who has studied in Sweden and Norway but his heart is in defending his native people’s rights as his parents belong to the peasantry.

Juan says, during COVID-19 times, the was a national riot because of the injustices that came to be more explicit due to the pandemic. Bogotá was once the centers for protests against the extreme right government which we had at that time. Indigenous communities came and joined protest from different social classes. On that scenario they were protesting once in the main downtown squares and in the one where Gonzalo de Jiménez was -which is located just in front of the Rosario University (i.e. one of the most conservative universities in our country, where many of our former presidents became lawyers)-, a group decided to take down the statue of Gonzalo Jiménez de Quezada, as it was happening in other parts of the country. Due to the popularity of the action, some of the people tried to call the main avenue which was next to it Misak Avenue (which is the name of one of the indigenous groups that participated in taking down the statue) instead of Jiménez Avenue, as it was called before. Nowadays the statue hasn't come back, mainly because we don't want it there at all. Citizenship wouldn't let it to arrive once again’.

Actually, when people face brutalities of the system for long, they realise that the system they have inherited is over 200 years old and therefore all those who are the symbols of those injustices face the wrath of the people, resulting in the ‘breaking’ of those ‘statues. While this is a debatable issue whether people should be demolishing those symbols of wrongs or oppression but it is a fact that they have survived for long because of the patronage of the ruling elite.

Explorers or Invaders

Colombia was named after Christopher Columbus even when he did not travel this country, it is named after him and this explains how the history of a country is erased or reconstructed. Christopher Columbas Day is celebrated on Second Monday to commemorate the arrival of the explorer in the Americas on October 12^th, 1492. The popular narrative imposed on us is that Columbus ‘discovered’ America as if it did not exist before 1492.

It was almost the same time when Vasco Da Gama arrived in India from Lisbon, Portugal on May 20^th, 1498 on the cost of Calicut in Kerala. For years, we were given to memorise the story that it was Vasco Da Gama who ‘discovered’ India. Again, the same question as if India did not exist before that. Now, Europe had knowledge, power and understanding. They were writing our history and ‘teaching’ us ‘culture’ too but now people have realized and that is why they question. The native historians everywhere can’t term these people as merely ‘explorer’ but invaders and oppressors. The Indigenous students in various Universities all over the world are now seeking explanation and many decided not to celebrate ‘Columbus Day’ but as Indigenous People’s Day. History has become the crucial factor to build our future. Colonialists used it for their benefit and now the ‘nationalists’ too doing the same. However, history can give us good lesson as we do not live in history but can build our future based on the lessons we have from these incidents.

Just on the back of this historical structure, we are at the gates of a university known as Universidad del Rosario, initially known as Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario was established on October 19. 1653 by Fray Cristóbal de Torres, Archbishop of Santafé de Bogotá. The University is considered to be the oldest university in Columbia and has a strong catholic root brought by the Spanish colonisers. It was started as a college to educate the Spanish settlers with particular aim in governance and theology. So, governance and religion went together to protect the colonial interests. In 1704, it was converted into full university offering courses on law, theology and Philosophy. The university became the biggest ‘coaching’ centre for the European American settler elite in Colombia who influenced political and cultural lives of Colombia. It was really not the place where the native indigenous people could study. The University was clearly a colonial project to provide elite government officers for running the country.

Juan says, ‘the Universidad del Rosario was founded in 1653 by Friar Cristóbal de Torres, is one of the oldest institutions of higher education in Colombia. It is one of the universities that historically defended the conservative side of the Catholic Church, as well as its approach to education. Since its inception, it has sought to hold its classes in a cloistered setting and present itself as an educational center for the country's political elite. Proof of this is that the Universidad del Rosario has had nine Colombian presidents as graduates, making it the university with the most presidents in the country. It was so conservative that the Universidad Externado was created in 1886 to represent a private university more open to the public. It has also attempted to limit the use of public space; for example, they planted bushes around the statue in front of it (which was later torn down) where students from other popular universities would gather. Now, given its poor results in international exams and corruption scandals, one of its 'most reputable' careers, which is law, today has one of the lowest enrollment rates in known private universities.’

This is how the colonial projects worked. Assault people, control their education, deny them quality education, create a servile class which could protect the interest of the Spanish empire and suppress it further from the massive religious propaganda in the rural areas through religion as ‘liberation theology’. The protests or rebellion was brutally suppressed. And it was not merely physical oppression or suppression but also emotional enslavement too. Here religion played in important role as it came as ‘liberator’ for the oppressed also. For years, the indigenous people were not allowed to have ‘communion’ but it was Fray Cristóbal de Torres, who governed this Archbishopric in 1636, that is, one hundred years after the Spanish European conquest, was the first to resolve to grant Communion to the native Indians.

Unbroken structure of the Colonial Empire and vision of a Greater Colombia

Ironically, the biggest hero of the anti-colonial movement in Colombia Simon Bolivar. named his country as Colombia. Bolivar Square has the powerful standing statue of Simon Bolivar who dreamt of a Greater Colombia which include present day Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Panama as its core constituent but his vision was to unite and organize the entire Spanish speaking territories under one umbrella that included certain parts of Peru as well as Bolivia but it was not possible due various internal rivalries and issues. Bolivar passed away in 1830 and idea of a Greater Colombia got dissolved in 1831 with the formation of different states. Bogota’s most popular public square is dedicated to Simon Bolivar and it is named as Bolivar Square and is surrounded by various historical buildings, a cathedral and old markets.  It was declared a Colombian National Monument on October 19, 1995. It was built in 1539 under the name Plaza Mayor and was also the place where the Independence Cry was proclaimed on July 20, 1810. There is a bronze statue of Simon Bolivar created by the Italian artist Pietro Tenerani in 1846. This is considered to be the first public monument of Bogota city.

