MADIGA RESERVATION PORATA SAMITI
ANDHRA PRADESH
2, Amulya Apts, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad – 500 028. Cell: 99499 08105,
ANDHRA PRADESH
2, Amulya Apts, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad – 500 028. Cell: 99499 08105,
E-mail:krupakarmadiga@hotmail.com
P. Krupakar Madiga
State President
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hyderabad
27.06.2007
To
Justice Usha Mehra Ji,
National Commission to Examine the Issue
of Sub-Categorisation of SCs in AP,
Room No. 311, Swarnamukhi Block,
A.P. Bhavan, No.1, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi – 110 001.
Sub: Categorisation of SC Reservations in A.P. – Req. – Reg.
Respected Madam,
1. In the light of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s dismissal of SC Reservation (Rationalisation) Act 2000 of AP, and Govt of India’s constitution of the Justice Usha Mehra Commission to examine the same issue, we are here with presenting our viewpoints for your kind perusal.
2. Two and half years have passed after A.P. Assembly had unanimously passed resolution requesting Govt. of India to amend the Constitution to enable the State to make act on categorization of SC reservation for A.P. In this regard MRPS has made several representations to the President of India, the prime Minister, the UPA Chairperson, various political parties and MPs. The delay in making the said act is resulting in continued deprivation of reservation benefits to Madiga and allied communities.
3. The Cause: Distribution of SC reservation opportunities to all the 60 castes of SCs (total population 1,23,38,400) in AP proportionately, based on their population, has been the demand and struggle of Madigas (Charmakars with population of 60,27,308) and Rellies (manual scavengers with population of 2,02,350) of Andhra Pradesh, for the last 42 years. Madigas organized a historical people’s movement under the banner of MRPS (Madiga Reservation Porata Samiti) for 13 years, popularly known as Madiga Hakkula Dandora (Drum Beats for Madiga Rights). The people of Andhra Pradesh, all political parties, civil societies, intellectuals and media have out rightly supported SC categorization movement.
4. Unanimous Resolutions: The AP Legislative Assembly had thrice passed historical and unanimous resolutions supporting categorization of SC reservations into ABCD.
The AP Legislative Assembly, on 22.04.1998, has passed the resolution unanimously on need to categorise SC reservation into ABCD as recommended by Justice Ram Chandra Raju Commission.
The AP Legislative Assembly has unanimously passed the SC Reservation (Rationalisation) Act 20 of 2000 on 01.04.2000.
In the light of recent Supreme Court judgement, the AP Legislative Assembly has also passed unanimous resolution on 10.12.2004, recommending the Govt of India to take up the matter in the Parliament for enabling SC categorisation by the State.
5. Need for Categorisation of SC Reservation: There are severe developmental inequalities among dalits in AP. While there are 60 different castes among SC in AP, several castes like Dakkali, Chindu, Baindla, Mastin etc., are leading the nomadic and semi-nomadic lives. Most of them are still depending on begging as their profession. Similarly, many castes like Madiga and allied castes (Charmakars), Relli and allied castes (manual scavengers) etc., are crushed by severe poverty, illiteracy, caste discrimination and exploitation. At the same time, some castes among SCs (Mala and allied castes with a population of 52,19,143) are socially in upper strata than Madiga, Relli etc., have been appropriating about 70 % of the educational, employment, political and welfare benefits of SC reservation, thereby establishing themselves as dominant castes among SCs, pushing the other castes to marginalization (Please see tables No 1 to 15 of the Annexure 1). In this context of severe developmental inequalities among Scheduled Castes, and in order to enable all the 60 castes of SCs to achieve uniform development, it is inevitable that reservation should be guaranteed to all the castes of SCs based on their population composition. Then only most backward castes among SCs will get equal opportunities to development. It is in this premise and logic that we are demanding for the categorization of SC reservation based on population ratio.
6. State Initiative for SC Categorization: The Govt of AP has constituted Justice Ramachandra Raju Commission on 10.09.1996 to study Categorization of SC Reservation, which, in turn, submitted its report on 26.05.1997. As per the recommendations of Justice Raju Commission, the Govt of AP has issued orders, G.O.Ms No 68 dt. 06.06.1997 and G.O.Ms No 69 dt.07.06.1997, categorizing SCs into ABCD groups. But the High Court has struck down the said G.O.s for their violation of article 338, by not consulting the National Commission for SCs. To rectify this lacuna, the State govt. has approached the National Commission for SCs regarding categorization. Besides, the AP State Legislative Assembly has unanimously passed resolution in support of SC categorization. The State Government, after soliciting support from all party meeting of AP, as well as assent from the Governor of AP, and the President of India, had passed SC Categorization Ordinance on 09.12.1999. Subsequently the AP Legislative Assembly has unanimously passed AP SC (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act 20 of 2000 on 01.04.2000. But, specifying that, AP State has no power to enact SC Categorization as per the constitution, the Supreme Court has dismissed the SC Categorization Act of AP on 05.11.2004. Consequently, AP Legislative Assembly has once again unanimously passed resolution (on 10.12.2004) in support of SC categorization and requesting the Govt of India to take up the matter in the Parliament for necessary action to enable the State of AP to equitably distribute the 15% reservations to all castes of SCs, based on their population ratio.
7. Equitable Distribution of Reservation Benefits: During the period of implementation of Categorization Act, the curtain was raised for equitable distribution of reservation benefits to all the castes of SCs on their population ratio. This was evident from the fact that Madigas, Rellies and other most backward castes of SCs got educational and employment opportunities in proportion to their population during the above period. Madigas, Rellies etc. started getting adequate representation as Articles 15(4) & 16(4) of Constitution guarantees.
Striking observations from Table No 16 of Annexure 1
From the table No 16 of Annexure 1, it is observed that Rellies were far behind in receiving reservations. However, it does not mean that they have not fielded their candidature. Though they fielded their candidature for various academic courses, Malas cornered all the seats of Rellies in the name of merit. It is also indicative of the fact that Rellies were out of the reservation benefits for the last 57 years.
During the implementation of rationalisation, though the Rellies did not fully utilise their share of reservations, at least they made a start to receive the reservation benefits.
The data, unquestionably proves that, before implementation of rationalisation, Malas have appropriated reservations disproportion to their population. In spite of the fact that Madigas fielded their candidature, Malas cornered many of the seats of Madigas in the name of merit.
It is only after the introduction of rationalisation, that all the Groups of SCs started getting representation on par with their population ratio.
The equitable distribution of reservations during implementation of rationalisation itself speaks about the validity and justification of rationalisation (categorisation).
Even during the period of implementation of rationalisation, Malas, while consuming their share fully, also consumed the share of Madigas and Rellies wherever candidates from respective groups were not there, as per the sliding formula. Therefore, it is not true that each group is restricted to their quota only.
