I have now had time to peruse and read through the 2 documents attached to Prof Borges' post. I must admit that I am terribly disappointed.
The entire debate from start to end is all about ending communal representation in the legislatures and Parliament. Nowhere, I repeat, nowhere is there any mention, discussion or debate about the existence or non-existence of casteism or caste discrimination among Christians as Prof Borges contended. Refer his post to JC below: "(4) As far as "special privileges by way of Reservations" is concerned, let us not forget that an injustice was done to Christian dalits by the makers of the Constitution of India under the influence of the Christian members of the Constituent assembly who claimed that caste discrimination did not exist among Christians. One of these was a Catholic priest. And now, over 60 years later, the Christian Churches are pressing to reverse this provision! " As I said in my earlier posts, Prof Borges is confused and mixing up issues. The debate and discussion in the Constituent Assembly was all about ending sectoral or communal representation in the legislatures and Parliament. I quote from Prof Borges's own posting: "Fr. Jerome referred to "the multiple signs of good-will on the part of the majority community" and fully backed Dr. Mookherjee in his decision that there should be *NO RESERVATION OF SEATS.* ( Note: caps and italics are mine to emphasize that what was rejected was RESERVATION OF SEATS in Parliament) Prof Borges further quotes Fr Jerome as under: "*According to him, a man is to be assisted because he is poor, because his birth and upbringing have not given him the opportunity to make progress, socially,politically and educationally; it should not matter whether he be a Christian,or a Muslim or a Hindu or a Brahmin or non-Brahmin, or a Scheduled Caste member.*(Note: italics are mine to emphasize that he made a point that all socially and economically backward persons, irrespective of religion or caste should be given benefits. Nowhere does he say that economic and social benefits should not be extended to dalits of Christian origin as surmised by Prof Borges) Prof Mookherjee in the debate is quoted as saying: "So far as the masses are concerned my friends are united in saying that the * **masses do not want reservations. *They say that they are interested in three or four things only. They want food, clothing, a shelter over their heads, medical aid and good roads. These are their demands. When they were specifically asked whether they wanted reservation, the reply in every case was as follows: *"We know that we shall never enter the Legislatures; **reservations do not concern or interest us."* There all sections of the people were at one. Then came queries addressed to the lower middle classes, people who depend upon service to earn their living. *Their reaction was that *if there was any kind of reservation they would like to have reservation in *jobs. (*italics are mine. Pl note that Prof Mookerjee has stated in plain language that the Christian masses did not want reservation in legislatures but reservation in jobs) " Sir, in considering whether the House should accept the recommendations of the Advisory Committee and the resolution placed before it by Sardar Patel there are two questions which, it seems to me, the House should ask itself. The first is: are we really honest when we say that we are seeking to establish a secular state? *And the second is, whether we intend to have one nation. if your idea is to have a secular state it follows inevitable **that we cannot afford to recognise minorities based upon religion. This to my mind is the strongest possible argument why RESERVATION OF SEATS FOR RELIGIOUS GROUPS** should be abolished** ( *Note:* *caps and italics are mine. He speaks of abolishing reservation of seats for religious groups) *and that immediately.* *So **far as the idea of building up one nation is concerned I do admit that there **are certain economically backward groups in every community and for them **provision has been made in the directive adopted in December last. *( Note: he makes it a point that there are economically and socially backward groups in every community and that there are safeguards made in the Directive Principles. This was the situation as on 26th November 1949 when the new Constitution was adopted by the Constituent Assembly and 26th January 1950 when the new Constitution came into effect. However, on 10th August, 1950, about 8 months later this safeguard was overturned by a Presidential Order *1950, known **as the Constitution **(SCHEDULED CASTE) Order, no.19, **Aug.10, 1950 which specifically restricted the benefits to only Hindus and **excluded all other religions like Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians and Muslims). **Refer:* 4[3. Notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph 2, no person who professes a religion different from the Hindu 5[, the Sikh or the Buddhist] religion shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste.] http://lawmin.nic.in/ld/subord/rule3a.htm Prof Borges is also incorrect when he states that Sikhs were granted reservations and benefits because they fought for it at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. The truth is that Sikhs like other religions were excluded from the Presidential Order (refer above), but secured the benefits after a struggle in 1956. The benefits were later extended to Buddhists in 1990. I wish to further inform Prof Borges that persons belonging to scheduled tribes of whatever religion continue to get the benefits of reservation and economic assistance. What the dalit christians are asking and fighting for legitimately is that they be treated at par with their hindu, sikh and buddhist counterparts as they suffer from the same economic and social disability in which they were born. Dalit christians are not asking for separate electorates or reservation of seats in Parliament. They are asking for reserved seats in educational institutions, reservation in jobs, financial assistance like loans to study, set up business as given to other dalits. I, however, agree with Prof Borges when he states that casteism has not been eradicated in the Church and it is true that in parts of Tamil Nadu, even to this day, dalits are buried in a separate section of the cemetery. A crying shame for all of us who call ourselves Christian!!! Regards, Marshall *Sardar Hukam Singh, a Sikh leader from East Punjab, fought tooth and nail to overturn this in respect to four backward Sikh castes namely, the Mazhabis, Ramdasis, Kabirpanthis and Sikligars of East Punjab. And he succeeded! Had the Christian leaders, especially Fr. Jerome, adhered to the reality and followed the example of Hukam Singh, history would have been different. More details may be accessed at the following links:http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/790979/http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol10p7a.htm It now transpires that Marshall knew all this. So why the question? If Articles 25 & 30 were a boon to the Christians, why are we fighting to obtain reservations for Dalit Christians today? Did these Dalits not exist in 1947? * *Prof Sebastian Borges*