While Simon Bolivar is undoubtedly the greatest anti colonial hero almost revered in this part of the world yet like many other former colonies, his administration too functioned on the foundation of the former colonial empires. When you have bigger focus on ‘external’ things, there is little time for resolving domestic crisis. The result was Colombia faced bigger challenges at the domestic front with inequality grew rapidly and urban elite of ‘settlers’ continue to control the land resources of the country. The result was violent insurgency all over the country in the form of communist armed resistance which got subdued only once the government signed a Peace Accord with them in 2016 with active support and assistance from Cuba.

Liberation theology of Abya Yala

It was important for the church to delink itself from the horrific past and its association with the colonial regime that inflicted greater wound on the psyche of the native communities particularly the Indigenous people in the Latin America. By associating with the masses and their struggle, the Church was able to win the heart of the people and today won the confidence of the former Communists too.

As the church does not have a glorious history everywhere particularly in this region but by continuous association with the local communities helped it continuously evolved over the years. It might have come as an agent of the colonial powers at many places but it continues to grow at its own and provided space to the dissenting voices and that is how the church in Colombia became the symbol of National liberation as well as national integration. Today, it also has presence among the indigenous communities who speak up against the colonial project. I call it the power of Christianity which learn and unlearn many things over the year and stood up with the most marginalized. It is no surprising that Vatican and Popes have spoken openly against the violence. Despite Western hypocrisy on Gaza and Palestine issue, it is Pope who stood taller and condemn the invasion on Gaza and spoke for the rights of the marginalized elsewhere. That way, Christianity liberated itself from being mouthpiece of the western empires and found accepted from the most marginalized world over.

In the Latin America, Christianity is trying to somehow dissociate with the power history of the colonial empire which erased native culture, traditions and languages of the native people here. The church is now ‘reframing the Christian message grounded in the people and not power, grounded in ancestry, not acclaim, and grounded in historical context, not in silence’[i].  

As the Indigenous communities in the Americas are exposing the barbarianism of the colonialism and looking for their ancestry and feeling proud of it so are the Christians attempting to be part of the side of the native. Today, the term ‘Abya Yala is used by the indigenous ethnic communities in north and South America to refer to the landmasses generally known as the Americas/America. Abya Yala is a term derived from the Guna language of the Kuna people indigenous to Panama and Colombia translating to ‘land of fertile blood’. Although exclusively originating within the indigenous Kuna people of Panama and Colombia, Abya Yala is also used by several contemporary indigenous people such as the Mapuche of Chile, the Quechua of Peru and the Mexica of Mexico’[ii].

As the issue of Abya Yala gain traction among the native indigenous people across the Latin America, the Church too have developed a Abya Yala theology which accordingly ‘is Christian thought analyzed through a decolonizing lens and embracing a multicultural and multiethnic continent, from which God speaks and liberates all from colonized oppression.[iii]’

Christianity in the beginning was ‘Inextricably linked with colonial and settler thinking is the vision of land and nature as a resource that exists only for extractive purposes. However, understanding Abya Yala Theology is reimagining the harmonious relationship between the land, their children, and all creation’[iv].

Perhaps being part of Abya Yala’s native people’s identity and assertion issues, Christianity is rediscovering itself in the oppressed communities and regions where their track record has been nothing but an enabler of plunder, loot and destruction of the identity and civilization of the indigenous people by the Colonizers.  Today, it is standing hand in hand with the oppressed masses of Colombia and working towards an everlasting peace that follow the framework of Abya Yala.

References:

---

[i]  Yenny Delgado and Claudio Ramirez, Abya Yala Theology, Decolonizing the Christian message from a native perspective,  https://publicatheology.org/2022/04/06/abya-yala-theology/

 

[ii] https://library.cfa.harvard.edu/abya-yala

 

[iii] Yenny Delgado and Claudio Ramirez, Abya Yala Theology, Decolonizing the Christian message from a native perspective,  https://publicatheology.org/2022/04/06/abya-yala-theology/

[iv] do

Why I support categorisation in reservation for Scheduled castes : Ish Kumar Gangania, Author and Editor, Samay Sangyan

Let us Unite, Hug each other tightly and support the cause of the marginalised

Ish Kumar Gangania is a well-respected author, thinker and editor based in Delhi. He is known for his blunt and to the point responses. Gangania has written enormously on India’s rationalist traditions of Ajeevak and Lokayat. With over 25 books published so far including Collections of Poetry, short stories and one novel, the latest in this series is his autobiographical work ‘Main Aur Mera Gireban’. He has been sub-editor of the renowned Hindi quarterly Journal ‘Apeksha’ for over eight years and Editor of ‘Aajivak Vision’ a bilingual monthly magazine. Presently, He is working as the editor of ‘Samay Sangyan’ a quarterly Hindi journal, carrier of Ambedkarite philosophy and literary criticism.

Ish Kumar Gangania explains an Ambedkarite response to the issue of Classification of reservation as per Supreme Court verdict, in this wide ranging conversation with Vidya Bhushan Rawat.

 

What is your reaction to the Supreme Court's decision on the classification of SC-ST reservation?