8. Deprivation of Equitable Distribution of Reservation Benefits: Madiga, Relli and their allied castes have been again deprived of employment benefits of State govt. that they deserve to get in proportion to their population, from the date of cancellation of categorization. Similarly these castes were also deprived of thousands of educational admissions (Medicine, Engineering, B.Ed, Polytechnic, residential school and college seats etc.) of State govt. that they deserve to get in proportion to their population. On the other hand, Mala and allied castes have again started appropriating employment and educational reservation benefits exorbitantly disproportionate to their population, in the name of merit among SCs. To quote an example, out of 486 medical seats filled by State govt. (during 2005-06), Madigas got only 30 seats as against 227 (7 of 15%). Against 32 seats (1 of 15%), rellies have not got even single seat. Whereas, Mala, Adi-Andhra and their allied castes have appropriated 456 seats as against 227 (6+1=7 of 15%). The Malas appropriation of these educational benefits projected here were only for one year. This has been recurring year by year since reservations were started. We are very much concerned about these castes appropriating the reservation benefits at the cost of many under developed castes.
9. Justice Ramachandra Raju Commission: The recommendations of Justice Ramachandra Raju Commission were appreciated by all stakeholders except Malas. The recommendations of the Commission were approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of AP without any objections/modifications. When the same was placed before the Legislative Assembly, it was unanimously accepted. Even outside the Assembly, all political parties in the ‘all party meeting’ have unanimously supported categorization as recommended by the Commission. The report of the Justice Raju Commission stood the judicial scrutiny also. The Hon’ble High Court in its judgment “viewed that categorization having been made on intelligible and discernible differentia, and the act having been passed for rationalization of reservation for SCs is valid.” Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not make any adverse comments on the tenacity of the basis, methodology, data, observations, and recommendations the report.
10. Mala Political Leaders’ Support for Categorisation: It is important to note that there were 20 to 24 Mala MLAs including Ministers who joined hands with Assembly in unanimously supporting categorization on three different occasions, i.e. for supporting the categorization, another for passing the bill on Categorisation and again for recommending the Central government for taking necessary measures for categorization. In all these occasions, no Mala MLA or Minister expressed his/her objections in the house. Moreover, they lent their full support for categorization.
11. Misconceptions about Scope of SC Categorization: It is important to note that we are not demanding for SC categorization in employment and educational opportunities provided by Central govt. Therefore, it is not a national issue at all. We are demanding for the SC categorization for equal distribution of reservation of educational and employment opportunities provided by State Government of AP. Therefore it is the issue of AP State only.
12. Malas’ Merit: Malas have been attributing their cornering of SC reservation benefits to their ‘merit’ and they argue their right to continue to appropriate reservation benefits because they are meritorious among all the castes of SCs. The reservations for SCs were provided exclusively because they cannot, on their own merit, reach to the educational and employment opportunities. It is in this premise that Malas were given SC reservation benefits because they cannot, on their own, compete with general categories and get opportunities. Like Malas, other 59 castes were also provided SC reservation benefits because none of them can, on their merit, reach to the educational and employment opportunities. Therefore, none of the 60 castes have right to talk about merit. It is the State that should ensure that all these castes receive equal reservation facilities and grow together. Here, the ‘merit’ must be viewed as an administrative mechanism or filtering tool to choose the best one from the group of candidates available for consideration. For example, if there are 10 reserved candidates appearing for one post, the best of these 10 candidates is selected, based on merit. If the Malas still choose to chat the mantra of merit, they must volunteer to relinquish the SC reservation and compete with their own merit for general seats/posts.
13. Article 341: The Constitution in its Article 341 provided for the castes to be included in the Presidential schedule and also provided safeguards for not deleting/including/ any caste from/into it. That means the scope of Article 341 is limited to preparing a list of SCs for every state and ensuring the States cannot dare to add or delete any caste to/from the list at their whims and fancies. The Article 341 or Presidential list of SCs does not specify whether a State should give concessions/scholarships/ hostels/ reservations/ how much percentage of reservations/ reservations only for education/ reservation for jobs/ during initial recruitments/ promotions. It is the responsibility and duty of the respective State to provide the necessary safeguards, reservations and concessions to bring these most backward castes on par with other sections of the society. It is also the responsibility of the State to ensure that all the castes/ communities receive the benefits and develop uniformly and together. In this process the State is free to provide reservations and allocate percentage of reservations. On its observation that the reservation benefits are not equitably distributed among all the castes, it is also the duty and responsibility of the State to take necessary remedial measures - be it rationalization, categorization, sub-classification or apportionment – to rectify the flaws and attain equitable distribution of reservation to all the castes of SCs. Though the Article 341 is supposed to direct/ guide the States as to what kind of measures to be taken to ensure that the listed communities equitably receive the benefits and to achieve uniform development, unfortunately it did not do so. This necessitated the amendment for the Article.
14. Article 46: The State is vested with the responsibility of protecting all castes of SCs from social injustice as guaranteed by Article 46 that says “The State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interest of … SCs… and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation”. In the process of executing its responsibilities to promote all castes of SCs the State should be vested with the power and authority to take up any measures in favour of all castes, be it rationalization, categorization or apportionment. If any Article of the Constitution prevents use of such power and authority by the State, then that particular Article (341 or any other Article) must be amended so that the State can exercise that power.
15. Rationalisation: It is utterly wrong to use the words such as categorization, apportionment, sub-classification, mini-classification, micro-classification etc. All those words actually imply that 1, 7, 6, and 1 percent of reservation allocated to Group A, B, C and D respectively are in the strict sense. That means when candidates for posts allocated for Group A are not available, the said posts are kept unfilled and carried forward to the next year as backlogs but not filled by the candidates of Group B, C or D. But the true picture is altogether different. Here, when candidates of Group A are not available for the posts reserved for Group A, then the same posts are slid and filled by the Group B, C and/or D till the candidates were found but they are not kept unfilled for want of Group A candidates. Therefore, the process must be justifiably called ‘Rationalisation of Reservations’.
It is important to note that wherever we have used the word ‘categorisation’, we mean ‘rationalisation’. We used the word ‘categorisation’ to prevent misunderstanding because till now that was the word in use. We also request that the most appropriate word ‘rationalisation’ should be replaced/used for the word ‘categorisation’ in future.
16. Data Needed for Study: The data of ‘caste-wise’ and ‘group-wise’ beneficiaries of SCs in educational admissions, job recruitments and promotions during 4 years period of implementations of rationalisation, during at least 4 years period of pre-implementation and three years of post implementation of rationalisation is crucial to evaluate as to how rationlisation was guaranteed and ensured distribution of reservation benefits to all the castes during implementation, and how they were deprived of the benefits during pre and post implementation of rationalisation. The data of cast-wise beneficiaries of admissions into medical, engineering graduates/PGs, polytechnic, Nursing, science graduates/PGs, arts graduates/PGs, B.Ed./M.Ed, LLB/LLM, residential schools residential colleges, IAS coaching centrs etc. would give fair picture of disparities in distribution of SC reservations. Similarly, data of cast-wise beneficiaries of class-wise posts such as sweepers, attenders, junior clerks, senior clerks, superintendents, Asst. Directors, DDs, JDs, Directors, Lecturers, Readers, Professors etc. in state government departments, state autonomous bodies, State corporations, State Universities etc. would help in understanding the magnanimity of appropriation of SC reservation benefits by a few castes. The department-wise data collected earlier is not adequate to identify the quantum of disparities among higher posts since data of highest to lowest cadre employees were cumulatively presented. In fact all the key positions in govt offices were occupied by Malas and their ratio to Madigas is 8:2. The present Commission will be able to ascertain these disparities when it gets data to this extent.
