Limiting reservation benefits to specific religious groups is appropriate

Limiting reservation benefits to specific religious groups is appropriate

The Supreme Court of India has reiterated a long-held, yet contested, principle of India’s anti-discrimination jurisprudence — that protections and special provisions for Scheduled Caste (SC) communities will be available only to those who practise Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism. The March 24 Court judgment arose from a Christian pastor who sought protections under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in Andhra Pradesh. The Court upheld a High Court decision that any member of the SC community who has converted out of the three religions specified in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, issued under Article 341, ceases to be an SC member. The original definition of SC included only Hindus, but was extended to Sikhs (1956) and Buddhists (1990). India’s founding leaders, including first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, were clear that the extreme form of discrimination manifested in untouchability was unique to Hindu society. But political and social realities forced amendments later. SC communities began using religious conversion itself as an act of assertion and autonomy. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar himself led a mass conversion of SC members to Buddhism. Notably, he converted to Buddhism in 1956, the year when all SC communities practising the Sikh religion were brought under special provisions, including reservation.

There are theological and legal arguments for this distinction reiterated by the Court. It is often argued that in Christianity and Islam, there is no theological defence of discrimination based on social stratification. That Sikhism and Buddhism are part of the civilisational universe of Hinduism is an argument which has gained political and constitutional legitimacy. Under Explanation II to Article 25(2) of the Constitution, the definition of Hindu includes the Sikh, Buddhist and Jain faiths. Neither the theological nor the constitutional arguments for the exclusion of converts to Islam and Christianity from special protections are logically or empirically watertight, and hence the question continues to fester. Christian or Muslim converts continue to face discrimination, including untouchability, even within their new religious world. After all, discrimination needs no theological sanction. But the question of their inclusion remains a politically surcharged topic, with a commission headed by former Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan examining this. Many Dalit activists oppose the inclusion of converts within the existing quantum of reservation. Many members of SC communities who have converted to Christianity or Islam receive benefits under provisions meant for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes under Article 15(4) of the Constitution. The Court’s decision is appropriate under the existing legal and constitutional scheme, and any change can only come through a political process and the legislative route.