 

 

The responses at first glance to this decision have heated the atmosphere. There is a strange noise everywhere, an atmosphere of rumors that the Supreme Court has abolished reservation. They go around like, ‘The Supreme Court has played with reservation with the current government's support’. ‘It is part of the process of ending the reservation’. However, it can be termed as completely irresponsible statement, a rhetoric. I agree with Yogendra Yadav's comment, 'Reservation has not ended with this decision but has become stronger.' It is today's truth; it cannot be denied. If tomorrow, it becomes a tool to find an opportunity in a disaster then anything can happen. But we should also not forget that the present era is an era of rumors, building conspiracy theories and immorality being presented as morality. Similarly, treason being presented as patriotism. Often, the truth does not reach the innocent masses of the country as the masks of political masters or the media that have mortgaged themselves for the flattery alone in the name of journalists. If we look at the current episode with this perspective of suspicion, then the court's decision has come at such a time when there are elections in some of the states. It’s simple meaning is that the people who had turned against the current system can be used again to find opportunities in disaster based on flowery speeches and rhetoric.

 

In such a situation, the so-called leaders of the society come to the election battlefield with new masks to trade the innocent people's Sentiments, trade their votes and become magnets fit for the feet of Khadi-clad actors. If we understand the current decision of the Supreme Court on reservation in simple terms, during the hearing of the case by the 7-judge bench on August 1, DY Chandrachud clearly said that just as OBCs have been classified into backward and most backward classes, similarly, while giving their opinion, 4 out of 7 judges have opined that such a system can be opted about SC-ST so that substantial equality can be ensured. Substantial equality means those deprived of the benefits of the reservation should get a sub-quota to compensate for the loss the previous provisions failed to provide. This decision is not binding, and the court has issued guidelines to the states to ensure justice reasonably. The process ensured must be transparent and free from anomalies. As far as the issue of the creamy layer is concerned, almost all the political parties have opposed it and considered it impractical and against the essential spirit of reservation mentioned in the constitution. The second issue of this decision is the issue of sub-categorisation of reservations.

 

The people from SC-ST who benefited from the previously existing reservation provisions are angry, rather out of their mind. Those deprived of the benefits of early reservation perks for years are naturally happy and should be. I am not in favour of naming castes; hence, I have been in favour of subdivision of reservation for the poor of the poorest for years. It may sound bitter, but the person or group of persons, against the current provisions of subcategorisation, must be devoid of empathy and other human qualities. Great thinkers who claim to be staunch Ambedkarites should understand that their arguments to counter the subcategorisation of reservation quota have no other flavour than arguments that the so-called upper caste society always kept on reciting against Dr Ambedkar during the freedom movement. When Baba Saheb raised his voice for social justice, the people of the upper strata accused him of going against the freedom movement. They called him anti-freedom movement. It was not enough to satisfy their ego; they accused Dr Ambedkar of being a supporter/puppet of the British. He was even accused of being a traitor to the country. What we see happening today is that the leading Dalit communities, significant lion beneficiaries share of reservation quota, are reacting like those who were blaming Baba Sahab, the most selfish, heartless and the person who had no sentiments for Indian freedom and unity of the freedom fighters. The potential beneficiaries of the subcategorisation of the new reservation provisions are being suspected and looked upon as enemies. I can say with full responsibility that whatever absurd things the leading Dalits are engaged in against the so-called poor Dalits in the name of Ambedkarism can never be Ambedkarites. It is painful to mention that Dr Ambedkar coined the term 'fissiparous', i.e. dualists for those who show malicious feelings, I mean vomit venom. No genuine Ambedkarite can stand with such a poor person.

 

 While most parties have openly opposed the creamy layer principle, the divisions among Dalit groups are now out in the open. Numerically strong communities insist that classification should not be allowed, but marginalised communities like the Balmikis or the traditionally manual scavenging communities, the Mushahars, Doms, and Madigas, are adamant that they should get separate quotas. What is your view on this?

 

Firstly, talking about the creamy layer is pointless, as it still needs to be achieved in Dalit society. Secondly, it is inevitable that everyone is undoubtedly against the creamy layer and wants it to be implemented differently. Almost all political parties have also reacted against it. However, the most controversial issue is sub classification. The agitating lawyers of the Supreme Court do not consider it a decision as per the constitution as they consider it a decision based on personal opinion of the judges. That is why they say, "We want the opinion of the constitution. We do not want any judgment based on opinion. (By the way, everyone knows that in the Ayodhya case, the Constitutional Bench had considered the demolition of Babri Masjid a criminal act, but the decision came based on public opinion/sentiments. Such opinion/sentiments-based activities, which have increased a lot these days, do not favour the basic spirit of the constitution. It seems against the rule of the constitution.  During their protest, they also made a fallacious argument: "If they (judiciary) are concerned about the Valmikis, why don't they make the daily wages/temporary jobs existing more than 10-20 years, permanent? Why have they been kept on contract for years?"

Dalit writer, Chandrabhan Prasad says, 'this sub-classification is a campaign against the Chamar and Mahar regiments'. He further adds that ‘If sub-classification occurs, Chamar, Mahar etc., will not take an interest in the struggle for reservation, and the reservation will end’. He believes if Chamar befalls weak, the reservation will end, or it will go beyond protection. He accepts that division has already happened at the subconscious and mental levels. In his flow, Chandrabhan Prasad does not escape from being included in the category of sophistry in glorifying the leading castes of Dalits. He says - 'Pasi community used to have more land than Chamars. Brahmin class used to go to the Pasi community for Katha and weddings. When the Valmiki community, Dhobi community and Khatik community got money, they became happy with that much; but they did not move forward much towards education.' These arguments are the arguments that casteist/dominant society has been using to break the morale of the marginalised society. He tries to establish 'How hardworking we are and how useless you are.' I am helpless for not being restricted from commenting on this attitude of Mr Prasad, which sounds anti-Ambedkarism.