17. Unity of SCs only with Rationalisation: Another important arguments, Malas put forward against rationalization of SC reservation is ‘do not divide the SCs’. The aim of rationalization of SC reservation is to allow all the castes of SCs to equally develop, receiving the reservation benefits in proportion to their population ratio. Justice, equality, fraternity and strong bond among castes of SCs will foster only when 15% reservation is equitably shared among all the castes. If one or two castes continue to appropriate all the 15% reservation at the cost of all other castes, this will lead to developmental disparities among the castes of SCs resulting in mistrust, enmity and vengeance against each other.
18. Political Motives: There is also an argument that rationalization of SC reservation was done with political motives. The relative advancement of Malas as a result of cornering of the reservations for the last 57 years, and continued backwardness of Madigas and Rellies as a result of losing their share of reservations to Malas are the historical facts. After the awareness attained by these most backward castes, they started demanding their share of reservation on various platforms.
State Legislature Committee on Welfare of SCs in 1987, consisting of Mala, Madiga and forward community MLAs, itself unanimously viewed that “grouping of Scheduled Castes and fixing of percentages of reservations (from 15 % reservation quota) will result in proper development of all listed castes simultaneously and ensures harmonious growth among them. The committee, therefore, recommends to the Government to examine the issue in greater detail so as to group out a list of all SC candidates as was done in the case of BCs”.
After the intensification of demands for categorization, The Justice Ramachandra Raju Commission was constituted and its report and recommendations were unanimously approved in the Cabinet Meeting.
The Legislative Assembly has thrice passed resolutions in favour of SC Categorisation. There can be no other best example than this to prove that the decision for categorization is not at all made for political gains. The categorization was also supported both inside and outside of the Legislative Assembly by all political parties.
19. Malas’ Advancement: It is evident from the Justice Ramachandra Raju Commission Report, various studies and data available, that the Malas and Adi-Andhras have been well established socially, politically, and economically as compared to Rellies and Madigas by consuming the lion’s share of reservation benefits disproportional to their population ratio. The Lokur Committee made these observations in 1965 itself. In its report the Committee observed:
“It has been in evidence for some time that a lion’s share of the various benefits and concessions earmarked for the scheduled castes and tribes is appropriated by the numerically larger and politically well organised communities. The smaller and more backward communities have tended to get lost in democratic processes, though most deserving of special aid. “
As remedial measures to rectify the malady, the Committee “suggested that the various castes and tribes in lists should be administratively classified or categorised so as to give higher priority in planning and development to the needier and lower priority for the comparatively advanced”. In this view, the State of AP must review the latest conditions of Malas development. On arriving at findings about the advancement of Malas and Adi-Andhras, the State must devise mechanisms to ensure equitable distribution of reservation, uniform development of all castes, and to assure the reach of reservation benefits to the neediest castes. Since Malas and Adi-Andhras have been appropriating reservation benefits for the last 57 years, at the cost of other castes, it is high time that the State should restrict certain reservation benefits to relatively more advanced Mala and Adi-Andhra castes and provide more benefits to Relli, Madiga and allied castes on the basis of preferential treatment.
20. 1 % each for group A and D: The other argument made against categorization is that Group A (with population of 1,33,689, and 0.25% of share in 15% reservation) was allocated 1% whereas Group D (with population of 7,13,824, and 1.34% share in 15% reservation) was also allocated 1% of reservation. The Justice Ramachandra Raju Commission categorized the 60 castes into ABCDs on criteria of relative backwardness and percentage of low occupation in state government services.
The lowest developed among all the castes of SCs (Relli and allied castes) who were far behind in receiving educational and job opportunities were placed in Group A. A relatively slightly better developed Madiga and allied castes (as compared to Rellies) who started using reservations but far behind in proportion to their population ratio were placed in Group B. The more developed Mala and their allied castes who consumed all reservation benefits far beyond their population ratio were placed in Group C. The most developed Adi-Andhra and allied castes that cornered reservation benefits exorbitantly disproportional to their population ratio were placed in Group D.
Since castes of Group A were far behind in their representation in education and jobs, the necessity of providing more opportunities to accelerate their growth and bring them on par with other groups (B,C,& D) at faster pace was recognized and therefore 1% reservation out of 15% was provided to them.
Moreover Group B, C, and D got their share of 7, 6, and 1 percent respectively along with some fractions of percentage. It is only the Group A that got share in fractions (0.25 %). Since it is technically impracticable to execute/ operate fractions of percentages, these fractions were taken out from Group B, C and D and added to Group A making it to 1%.
It is important to note here, that all the remaining groups including Group B sacrificed their fractions of reservation to Group A.
Added to that, allocation of 1% to group A (for that matter to group B, C and D) is only indicative and not in the strict terms. In each and every seat/job/promotion, where Group A candidate is not available, it is slid to Group B, C and D till the candidate is available. Therefore, the argument that Group A would corner benefits disproportionate to their population ratio is untenable.
However, the government of AP must make annual review of the implementation of reservations and take appropriate remedial measures to ensure that all the castes will grow equally while preventing any particular caste appropriating reservations at the cost of others.
21. Malas aggression for reservations: When the whole world is professing for equitable distribution of reservations, it is only the Malas who are opposing it tooth and nail. Malas are adamant in opposing to categorization in spite of the fact that their 6% reservation is assured apart from the possibility of getting more posts/ seats when others are not available (The table No. 16 of Annexure 1 indicates that Malas consumed more than 6% of their share whenever others were not available). The status quo in the present situation would favour Malas to continue appropriating lion’s share of reservations. This is high time for this Commission, Judiciary, people’s representatives, State and Central governments to think whether the Constitution will allow a few castes to appropriate whole reservation benefits meant for 60 castes.
22. Categorisation more justified for SCs than BCs: It is argued that categorization of BCs is allowed whereas categorization for SCs is not allowed. The logic for this seems to be funny. The castes of BCs were not included in the Presidential List and therefore, the BCs were not provided constitutional safeguards. The castes of SCs were included in the Presidential List and they were provided constitutional safeguards. When BCs without constitutional safeguards are entitled for equitable distribution of reservations, SCs with constitutional safeguards should be doubly entitled for equitable distribution. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the Constitution and constitution makers to ensure equitable distribution of reservations and thereby uniform development of all the castes.
23. Apportionment is alredy in force: It is argued that apportionment of reservation is not allowed for SCs. It is difficult to understand why apportionment cannot be done when the reservation benefits were appropriated by a few castes and remaining castes were helpless to reach to benefits, thereby, increasing the gap between ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ among various castes of SCs.
For that matter, apportionment of SC reservations is already in force in the State. The 15 % reservations for SCs were apportioned between Andhra (Andhra University), Telangana (Osmania University) and Rayalaseema (Sri Venkateswara University) educational admissions.
