Same caste, different benefits

The Christian community has been demanding for years from successive governments its fundamental right as Indians, which was theirs when the Constitution of India was framed but later was struck down by a 1950 presidential order. The constitutional provision then was a pro-active legislation to empower Dalits who had suffered three millennia of subjugation and discrimination from the upper castes. It is noteworthy that Sikhs and Buddhists were also victims of that unjust 1950 order. Justice, however, came their way in 1956 and 1991, respectively, through their agitations, which were never as resolute or long-drawn as those of Christians. That successive governments have been turning a deaf year to the minority Christian community is neither new nor surprising. For, out of the 2.18 per cent Christian population of India and excluding a huge tribal Christian population which is already covered under reservation quota, no political party would be interested in a small, hardly 1 per cent, chunk of Dalit Christian votes spread all over India.

Is the government worried more about a huge controversy at home, especially from the Sangh Parivar? Since the government has already decided not to give in to the demands of such a minority, whose punyabhumi holy land happens to lie outside Mera Bharat Mahan, a spurious argument is propped up. 8216;8216;By distorting the argument, to fit at the pre-arrived decision, does the government hope that this controversy at home will be nipped in the bud?8217;8217; asks Archbishop Vincent Concesso of Delhi.

The minister may, however, be reminded that the government itself had once moved a bill to give Dalit Christians all rights of reservation in jobs, education and other areas in the early 1990s. The bill was moved by the then welfare minister, Sitaram Kesri, after being cleared by the Union cabinet and the concerned ministries, but could not be taken up eventually as the speaker held it was being brought too late in the session.

In addition, in the 1991 Supreme Court judgement on the Mandal Commission, in the case of Indra Sawhney Vs the Union of India, Justice Jeevan Reddy had ruled: 8216;8216;What emerges is backward class, for the purposes of clause 4 of Article 16. The concept of 8216;caste8217; in this behalf is not confined to castes among Hindus. It extends to castes, wherever they obtain as a fact, irrespective of religious sanction for such practice.8217;8217; Besides, both Gandhi and Ambedkar had argued that changing one8217;s faith does not change one8217;s social status.

The only international controversy deserving any attention in this regard would be as to why a certain section of the Indian population, just because they profess another religion, is being denied its fundamental right. Closer home, the controversy would arise when Dalits en masse would rush to embrace Christianity and Islam where in addition to their dignity they would also get jobs. Which woman then would like to be paraded naked or which bridegroom would like to be pulled down from a horseback and beaten up for being a Dalit, if they could enjoy reservation benefits too?

And finally, apart from Dilip Singh Judeo receiving lakhs for a noble Hindu act of 8216;8216;ghar vapsi8217;8217; of tribal Christians to Hinduism, the million dollar question really is: Are the missionaries offering allurements of a bicycle and sewing machine for people to embrace Christianity, as alleged, or is the government offering allurement of job reservations to Dalits, to stay back in the Hindu fold and continue to suffer for another millennium or more?