Mr Prasad is on cloud nine due to his arrogance, and he teaches Ambedkarism on the following lines—'First of all, people of Chamar, Jatav, Dohre, Ravidas, Mahar, Mala castes considered Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar as an ideal and paid maximum attention to education. Because earlier, the calendars bearing Baba Saheb's photo were mostly hung in the houses of Chamar, Mahar, and Mala castes, and the calendars had painted them - 'Educate, Agitate and Organize.' The Mantra of education reached the people concerned, and they enjoyed the fruit. Baba Saheb Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar's thoughts mean attending school, college, and university. When there is education, you will develop. Those who became Ambedkarites, left behind many evils that were prevalent in society. When they left those dirty jobs, they also faced livelihood problems, so they went to big cities like Delhi, Ghaziabad, Mumbai, Calcutta, etc., worked in big factories, and kept educating their children.' Here, I have an innocent question for Prasad Sahab - 'Why did the Ambedkarites not ideologically educate and train the castes and communities constantly lagging in society? Shouldn't it be assumed that the upper castes of the Dalit society treated these backward castes with untouchability like the so-called upper castes? Why did they not play the role of an elder brother? Now, when sub-categorisation has come up, why oppose it? Chandrabhan Prasad categorically states that if they had adopted Ambedkarism, they would also have been with the advanced Dalits. I want to clarify this point: If the poor Dalits could have followed Baba Sabab, like Mr Prasad, they would have shared reservation benefits like the other leading castes of Dalits. In that case, they could have a larger share in their favour. Naturally, the leading Dalits would have lost enough of what they possess today due to weaker sections' awareness. But now, when the time has come to share reservations after so many years, why so much hue, and cry on sub classification? I don't find any logic or morality in opposing the beneficiaries of the subcategories in the reservation. When Ambedkarites are constantly fighting against the casteist character of Indian society, then what is the compulsion of Prasad Saheb that he is bound to teach the alphabet of casteism to the potential beneficiaries of sub-classification reservation? It is fair enough if the intellectuals respect the public sentiments, and They must leave the folly of duping the public solely for the politicians.

 

A study reveals, "Despite getting equal reservation opportunities in education and jobs, a group of castes has lagged, has not been able to progress, while a tiny group of other castes in the same category has progressed a lot. After this decision, it is now possible for the state governments to sub-categorise the SC castes in their states. And decide how the reservation given to SC should reach among the SC castes. Some castes will now get preferential treatment, those who need it. I request Mr Chandrabhan and his opinion makers not to issue Fatwas like – 'The fighting Dalit castes against Manuism/Manuvadies in different states are aware of their rights. If such castes get separated, then definitely in 10-20 years, the reservation will get abolished in the name of 'Not Found Suitable (NFS)'. I think the beneficiaries of sub-categorisation are not the obstacles in the unity of Ambedkar's 'Broken People'. The problem is that the intellectuals repeatedly revisited casteist sophistry.

 

 

 

There is no doubt that the fight for jobs, especially in the government sector, only shows how much we depend on them, while it is a known fact that these jobs have gone down to zero since the 1990s. Privatisation is increasing, and public sector undertakings have been made available for sale to private entities. LIC, nationalised banks, and railways are also moving towards privatisation, but we have never heard strong voices from intellectuals and leaders except for a few exceptions. Leftist trade unions have started the most significant fight against these, but in most cases, SC/ST trade unions feel uncomfortable working with them. Privatisation began in the 1990s, but we did not hear much opposition from Ambedkarite groups. Some of them supported it.

 

Rawat ji, you are correct that these jobs have significantly reduced after the 1990s. However, there have been miserable conditions of unemployment since 2014. Everyone knows what is being sold to end reservations, to whom it is being sold, and why it is being sold. Everyone also knows that the government has set a new trend to employ their faithful ones in the name of lateral entry, which prepares fertile ground for thousands of other beneficiaries and the government. Everyone knows of it and the implications of a 10 per cent special quota, which is a particular reservation for the upper caste society.  

 

Regarding demanding jobs or completing pending reservation quotas, Ambedkarites are of the same flesh and blood as justice advocates; when almost all the political parties are on their knees out of fear or something else, and when the world-renowned and influential farmers' movement has nearly lost its foothold, how can Ambedkarites dare to face the insensitive government to claim their rights for jobs? As far as the question of Ambedkarites' cooperation in the movement with leftist trade unions is concerned, Ambedkarites could not win the trust of the leftists even today, as the question of caste appears almost dumb in the leftist movement.

 

Another big reason may be that Ambedkarites also present excellent examples of blind devotion to Baba Sahab. For example – 'On 12.12.1945 in Nagpur, Dr Ambedkar criticised the Marxists because they talked about joining the Congress instead of forming a separate party of their workers. He says – Beware of the Communists. The Scheduled Caste Federation is the only true representative organisation of the Scheduled Castes.' There can be many more examples of Baba Saheb discussing separating himself from Marxists on other socio-political issues. For the self-proclaimed Ambedkarites, such things are like a line set in stone; even if Dr Ambedkar returns alive and claims to change the line/stand, he couldn't.