The apportionment of 15% reservation is also in force for job recruitments in AP. In the zone wise recruitments, SCs from that particular zone are only entitled to compete for the posts. SC candidates of all other zones are denied candidature for that zone.
More importantly, out of 15 % reservation for SCs, 33.33 % is reserved (apportioned) for SC women. Women can field candidature for their quota of 5% and also for remaining 10%, where as SC men are denied of fielding candidature for 5 % apportioned for SC women.
In spite of several apportionments (regional/ zonal/ gender/ local bodies apportionments etc.), the rationalization of SC reservation is being well received by all sections of SCs because of its built-in mechanism to ensure equitable distribution of benefits to the entitled castes.
If the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment against apportionment of SC reservation is taken in the strictest sense, then the above mentioned SC reservation apportionments including SC women reservations become null and void, and unconstitutional.
Moreover, Malas mainly argue that they were restricted to only 6% and deprived of remaining 9 % of SC reservation. It is the height of greediness for Malas to swallow all the 15 % reservation. If Malas alone corner all the 15 % reservation, then where the remaining castes should go?
Malas technical argument before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that they can field candidature only for 6 % but denied of remaining 9% of reservation is not at all tenable. When candidates in a particular group were not available, all the remaining groups sequentially get opportunity to field candidature. In this way, every group (A, B, C and D) will get chance to field candidature for 15 % of SC reservation. That means apart from entitlement to field their candidature for their share of 6 %, Malas are also entitled for fielding their candidature for the remaining 9 % of reservation, through sliding method, as and when candidates from that particular group are not available.
First of all, when Malas are entitled for 6 % reservation in proportion to their population, why should they get chance for others’ share?
Secondly, Malas’ share of 6 % was also assured for them which was not there earlier.
Thirdly and most importantly, Malas are not restricted to field their candidature for remaining 9 % of reservation.
24. Distortions of Madiga population particulars: There has been conscious efforts to distort the official revenue records by showing Madiga population as Malas for false projections of increased Mala population over Madigas. For example, In the SSID records of Karumanchi village of Tangutur mandal, Prakasam District, caste particulars 258 Madiga people were entered in to records as ‘Malas’ (Please see Annexure 2). This is indicative of increasing figures for Mala population for the purpose of getting higher share from 15% reservation. Nobody except Malas can be accused for distortions in official records for the very reason that they are the only beneficiaries and they only have access to reach to such records by the virtue of their establishment in govt. offices. This Commission must bring it to the notice of AP govt and recommend to take up remedial and preventive measures.
25. Distortions of Madiga population particulars: There has been conscious efforts to distort the official revenue records by showing Madiga population as Malas for false projections of increased Mala population over Madigas. For example, In the SSID records of Karumanchi village of Tangutur mandal, Prakasam District, caste particulars 258 Madiga people were entered in to records as ‘Malas’ (Please see Annexure 2). This is indicative of increasing figures for Mala population for the purpose of getting higher share from 15% reservation. Nobody except Malas can be accused for distortions in official records for the very reason that they are the only beneficiaries and they only have access to reach to such records by the virtue of their establishment in govt. offices. This Commission must bring it to the notice of AP govt and recommend to take up remedial and preventive measures.
26. Two Reasons for Malas Advancement: There is one widely spoken reason for Malas’ advancement in comparison with Madigas is that Malas embraced reservations very quickly and much early whereas Madigas were slow in receiving the reservation benefits.
The other reason for Malas’ aggression to appropriate reservation quota, which is not spoken, is that by the time Madigas started getting awareness and started getting school and college educations, Malas were far ahead in capturing the jobs and well established in political platforms as well as all the government offices, educational institutions etc.
Malas asserted their presence as MPs, MLAs, key positions in political parties, Chairmen and Members of various bodies and committees, Heads of the Institutions, Heads of the departments, Liaison Officers etc.
Once Malas asserted their presence and established their identity, they started exhibiting their ‘Mala fraternity’, promoting Malas at the cost of Madigas and others. Today Malas are seen in many of the Selection Committees/ DPCs as Members.
If this Commission throws light on this aspect and collects the state wide data of SC members in Selection Committees and DPCs vis. castes of selected candidates, more stunning facts will see the light of the day.
27. Categorisation Limited to AP: Categorising SCs into ABCDs, would only imply that 15% reservations allocated for SCs will be equitably distributed among all the 60 castes of SCs based on their population ratio. You may call it ‘equitable distribution of reservations’, ‘rationalisation’ or ‘categorisation’. The scope of this rationalization is only limited to the benefits provided by the State Government of AP. Central government is also providing certain benefits to SCs of the country. For this SC categorization is not applicable. Therefore, the Presidential List of 60 castes of SCs is not being disturbed as far as central government reservation benefits are concerned. Apart from that, neither inclusion nor deletion of any caste into/from the said list is attempted by the State of AP.
28. Caste, not ‘Sub-Cast’: The term ’Sub-Caste’ is being used instead of ‘caste’ in the official proceedings. Each one is a ‘Caste’ by itself. The Presidential order included 59 such castes in a ‘schedule’. Therefore these 59 castes became popular as ‘Scheduled Castes’. It is unfortunate that each of these 59 castes is being mispronounced as ‘Sub-Caste’. Every caste has its own identity in terms of distinctions, characteristics, places of residence, cultural practices, occupations, social strata, linguistic dialects etc. The mispronunciation of caste as ‘Sub-Cast’ is giving false impressions on the people to assume that these 59 castes are only ‘descendants’ or ‘offshoots’ of some main caste. With this kind of misconceptions, sometimes people feel embarrassed to support categorization, because they feel that it amounts to dividing one particular caste.
29. Exchange of Arguments for and against: The Commission after collecting viewpoints and arguments (for and against) must publish the same and provide adequate time and opportunity to give clarifications/ explanations/ counterarguments from both sides.
30. Adequate time needed for submitting viewpoints: The short time given (30.06.2007) to individuals/organizations to represent their viewpoints (for and against) before the Commission is not adequate. Therefore, it is requested to give adequate time for individuals/organizations to send their viewpoints. It is particularly requested not to give chance to stakeholders to claim that they were not given adequate time to present their viewpoints.
31. Urgency of Amendment: Madigas including many other most backward castes have already lost thousands of state employment benefits, thousands of state employment promotional benefits and lakhs of state educational admission benefits (school to higher & professional education), for the last three years from the date of cancellation, as a result of delay in making constitutional amendment to Article 341. The Constitutional Amendment, at least in the ensuing Parliament session (Monsoon session, 2007), would prevent further deprivation of reservation benefits to Madigas in the present academic year (2007-08).
32. Our Demands: In this background we are demanding that:
1. The Parliament must amend the Constitution of India by adding a proviso to Article 341 of the Constitution in the following terms:
“Provided that the appropriate government may sub-classify the castes, creed, races or tribes in the list of Scheduled Castes, based on the relative backwardness, to ensure equality of opportunity among them in accordance with Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution.”
2. AP SC (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act 2000 must be reinstated with immediate effect and ensure that all the 60 castes of SCs will be equally distributed the reservation benefits provided by the government of AP in terms of admissions into educational institutions, employment in state services etc.
3. Government of India, through its census data and other frequent studies must collect the ‘caste-wise’ and ‘group-wise’ data of SCs in AP and analyse the growth (educational, economical, social etc.) of each and every cast of SCs enabling the Centre/State to take remedial measures.
4. The State government must annually collect the data of SCs, in terms of ‘caste-wise’ and ‘group-wise’, from all the educational institutions, employment in state services, autonomous bodies and corporations.
5. Each and every caste of SCs should be termed as ‘caste’ instead of ‘sub-caste’ in the Central/State governments’ official proceedings.
6. The Commission is requested to give adequate time for individuals/ organizations to send their viewpoints.
7. The data of ‘caste-wise’ and ‘group-wise’ beneficiaries of SCs in educational admissions, job recruitments and promotions during 4 years period of implementations of categorization, during at least 4 years period of pre-implementation and three years of post implementation of categorization should be collected by this Commission.
8. The state government must conduct annual reviews to evaluate the cast-wise and group-wise growth of SCs and devise appropriate remedial measures from time to time.
Our request to the Commission: In the light of above circumstances, we humbly request you to speed up the process of enquiry and recommend the Govt. of India and the Parliament to amend the Constitution for permanent solution on categorization of SC reservations for immediate justice to Madiga, Relli and allied castes in the employment and educational admissions.
Thanking you Madam,
Yours Sincerely,
(P. Krupakar Madiga)
President
(Janardhan Rao Cheeli)
Advisor
Cell: 94405 69169, E-Mail: janardhanrao@rediffmail.com
(V. Sanjay Kumar)
Legal Advisor
Cell: 99857 59746
6. State Initiative for SC Categorization: The Govt of AP has constituted Justice Ramachandra Raju Commission on 10.09.1996 to study Categorization of SC Reservation, which, in turn, submitted its report on 26.05.1997. As per the recommendations of Justice Raju Commission, the Govt of AP has issued orders, G.O.Ms No 68 dt. 06.06.1997 and G.O.Ms No 69 dt.07.06.1997, categorizing SCs into ABCD groups. But the High Court has struck down the said G.O.s for their violation of article 338, by not consulting the National Commission for SCs. To rectify this lacuna, the State govt. has approached the National Commission for SCs regarding categorization. Besides, the AP State Legislative Assembly has unanimously passed resolution in support of SC categorization. The State Government, after soliciting support from all party meeting of AP, as well as assent from the Governor of AP, and the President of India, had passed SC Categorization Ordinance on 09.12.1999. Subsequently the AP Legislative Assembly has unanimously passed AP SC (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act 20 of 2000 on 01.04.2000. But, specifying that, AP State has no power to enact SC Categorization as per the constitution, the Supreme Court has dismissed the SC Categorization Act of AP on 05.11.2004. Consequently, AP Legislative Assembly has once again unanimously passed resolution (on 10.12.2004) in support of SC categorization and requesting the Govt of India to take up the matter in the Parliament for necessary action to enable the State of AP to equitably distribute the 15% reservations to all castes of SCs, based on their population ratio.
7. Equitable Distribution of Reservation Benefits: During the period of implementation of Categorization Act, the curtain was raised for equitable distribution of reservation benefits to all the castes of SCs on their population ratio. This was evident from the fact that Madigas, Rellies and other most backward castes of SCs got educational and employment opportunities in proportion to their population during the above period. Madigas, Rellies etc. started getting adequate representation as Articles 15(4) & 16(4) of Constitution guarantees.
Striking observations from Table No 16 of Annexure 1
From the table No 16 of Annexure 1, it is observed that Rellies were far behind in receiving reservations. However, it does not mean that they have not fielded their candidature. Though they fielded their candidature for various academic courses, Malas cornered all the seats of Rellies in the name of merit. It is also indicative of the fact that Rellies were out of the reservation benefits for the last 57 years.
During the implementation of rationalisation, though the Rellies did not fully utilise their share of reservations, at least they made a start to receive the reservation benefits.
The data, unquestionably proves that, before implementation of rationalisation, Malas have appropriated reservations disproportion to their population. In spite of the fact that Madigas fielded their candidature, Malas cornered many of the seats of Madigas in the name of merit.
It is only after the introduction of rationalisation, that all the Groups of SCs started getting representation on par with their population ratio.
The equitable distribution of reservations during implementation of rationalisation itself speaks about the validity and justification of rationalisation (categorisation).
Even during the period of implementation of rationalisation, Malas, while consuming their share fully, also consumed the share of Madigas and Rellies wherever candidates from respective groups were not there, as per the sliding formula. Therefore, it is not true that each group is restricted to their quota only.
8. Deprivation of Equitable Distribution of Reservation Benefits: Madiga, Relli and their allied castes have been again deprived of employment benefits of State govt. that they deserve to get in proportion to their population, from the date of cancellation of categorization. Similarly these castes were also deprived of thousands of educational admissions (Medicine, Engineering, B.Ed, Polytechnic, residential school and college seats etc.) of State govt. that they deserve to get in proportion to their population. On the other hand, Mala and allied castes have again started appropriating employment and educational reservation benefits exorbitantly disproportionate to their population, in the name of merit among SCs. To quote an example, out of 486 medical seats filled by State govt. (during 2005-06), Madigas got only 30 seats as against 227 (7 of 15%). Against 32 seats (1 of 15%), rellies have not got even single seat. Whereas, Mala, Adi-Andhra and their allied castes have appropriated 456 seats as against 227 (6+1=7 of 15%). The Malas appropriation of these educational benefits projected here were only for one year. This has been recurring year by year since reservations were started. We are very much concerned about these castes appropriating the reservation benefits at the cost of many under developed castes.
9. Justice Ramachandra Raju Commission: The recommendations of Justice Ramachandra Raju Commission were appreciated by all stakeholders except Malas. The recommendations of the Commission were approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of AP without any objections/modifications. When the same was placed before the Legislative Assembly, it was unanimously accepted. Even outside the Assembly, all political parties in the ‘all party meeting’ have unanimously supported categorization as recommended by the Commission. The report of the Justice Raju Commission stood the judicial scrutiny also. The Hon’ble High Court in its judgment “viewed that categorization having been made on intelligible and discernible differentia, and the act having been passed for rationalization of reservation for SCs is valid.” Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not make any adverse comments on the tenacity of the basis, methodology, data, observations, and recommendations the report.
10. Mala Political Leaders’ Support for Categorisation: It is important to note that there were 20 to 24 Mala MLAs including Ministers who joined hands with Assembly in unanimously supporting categorization on three different occasions, i.e. for supporting the categorization, another for passing the bill on Categorisation and again for recommending the Central government for taking necessary measures for categorization. In all these occasions, no Mala MLA or Minister expressed his/her objections in the house. Moreover, they lent their full support for categorization.
11. Misconceptions about Scope of SC Categorization: It is important to note that we are not demanding for SC categorization in employment and educational opportunities provided by Central govt. Therefore, it is not a national issue at all. We are demanding for the SC categorization for equal distribution of reservation of educational and employment opportunities provided by State Government of AP. Therefore it is the issue of AP State only.