 

In the current scenario of sub classification, the so-called Ambedkarites are holding on to the same line, claiming that ‘if Baba wanted, he could have arranged separate reservations for Mahars, but he didn't. How can they accept subcategorisation? It would be against the unity of the broken people, the Dalits’. However, the existing Ambedkarites, could do much on the issue of sub-divisions if it could favour them in terms of profit. They seem to be better bargainers than Dr Baba Sahab Ambedkar, who devoted his life to uplifting society and humanity rather than his personal monetary and positional gains hence, they will do nothing about the reservation or sub-division.

 

Could the politicians and intellectuals have done more to assuage the feelings of those communities who feel neglected in the entire reservation structure? Are these intellectuals behaving like spokespersons of political parties? Today, the Dalit movement seems wholly divided, and the marginalised groups feel that the most prominent villains in their development are their brothers and sisters.

 

This is a matter worth highlighting in itself. There is an undeclared agreement between the politicians and the intellectuals (I am not talking about exceptions). Their world has left them confined to scratching each other's backs. Therefore, there is no reliable standard for their language, intellect, and morality. Prasad Ji believes - 'Some castes are very happy about the categorization. They should understand that if the Chamar, Mahar, and Mala community becomes weak, then who will fight. Those who are pretending to work in favour of Dalits and say that the sub-categorisation is right, such people are the ones who applaud if a Dalit rides a donkey and shower lathis on him if a Dalit rides a horse.'

 

He further explains, ‘Even today, people from the Dalit communities have to struggle to enter a temple. They have to fight when they ride a horse as a groom. They have an issue if a Dalit grows a good moustache and they fight with him’. And he warns, ‘all of you should get the reservation completed first otherwise, no matter how powerful you are, you will have no power. When even the president of the country was not allowed to enter a temple, what could we have expected from such a society? What is to expect from the Supreme Court, which seems dominated by only one caste." The simple meaning of this is that the claimants of sub-division should leave the fight for sub-quota and start fighting to get the reservation completed. As a result, "there will be no issue of any controversy. Everything would go on the previous track, favouring the dominant castes. It is worth noting that whatever decisions the political parties make, they do so to ensure their vote bank. They have nothing to do with real/universal justice. Those who get elected to Parliament or Legislative Assemblies are also more or less beneficiaries of Dalit reservation quotas; that is why they are silent and want to continue reservation on the old track. Instead of speaking their language, they get the work done through their mouthpieces, i.e., the intellectuals/Ambenkarites. They are under pressure from their party bosses and their guidelines. It is a matter of bargaining for victory or defeat, not justice. They have to do politics by riding on the back of the public, not wiping their tears or applying ointment on their wounds, which they are not used to thinking of as their job. It reminds me of the situation of Muslims who have been sitting like an ostrich with their face buried in the sand for a long time and are silent even on mob-lynching; they are silent on the demolition of Babri Masjid. Despite knowing that the act of demolition of the Babri mosque was a criminal act, no one even uttered a word when the Supreme Court allowed the land to Ram agitators.

 

I think that, more or less today, the situation of the beneficiaries of the sub-categorisation of reservation has also become the same as that of Indian Muslims. We can say that the dominating marginalised groups feel the most prominent villains in their development are their brothers and sisters. They can neither swallow nor spit anything harrowing and unpleasant; now, it is time to decide how the camel turns its side. In such a fiery atmosphere, great thinkers like Chandrabhan, pointing towards the Valmikis about sub-classification, comment- 'They want to get guns for those who do not know how to use it.' This language of traditional casteists who are in the habit of such a language against the whole marginalised society ever since the reservation came into existence. Should readers decide whether our intellectuals pour petrol or water on the fire?

 

Leaving aside the fact that various communities have demanded sub-quotas, an old demand, why is there so much opposition? The entire focus of the dominant communities and their spokespersons has been that the Brahmins and upper castes are trying to divide them. Suppose the upper castes want divided SCs; what have these leaders and intellectuals done to bring them together? You cannot solve any problem by just blaming Brahmins for everything? Is it not Brahminism when you treat your brothers and sisters in the same way? You call them on your so-called news channels and humiliate them? Is this the way to bring equality and unity?

 

The issue of sub-classification is not new, according to one piece of information—'In 1975, the Giyani Jail Singh government of Congress in Punjab had decided to give half the quota of seats (first preference) in the SC category to Mazhabi Sikh and Valmiki castes, this continued till 2006, when the Punjab and Haryana Court put a stay on it. Then, a huge movement took place in Punjab against it. To keep the quota for Valmiki and Mazhabi Sikh, the Congress government of Amarinder Singh brought the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006.'

 

Another piece of information can also be shared in this context—' In 2010, on the challenge of Devinder Singh of Chamar Mahasabha, the High Court stayed Section 4(5) of giving 50% quota. In 2010, the Punjab government went to the Supreme Court. Then, this case went from a bench of 5 judges to a bench of 7 judges, and the hearing of this Devinder Singh vs Punjab Government case started in February 2024. In this case, the decision to give the state the freedom of classification came on August 1. The court can also investigate the status of castes given quota by the state.'

Let's look at reservations from the perspective of blogger Akash Singh (August 5 2024). India is one of the few countries where the right to equality became essential as soon as the constitution came into power. In many Western countries, discrimination based on skin colour or gender continued till modern times. After a long movement, the constitution was amended, new laws were made, and all citizens were considered equal. In India, people decided during the freedom movement that there would be no big or small after independence. That is why the right to equality was repeatedly discussed in Articles 14 to 18 when the constitution was introduced. It means that every person is equal in the eyes of the law and the government. Now, equality is an excellent principle. But it also has some effects.