12. Malas’ Merit: Malas have been attributing their cornering of SC reservation benefits to their ‘merit’ and they argue their right to continue to appropriate reservation benefits because they are meritorious among all the castes of SCs. The reservations for SCs were provided exclusively because they cannot, on their own merit, reach to the educational and employment opportunities. It is in this premise that Malas were given SC reservation benefits because they cannot, on their own, compete with general categories and get opportunities. Like Malas, other 59 castes were also provided SC reservation benefits because none of them can, on their merit, reach to the educational and employment opportunities. Therefore, none of the 60 castes have right to talk about merit. It is the State that should ensure that all these castes receive equal reservation facilities and grow together. Here, the ‘merit’ must be viewed as an administrative mechanism or filtering tool to choose the best one from the group of candidates available for consideration. For example, if there are 10 reserved candidates appearing for one post, the best of these 10 candidates is selected, based on merit. If the Malas still choose to chat the mantra of merit, they must volunteer to relinquish the SC reservation and compete with their own merit for general seats/posts.
13. Article 341: The Constitution in its Article 341 provided for the castes to be included in the Presidential schedule and also provided safeguards for not deleting/including/ any caste from/into it. That means the scope of Article 341 is limited to preparing a list of SCs for every state and ensuring the States cannot dare to add or delete any caste to/from the list at their whims and fancies. The Article 341 or Presidential list of SCs does not specify whether a State should give concessions/scholarships/ hostels/ reservations/ how much percentage of reservations/ reservations only for education/ reservation for jobs/ during initial recruitments/ promotions. It is the responsibility and duty of the respective State to provide the necessary safeguards, reservations and concessions to bring these most backward castes on par with other sections of the society. It is also the responsibility of the State to ensure that all the castes/ communities receive the benefits and develop uniformly and together. In this process the State is free to provide reservations and allocate percentage of reservations. On its observation that the reservation benefits are not equitably distributed among all the castes, it is also the duty and responsibility of the State to take necessary remedial measures - be it rationalization, categorization, sub-classification or apportionment – to rectify the flaws and attain equitable distribution of reservation to all the castes of SCs. Though the Article 341 is supposed to direct/ guide the States as to what kind of measures to be taken to ensure that the listed communities equitably receive the benefits and to achieve uniform development, unfortunately it did not do so. This necessitated the amendment for the Article.
14. Article 46: The State is vested with the responsibility of protecting all castes of SCs from social injustice as guaranteed by Article 46 that says “The State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interest of … SCs… and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation”. In the process of executing its responsibilities to promote all castes of SCs the State should be vested with the power and authority to take up any measures in favour of all castes, be it rationalization, categorization or apportionment. If any Article of the Constitution prevents use of such power and authority by the State, then that particular Article (341 or any other Article) must be amended so that the State can exercise that power.
15. Rationalisation: It is utterly wrong to use the words such as categorization, apportionment, sub-classification, mini-classification, micro-classification etc. All those words actually imply that 1, 7, 6, and 1 percent of reservation allocated to Group A, B, C and D respectively are in the strict sense. That means when candidates for posts allocated for Group A are not available, the said posts are kept unfilled and carried forward to the next year as backlogs but not filled by the candidates of Group B, C or D. But the true picture is altogether different. Here, when candidates of Group A are not available for the posts reserved for Group A, then the same posts are slid and filled by the Group B, C and/or D till the candidates were found but they are not kept unfilled for want of Group A candidates. Therefore, the process must be justifiably called ‘Rationalisation of Reservations’.
It is important to note that wherever we have used the word ‘categorisation’, we mean ‘rationalisation’. We used the word ‘categorisation’ to prevent misunderstanding because till now that was the word in use. We also request that the most appropriate word ‘rationalisation’ should be replaced/used for the word ‘categorisation’ in future.
16. Data Needed for Study: The data of ‘caste-wise’ and ‘group-wise’ beneficiaries of SCs in educational admissions, job recruitments and promotions during 4 years period of implementations of rationalisation, during at least 4 years period of pre-implementation and three years of post implementation of rationalisation is crucial to evaluate as to how rationlisation was guaranteed and ensured distribution of reservation benefits to all the castes during implementation, and how they were deprived of the benefits during pre and post implementation of rationalisation. The data of cast-wise beneficiaries of admissions into medical, engineering graduates/PGs, polytechnic, Nursing, science graduates/PGs, arts graduates/PGs, B.Ed./M.Ed, LLB/LLM, residential schools residential colleges, IAS coaching centrs etc. would give fair picture of disparities in distribution of SC reservations. Similarly, data of cast-wise beneficiaries of class-wise posts such as sweepers, attenders, junior clerks, senior clerks, superintendents, Asst. Directors, DDs, JDs, Directors, Lecturers, Readers, Professors etc. in state government departments, state autonomous bodies, State corporations, State Universities etc. would help in understanding the magnanimity of appropriation of SC reservation benefits by a few castes. The department-wise data collected earlier is not adequate to identify the quantum of disparities among higher posts since data of highest to lowest cadre employees were cumulatively presented. In fact all the key positions in govt offices were occupied by Malas and their ratio to Madigas is 8:2. The present Commission will be able to ascertain these disparities when it gets data to this extent.
17. Unity of SCs only with Rationalisation: Another important arguments, Malas put forward against rationalization of SC reservation is ‘do not divide the SCs’. The aim of rationalization of SC reservation is to allow all the castes of SCs to equally develop, receiving the reservation benefits in proportion to their population ratio. Justice, equality, fraternity and strong bond among castes of SCs will foster only when 15% reservation is equitably shared among all the castes. If one or two castes continue to appropriate all the 15% reservation at the cost of all other castes, this will lead to developmental disparities among the castes of SCs resulting in mistrust, enmity and vengeance against each other.
18. Political Motives: There is also an argument that rationalization of SC reservation was done with political motives. The relative advancement of Malas as a result of cornering of the reservations for the last 57 years, and continued backwardness of Madigas and Rellies as a result of losing their share of reservations to Malas are the historical facts. After the awareness attained by these most backward castes, they started demanding their share of reservation on various platforms.
State Legislature Committee on Welfare of SCs in 1987, consisting of Mala, Madiga and forward community MLAs, itself unanimously viewed that “grouping of Scheduled Castes and fixing of percentages of reservations (from 15 % reservation quota) will result in proper development of all listed castes simultaneously and ensures harmonious growth among them. The committee, therefore, recommends to the Government to examine the issue in greater detail so as to group out a list of all SC candidates as was done in the case of BCs”.
After the intensification of demands for categorization, The Justice Ramachandra Raju Commission was constituted and its report and recommendations were unanimously approved in the Cabinet Meeting.
The Legislative Assembly has thrice passed resolutions in favour of SC Categorisation. There can be no other best example than this to prove that the decision for categorization is not at all made for political gains. The categorization was also supported both inside and outside of the Legislative Assembly by all political parties.
19. Malas’ Advancement: It is evident from the Justice Ramachandra Raju Commission Report, various studies and data available, that the Malas and Adi-Andhras have been well established socially, politically, and economically as compared to Rellies and Madigas by consuming the lion’s share of reservation benefits disproportional to their population ratio. The Lokur Committee made these observations in 1965 itself. In its report the Committee observed:
“It has been in evidence for some time that a lion’s share of the various benefits and concessions earmarked for the scheduled castes and tribes is appropriated by the numerically larger and politically well organised communities. The smaller and more backward communities have tended to get lost in democratic processes, though most deserving of special aid. “
As remedial measures to rectify the malady, the Committee “suggested that the various castes and tribes in lists should be administratively classified or categorised so as to give higher priority in planning and development to the needier and lower priority for the comparatively advanced”. In this view, the State of AP must review the latest conditions of Malas development. On arriving at findings about the advancement of Malas and Adi-Andhras, the State must devise mechanisms to ensure equitable distribution of reservation, uniform development of all castes, and to assure the reach of reservation benefits to the neediest castes. Since Malas and Adi-Andhras have been appropriating reservation benefits for the last 57 years, at the cost of other castes, it is high time that the State should restrict certain reservation benefits to relatively more advanced Mala and Adi-Andhra castes and provide more benefits to Relli, Madiga and allied castes on the basis of preferential treatment.
20. 1 % each for group A and D: The other argument made against categorization is that Group A (with population of 1,33,689, and 0.25% of share in 15% reservation) was allocated 1% whereas Group D (with population of 7,13,824, and 1.34% share in 15% reservation) was also allocated 1% of reservation. The Justice Ramachandra Raju Commission categorized the 60 castes into ABCDs on criteria of relative backwardness and percentage of low occupation in state government services.
The lowest developed among all the castes of SCs (Relli and allied castes) who were far behind in receiving educational and job opportunities were placed in Group A. A relatively slightly better developed Madiga and allied castes (as compared to Rellies) who started using reservations but far behind in proportion to their population ratio were placed in Group B. The more developed Mala and their allied castes who consumed all reservation benefits far beyond their population ratio were placed in Group C. The most developed Adi-Andhra and allied castes that cornered reservation benefits exorbitantly disproportional to their population ratio were placed in Group D.
Since castes of Group A were far behind in their representation in education and jobs, the necessity of providing more opportunities to accelerate their growth and bring them on par with other groups (B,C,& D) at faster pace was recognized and therefore 1% reservation out of 15% was provided to them.
Moreover Group B, C, and D got their share of 7, 6, and 1 percent respectively along with some fractions of percentage. It is only the Group A that got share in fractions (0.25 %). Since it is technically impracticable to execute/ operate fractions of percentages, these fractions were taken out from Group B, C and D and added to Group A making it to 1%.
It is important to note here, that all the remaining groups including Group B sacrificed their fractions of reservation to Group A.
Added to that, allocation of 1% to group A (for that matter to group B, C and D) is only indicative and not in the strict terms. In each and every seat/job/promotion, where Group A candidate is not available, it is slid to Group B, C and D till the candidate is available. Therefore, the argument that Group A would corner benefits disproportionate to their population ratio is untenable.
However, the government of AP must make annual review of the implementation of reservations and take appropriate remedial measures to ensure that all the castes will grow equally while preventing any particular caste appropriating reservations at the cost of others.
21. Malas aggression for reservations: When the whole world is professing for equitable distribution of reservations, it is only the Malas who are opposing it tooth and nail. Malas are adamant in opposing to categorization in spite of the fact that their 6% reservation is assured apart from the possibility of getting more posts/ seats when others are not available (The table No. 16 of Annexure 1 indicates that Malas consumed more than 6% of their share whenever others were not available). The status quo in the present situation would favour Malas to continue appropriating lion’s share of reservations. This is high time for this Commission, Judiciary, people’s representatives, State and Central governments to think whether the Constitution will allow a few castes to appropriate whole reservation benefits meant for 60 castes.
22. Categorisation more justified for SCs than BCs: It is argued that categorization of BCs is allowed whereas categorization for SCs is not allowed. The logic for this seems to be funny. The castes of BCs were not included in the Presidential List and therefore, the BCs were not provided constitutional safeguards. The castes of SCs were included in the Presidential List and they were provided constitutional safeguards. When BCs without constitutional safeguards are entitled for equitable distribution of reservations, SCs with constitutional safeguards should be doubly entitled for equitable distribution. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the Constitution and constitution makers to ensure equitable distribution of reservations and thereby uniform development of all the castes.
23. Apportionment is alredy in force: It is argued that apportionment of reservation is not allowed for SCs. It is difficult to understand why apportionment cannot be done when the reservation benefits were appropriated by a few castes and remaining castes were helpless to reach to benefits, thereby, increasing the gap between ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ among various castes of SCs.
For that matter, apportionment of SC reservations is already in force in the State. The 15 % reservations for SCs were apportioned between Andhra (Andhra University), Telangana (Osmania University) and Rayalaseema (Sri Venkateswara University) educational admissions.
The apportionment of 15% reservation is also in force for job recruitments in AP. In the zone wise recruitments, SCs from that particular zone are only entitled to compete for the posts. SC candidates of all other zones are denied candidature for that zone.
More importantly, out of 15 % reservation for SCs, 33.33 % is reserved (apportioned) for SC women. Women can field candidature for their quota of 5% and also for remaining 10%, where as SC men are denied of fielding candidature for 5 % apportioned for SC women.
In spite of several apportionments (regional/ zonal/ gender/ local bodies apportionments etc.), the rationalization of SC reservation is being well received by all sections of SCs because of its built-in mechanism to ensure equitable distribution of benefits to the entitled castes.
If the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment against apportionment of SC reservation is taken in the strictest sense, then the above mentioned SC reservation apportionments including SC women reservations become null and void, and unconstitutional.
Moreover, Malas mainly argue that they were restricted to only 6% and deprived of remaining 9 % of SC reservation. It is the height of greediness for Malas to swallow all the 15 % reservation. If Malas alone corner all the 15 % reservation, then where the remaining castes should go?
Malas technical argument before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that they can field candidature only for 6 % but denied of remaining 9% of reservation is not at all tenable. When candidates in a particular group were not available, all the remaining groups sequentially get opportunity to field candidature. In this way, every group (A, B, C and D) will get chance to field candidature for 15 % of SC reservation. That means apart from entitlement to field their candidature for their share of 6 %, Malas are also entitled for fielding their candidature for the remaining 9 % of reservation, through sliding method, as and when candidates from that particular group are not available.
First of all, when Malas are entitled for 6 % reservation in proportion to their population, why should they get chance for others’ share?
Secondly, Malas’ share of 6 % was also assured for them which was not there earlier.
Thirdly and most importantly, Malas are not restricted to field their candidature for remaining 9 % of reservation.