 

The other more significant question is that we know that the casteists in front of us want to serve their interests by dividing us. It has been happening for centuries, and we are becoming its victims. The governments of our country also more or less come into power by dividing and fighting the people. There is no scope of doubt that Brahminists are like the monkeys sitting everywhere in society who cause the cats to fight and also eat all the bread that their cats share. In the context of Mayawati, Chandrabhan says - 'RSS is charging a compound interest from the Dalits.' Mr Prasad, on the other hand, claims-'No one can suppress Dalits.' I have never been in favour of blaming Brahminism for all the disputes. But when we know the character of the monkeys, it is our folly and stupidity that we let them take over our share of pieces of bread. But even the Ambedkarites, who call themselves enlightened according to the first principle of Baba Saheb, need to improve at the first step, i.e. 'Educate', 'Agitate', and 'Organize', are the issues to get settled automatically based on education. If we had education or had become educated in real spirit, the monkeys would not have dared to even look at our bread. Our hue and cry on the issue of sub-classification shows that we have surrendered before the monkeys and have not learnt anything even after getting educated.

 

I have some questions in this regard:

 

1. Today,  Chamar, Pasi, Mahar etc., are in the majority and comparatively robust, then why are they opposing reservation for the weaker Dalits? What is new in this divisive formula of the casteists, which has been in practice for centuries?

2. Has Man in India today not become just a 'caste' due to his ignorance, which is the root of all disputes?

3. Why are the politicians elected based on reservation silent? Why don't they have their own opinion or decisive voice?

4. Who conspires against India to call the Bharat Band without a solid identity, and how did they conceal their identities?

5. Who do all such dramas in the name of Dr. Ambedkar and Ambedkarism?

6. What is Mr Prasad's intention when he says - 'Chamars never surrendered. During the Second World War, when Hitler's Royal Army came, the authorities decided to send Chamars because they did not get the right to lift sticks/ Lathi. If they get rifles, they will defeat the enemy. That is why Chamar Regiment came into reality.' Chandrabhan should clarify- Whom does he want to give rifles today, which new regiment he intends to produce, and whom he wants to defeat in the war.' It must be the true Ambedkarits' priority to encounter such burning issues/questions.

 

Do 'intellectuals' and 'politicians' fear that if they speak against their community, they fear being boycotted or ruined politically? Are there no people who can stand up and talk about the truth?

 

To answer this question, I would like to recall the first sentence of Rousseau's Social Contract, in which he says—'Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains.' I wish to recall Gabbar's dialogue in the current context—' He who is frightened is considered dead.' We disagree with Gabbar's context, but it works with the dread they inherit.

 

Prasad Saheb, under the influence of casteism, argues-'Before the subdivision of reservation intoxicates the Chamars. After the subdivision exists to benefit the people who are helped by the subcategorisation reservation, they will get intoxicated. Nobody will stay intoxicated after 10-20 years when the reservation ends. He wants to say that if the reservation exists, it is because of the fighting/struggling communities like Pasi and Chamars. He further offers lollipops – 'Why don't the Dalit community think about studying at Harvard? Why don't they think of getting the Nobel Prize? Why don't the children of IAS officers think of business? Why do they think of jobs? Why don't they think of business, etc.?'

 

Prasad Ji forgets which Fatwa he had just issued and, in a hurry, issues another one, i.e., 'Black Africans had shackles on their feet, but today they come out on top in a 100-meter race.' Does Prasad Sahab want to put shackles on the feet of people of the beneficiaries of sub-divisions because he wants to make them the best runners in the race, like Black Africans? Prasad must answer that when their feet had already been shackled for centuries, how come they had not become great runners to date? Why does he want to put more shackles on the beneficiaries of sub-division? Finally, revealing his cards, he says—'Chamars, Mahars, etc., have gone ahead of other communities. Chamars were the first to become Ambedkarites, that is why they progressed. Chamars were banned from skinning animals and eating their meat, so they moved ahead. Why is the second generation of the sweeper also doing the same work? Why did the Valmikis not do this? He is accusing the Valmiki people. Why don't they work in factories? Washermen don't go to factories; they do ironing. The Valmikis, etc., celebrating their existence, will be finished in ten-twenty years.' We believe this statement is highly biased. 'He repeatedly mentions a CM that he keeps smoking Ganja; he has just become a minister in Delhi. He could not make anyone even a peon.'

 

Everyone knows who he is talking about but still speaks without naming him.

My question is that poverty has to be eradicated, and employment for all is crucial; why doesn't everyone have the right to employment? Why are some communities so backwards? It is the government's failure; why is the blame being put on the reservation? All aspects of the government should be mentioned and reviewed. Reservation has become a misleading job today; who will save people? Those adamant about fulfilling the pending reservation quota will not come forward and will try to eradicate poverty. Is the issue of reservation heating up today in the background of a new election arena? Why don't you take the responsibility of classifying the people sitting on the reserved seats to mislead the people? About 10.5% of reservations have been completed, and about 12% still need to be fulfilled. If the concerned authorities had followed the sub classification provisions faithfully, the extreme Dalits would have taken advantage of it. They might have come out of the category of extreme Dalits.'

 

We all have been advocating proportional representation. An impression is being given as if Valmikis have just been included in the SC list and that they will eat up the quota of others.

 

Rawat Ji, if I ask the same question in reverse, were the primary Dalit beneficiaries not eating up the quota of the sub-division beneficiaries before now? If they were not eating it, then how can the beneficiaries of the subcategorisation also eat up the quota of others? If they eat it, it will be their share; why should anyone object? But objections and fallacies continue. I want to bring in the debate on ‘Ambedkarnama’, organised by Pro. Ratan Lal with Advocate Dr Suresh Mane of BRSP. According to Mane, Baba Saheb talked about uniting the broken people but the Supreme Court's decision is again trying to break the people and society. Reservation is a symbol of unity of all scheduled castes and tribes but subdivision is a way of breaking reservations.’  But it is mischievous.

 

As far as maintaining unity is concerned, Hindus also call Dalits their own, but what about in practice? Sub-division does not mean ending ties with Ambedkarism. The arguments of reservation supporters are as hollow as those of casteists. Baba Saheb wanted a stronger base for society. Even within a family, there may be several types of physical and economic inequalities, but in the name of family, compensation has to be made among themselves. Then, if there is some discrimination in the Ambedkarite family, it is necessary to settle it among themselves and maintain the unity of the family (Ambedkarites).

We need to maintain mutual harmony by showing our farsightedness. I am of the opinion that Ambedkarism supports subdivision. On the lines of Ali Anwar, writer of 'Masawat Ki, Jung', it is our responsibility to bring the Pasmanda, Dalits, the ones who have been left behind. It is the basis of reservation and Ambedkarism.

 

We have also seen many activists who have been supporting sub-quota, especially the people of the manual scavenging community. These abuses are similar to what the upper castes do to the Dalits. Does this not expose our caste-based approach?

 

Needless to say, today's society is suffering from psychosomatic disorder. Universal morality and the power to think honestly have diminished in it. The leaders of present politics have brought it down so low that even thinking seriously about it makes one feel ashamed. Leave aside the society, the comments and gestures of the honourable in political forums, Vidhan Sabhas and Parliament are of such a low level that any responsible citizen would be ashamed. The government has made a particular section of the public mentally bankrupt, and blind followers mean a troll army to such an extent that it does not hesitate to tear apart the dignity of even the Supreme Court. It seems as if the media has no character left. Therefore, abuses on any simple issue have become the new normal. People abused VP Singh due to reservations for OBCs. People called him mentally ill, but the man had the courage not to back off. Even if the country does not honour him today, it does not matter. In such a condition, the beneficiaries of the sub-quota are nowhere to fight hard. Anyway, in normal circumstances, Dalits have to face new attacks on their identity every day in their daily lives. The abuses, being hurled today like those of the upper castes, show the Brahminism of the Dalits. Even if we convert to any other religion, the ethnic character does not deviate from its universal truth. It reminds me of the freedom struggle when the British said that Indians are uncivilised. Therefore, we must rule them (Indians) until they become civilised.

We have seen that equality is a good principle. However, everyone benefits from making policies that keep this in mind. The government's job is to work for everyone, so the constitution makers tied it with the principle of equal protection of the law and equality. The government has to provide help to establish equality. Reservation or affirmative action is the tool to develop this equality. We know that give an example, but those with evil intentions will never change. I appeal; let us prepare our ears and minds to face abuses.

 

Where is the anti-caste movement now? Do you think it never happened because we all suffered from our caste complexes and confined ourselves to our castes? Has there been no effort to reach out to other most marginalised communities? Are there no inter-caste marriages, even among the scheduled castes? We blame the Brahmins for everything, but what has been done on our front to create a casteless society?

 

We constantly blame the casteists/Brahminists, but while fighting the caste battle, we have become highly casteist. We have started writing the history of our castes, creating our ruling dynasty as we please. It is the most significant victory of the casteists on the lines of maximum investment and profit. The casteists' purpose of dividing the Dalits among themselves was getting materialised automatically. They are not trying to reach where there are no castes. They are not reaching where there was a casteless society and how peaceful, prosperous and progressive it was.  Interestingly, so-called Ambedkarites themselves are doing this work. We have formed organisations of our castes. Instead of finding solutions to our problems, we are falling prey to the fighting fronts of castes among ourselves. They could better spend their energies on necessary and productive work.

 

As far as the issue of inter-caste marriage is concerned, it is not happening at the level of the family but on the initiative of the young generation. It is happening based on mutual love relations, not based on any caste-breaking revolution. It may sound strange to say or hear, but it is a threatening reality. The activities of the present regime have snatched the dream of citizenship from the citizens. The battle of his life has confined him to spending his prime time earning a livelihood and maintaining the family. Despite all this, a significant revolution is taking place at the mobile level. Whatever time the people get to spend or dedicate to the worship of the mobile. Now, it is our choice whether to clap in this state of affairs or to beat our heads to console the depression caused by the system.

 

The crisis is severe, but politicians will only speak the language of domination. What is the duty of intellectuals? Many of them are not speaking out for fear of abuse. As an intellectual, what do you think should be done to bring them together? A perception has been deliberately created that Valmikis are the biggest obstacle to the unity of Dalits. Hence, political parties and followers adopt a 'we don't care' approach, especially in Uttar Pradesh. What should the future agenda be, and where are the intellectuals?

 

The intellectuals must keep lighting up the environment around them like a torch ahead of politics and society. Politics and society should trust them and follow them faithfully. But today's intellectuals do not trust themselves, so how can they gain the trust of others? Opportunism has pulled the ground from under the feet of intellectuals.  They don't have any base of their own nor any mass base left with them. What is new that we can find in such a situation? The opportunists have already created the notion that Valmikis do not have a respectable identity and no appropriate ideology to follow. Political parties and their followers already do politics of the particular caste; hence, they do not care about anyone in Uttar Pradesh. Anyway, who cares about whom in the bulldozer rule of Uttar Pradesh? Therefore, no one should unnecessarily believe that someone cares about the interests of the people and their better life. They don't have any vision for the masses except hollow promises to befool them.