24. Distortions of Madiga population particulars: There has been conscious efforts to distort the official revenue records by showing Madiga population as Malas for false projections of increased Mala population over Madigas. For example, In the SSID records of Karumanchi village of Tangutur mandal, Prakasam District, caste particulars 258 Madiga people were entered in to records as ‘Malas’ (Please see Annexure 2). This is indicative of increasing figures for Mala population for the purpose of getting higher share from 15% reservation. Nobody except Malas can be accused for distortions in official records for the very reason that they are the only beneficiaries and they only have access to reach to such records by the virtue of their establishment in govt. offices. This Commission must bring it to the notice of AP govt and recommend to take up remedial and preventive measures.
25. Distortions of Madiga population particulars: There has been conscious efforts to distort the official revenue records by showing Madiga population as Malas for false projections of increased Mala population over Madigas. For example, In the SSID records of Karumanchi village of Tangutur mandal, Prakasam District, caste particulars 258 Madiga people were entered in to records as ‘Malas’ (Please see Annexure 2). This is indicative of increasing figures for Mala population for the purpose of getting higher share from 15% reservation. Nobody except Malas can be accused for distortions in official records for the very reason that they are the only beneficiaries and they only have access to reach to such records by the virtue of their establishment in govt. offices. This Commission must bring it to the notice of AP govt and recommend to take up remedial and preventive measures.
26. Two Reasons for Malas Advancement: There is one widely spoken reason for Malas’ advancement in comparison with Madigas is that Malas embraced reservations very quickly and much early whereas Madigas were slow in receiving the reservation benefits.
The other reason for Malas’ aggression to appropriate reservation quota, which is not spoken, is that by the time Madigas started getting awareness and started getting school and college educations, Malas were far ahead in capturing the jobs and well established in political platforms as well as all the government offices, educational institutions etc.
Malas asserted their presence as MPs, MLAs, key positions in political parties, Chairmen and Members of various bodies and committees, Heads of the Institutions, Heads of the departments, Liaison Officers etc.
Once Malas asserted their presence and established their identity, they started exhibiting their ‘Mala fraternity’, promoting Malas at the cost of Madigas and others. Today Malas are seen in many of the Selection Committees/ DPCs as Members.
If this Commission throws light on this aspect and collects the state wide data of SC members in Selection Committees and DPCs vis. castes of selected candidates, more stunning facts will see the light of the day.
27. Categorisation Limited to AP: Categorising SCs into ABCDs, would only imply that 15% reservations allocated for SCs will be equitably distributed among all the 60 castes of SCs based on their population ratio. You may call it ‘equitable distribution of reservations’, ‘rationalisation’ or ‘categorisation’. The scope of this rationalization is only limited to the benefits provided by the State Government of AP. Central government is also providing certain benefits to SCs of the country. For this SC categorization is not applicable. Therefore, the Presidential List of 60 castes of SCs is not being disturbed as far as central government reservation benefits are concerned. Apart from that, neither inclusion nor deletion of any caste into/from the said list is attempted by the State of AP.
28. Caste, not ‘Sub-Cast’: The term ’Sub-Caste’ is being used instead of ‘caste’ in the official proceedings. Each one is a ‘Caste’ by itself. The Presidential order included 59 such castes in a ‘schedule’. Therefore these 59 castes became popular as ‘Scheduled Castes’. It is unfortunate that each of these 59 castes is being mispronounced as ‘Sub-Caste’. Every caste has its own identity in terms of distinctions, characteristics, places of residence, cultural practices, occupations, social strata, linguistic dialects etc. The mispronunciation of caste as ‘Sub-Cast’ is giving false impressions on the people to assume that these 59 castes are only ‘descendants’ or ‘offshoots’ of some main caste. With this kind of misconceptions, sometimes people feel embarrassed to support categorization, because they feel that it amounts to dividing one particular caste.
29. Exchange of Arguments for and against: The Commission after collecting viewpoints and arguments (for and against) must publish the same and provide adequate time and opportunity to give clarifications/ explanations/ counterarguments from both sides.
30. Adequate time needed for submitting viewpoints: The short time given (30.06.2007) to individuals/organizations to represent their viewpoints (for and against) before the Commission is not adequate. Therefore, it is requested to give adequate time for individuals/organizations to send their viewpoints. It is particularly requested not to give chance to stakeholders to claim that they were not given adequate time to present their viewpoints.
31. Urgency of Amendment: Madigas including many other most backward castes have already lost thousands of state employment benefits, thousands of state employment promotional benefits and lakhs of state educational admission benefits (school to higher & professional education), for the last three years from the date of cancellation, as a result of delay in making constitutional amendment to Article 341. The Constitutional Amendment, at least in the ensuing Parliament session (Monsoon session, 2007), would prevent further deprivation of reservation benefits to Madigas in the present academic year (2007-08).
32. Our Demands: In this background we are demanding that:
1. The Parliament must amend the Constitution of India by adding a proviso to Article 341 of the Constitution in the following terms:
“Provided that the appropriate government may sub-classify the castes, creed, races or tribes in the list of Scheduled Castes, based on the relative backwardness, to ensure equality of opportunity among them in accordance with Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution.”
2. AP SC (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act 2000 must be reinstated with immediate effect and ensure that all the 60 castes of SCs will be equally distributed the reservation benefits provided by the government of AP in terms of admissions into educational institutions, employment in state services etc.
3. Government of India, through its census data and other frequent studies must collect the ‘caste-wise’ and ‘group-wise’ data of SCs in AP and analyse the growth (educational, economical, social etc.) of each and every cast of SCs enabling the Centre/State to take remedial measures.
4. The State government must annually collect the data of SCs, in terms of ‘caste-wise’ and ‘group-wise’, from all the educational institutions, employment in state services, autonomous bodies and corporations.
5. Each and every caste of SCs should be termed as ‘caste’ instead of ‘sub-caste’ in the Central/State governments’ official proceedings.
6. The Commission is requested to give adequate time for individuals/ organizations to send their viewpoints.
7. The data of ‘caste-wise’ and ‘group-wise’ beneficiaries of SCs in educational admissions, job recruitments and promotions during 4 years period of implementations of categorization, during at least 4 years period of pre-implementation and three years of post implementation of categorization should be collected by this Commission.
8. The state government must conduct annual reviews to evaluate the cast-wise and group-wise growth of SCs and devise appropriate remedial measures from time to time.
Our request to the Commission: In the light of above circumstances, we humbly request you to speed up the process of enquiry and recommend the Govt. of India and the Parliament to amend the Constitution for permanent solution on categorization of SC reservations for immediate justice to Madiga, Relli and allied castes in the employment and educational admissions.
Thanking you Madam,
Yours Sincerely,
(P. Krupakar Madiga)
President
(Janardhan Rao Cheeli)
Advisor
Cell: 94405 69169, E-Mail: janardhanrao@rediffmail.com
(V. Sanjay Kumar)
Legal Advisor
Cell: 99857 59746
2 comments:
* An armed society is a POLITE society.
* And it is not FEAR that keeps us polite -- it is RESPONSIBILITY.
* I request every Madiga to OWN a hand gun to protect his INTEGRITY and for SELF-DEFENSE.
* And arms LICENSE from Police Department costs just 100 rupees in India.
http://hyderabadpolice.gov.in/License&Permissions/ArmsLicense.htm
For Madiga matrimony services, click here.
Post a Comment