 

What should be the future agenda of intellectuals regarding reservation for the upliftment of Dalit-exploited-oppressed society, i.e. social justice?

 

I believe that the victims of caste oppression are not only Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists. There are Dalits among Muslims and Christians. In whichever religion, Dalits are Dalits. They have the right to call themselves other than Hindus, maybe Muslims or Christians, and nothing remarkable has changed, to quote here. It means Dalits are Dalits everywhere to be insulted, exploited and be fooled. Suppose the system and people dare to ensure social justice for them. Why shouldn't they have the legal right to have the benefits of subclassified reservations irrespective of their castes and religion but the social, political and economic oppressions? They are not our enemies but our brothers and citizens of the country like all of us. I do not want to make the subject an arena for politics or controversy. We need to spare time from our busy schedule to learn about their life, miseries and living conditions to understand they suffer from basic amenities essential for their living and for letting their breath go in and out as a witness that they are still alive.

 

In the current context, I want to share some information from Niraj Doiphode's article 'Reservation for Dalit Muslims and Dalit Christians'. According to this - 'There is not enough data on Dalit Muslims and Dalit Christians in India. It is estimated that there are 20 million Christians in India, out of which seventy per cent belong to the Dalit community. These include Pulayan in Kerala, Pariha in Tamil Nadu, Tigala in Karnataka, Mala in Andhra Pradesh, Chamar in MP, UP and Bihar, Churha in Punjab, Vankar in Gujarat, Mahar in Maharashtra, etc. Dalit Muslims are available across all parts of India.'…Many did not convert to Buddhism because neo-Buddhists faced discrimination after conversion, so they chose Christianity and Islam. Despite their conversion, Dalit Christians and Dalit Muslims are still denied access to "land, water and dignity".'

 

'…The first Backward Classes Commission, also known as the Kalelkar Commission, headed by Kaka Kalelkar, recommended in 1955 that "before the disease of caste can be eradicated, all information about it should be recorded and classified scientifically like a clinical record" and this could be done in the 1961 census, if not before 1957.'…Following the recommendations, converted Sikhs got included in the Scheduled Caste group in 1956, and Buddhists got inclusion in 1990, but Muslims and Christians were left out.'…The Constitution of India provides several protections and benefits to Scheduled Castes that are not available to Dalit Muslims and Christians. The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act sets up special courts to prosecute crimes against marginalised communities and provide redressal and rehabilitation to victims. Muslims and Christians from Dalit communities cannot contest elections for seats in constituencies reserved for SCs.

 

Finally, outside the ambit of all questions, I would like to share some excerpts from an open discussion by Ashok Das, editor of Dalit Dastak, with Mr Athaval and Mr Roopram, both Rajasthani Valmikis, which is a sample of the perspective of the beneficiary of sub classification. I want to underline a few points briefly:

 

1. How did we become separate if we got something out of sub classification? How did we become opponents?

2. Both said categorically, "We are together on the issue of atrocities, the Constitution, and Dr Ambedkar; then how are we different?"

 

3." Why is there a Bharat Bandh without mutual dialogue? Is its boycott by us a violation of our unity?

 

4. The beneficiaries of sub-division are being made to understand that apart from the reservation, they should fight for opening separate schools, colleges, etc.

 

5. Both argue that after independence, the condition of the whole society was the same, and they received the benefits of reservation. If our condition is like that of autonomy today, we will also receive the same benefits as others, and we can progress a lot.

6. Baba Saheb has called the Dalit society broken people. If we get something separately, how has this division of society happened? Today, some people are breaking our morale due to sub-division.

 

Due to this decision of sub-division, whatever comes to mind, anything is being said in the name of Ambedkar and Ambedkarism, a token of truth and authenticity. That is why Mr Prasad dares say, 'They will tie thick bands of Rakhi threads on their hands and want reservations.' He probably wants to convey that they follow Hindu rituals. Hence, they are not entitled to reservation. My question is - 'Will the one who does not believe in Ambedkar or Ambedkarwad be deprived of the reservation right? In the era of opportunism, whatever one finds in his favour shouts it loudly under the banner of Dr Ambedkar or Ambedkarvad and tries to impose on others to follow it in the name of Dr Ambedkar. I can't entirely agree with this fanatic stand and emphasise that Dr Ambedkar and Ambedkarism should not be misused for the peltry interests of an individual and a community. Baba Sahab was dragged into this controversy about whether the reservation was fair. The judgement must be taken as judgement to be taken a tool for the emotional blackmailing of the masses. One more thing, the people are highlighting time and again to argue- 'Ambedkar did not ask for separate reservations for Mahars', through this comment, they want to say that separate reservations should not be asked for even today. I categorically declare that Demanding separate reservations at that time would have gone against Baba Saheb's personality, and the entire movement would have ended. But today, the issue of sub-division is as relevant and essential as not demanding separate reservations for Mahars at that time. But today's circumstances demand that for unity, integrity and brotherhood in society, subcategorisation must be accepted with open arms.

 

Ultimately, it seems necessary to remember what Baba Saheb said about nationalism, 'I want all people to be Indians first and Indians last and nothing else except Indians.' Today, on this occasion, I request you, with folded hands, to become true Indians and show Indianness collectively that Dr B. R. Ambedkar longed for as a tribute to the great visionary. Let's embrace each other with open arms and minds as a symbol of our unbreakable unity.