The research methodology involved in this research is purely doctrinal/ non empirical. The researcher in this paper will analyze the “Reservation System in India”. The researcher will also take into consideration the reservation policy/ system in India. The understanding of the paper is based on various publications as contained in books, journals, newspapers, Constituent Assembly Debates, websites and statutory provisions dealing with the aspect of applicability of Reservation in India. For the sake of convenience, the researcher has divided the paper into various chapters dealing with a particular aspect.

The method which we tend to follow during research will be a combination of more than one approach but the approach which resembles research the most will be doctrinal approach or analytical technique. The object of the study is to analyze the concept of the Reservation, and make as many number of people aware about the concept of the reservation policy/ system and let the people decide whether the implementation of the same will be beneficial for them or not. A study of the concept, including some research articles and papers along with some newspapers and the history book have been conducted to bring about a significant result that helps in improving the analytical concept of the Reservation policy/ system in the mind of the readers. It aims at providing deep knowledge of the subject matter.

Its main objective is to provide a new source of information, knowledge and wisdom to the readers of this article. The critical analysis of the reservation is a topic, which is otherwise understood to be something which has already been established in various different papers, as we see a lot of journals getting published on the critical issue of the Reservation system.

The policy/system of reservation as envisaged in the provision of the Constitution of Union of India has always been a topic of discussion, wrought sometimes with highly emotive a content that involves social, political, economic, administrative and legal consequences.

Reserving opportunities, resources or offices for individuals or groups for furthering their welfare and thereby ensuring social justice, is the core of the concept of reservation. The basically aim of the reservation system to provide empowering individuals or groups and ensuring their contribution in the decision making process of the State. Socio-economic disability of a person deprives him or her of the chance to compete with others on equal footing. Thus to find out the disability of the person and reserve opportunities for him or her becomes the responsibility of the state when the state is democratic and its objective is welfare of the people. In the judicial parlance the term „reservation? has come to mean reserving opportunities, resources and/or offices for the group of the people who belong to the socially and educationally backward communities or castes.

The caste-based society situated in India. This has to be eliminated if India has to become democratic in the western sense of the term. Hence Ambedkar believed that the final solution lay in the abolition of caste system itself.¹ But after some time, it seems, he changed his opinion and observed in one of his paper that the caste could not be abolished. He said:

Caste is religion, and religion is anything but an institution. It may be institutionalised but it is not the same as the institution in which it is embedded. Religion is an influence or force suffused through the life of each individual molding his character, determining his actions and reactions, his likes and dislikes. These likes and dislikes, actions and reactions are not institutions, which can be lopped off. They are forces and influences, which can be dealt with by controlling them or counteracting them. If social forces are to be prevented from contaminating politics and preventing it to the aggrandizement of the few and the degradation of

the many then it follows that it will contain mechanisms, which will bottle the prejudices and nullify the injustice, which the social forces are likely to cause if they were let loose.²

In the current scenario the social mind set has not accustomed to the democratic morality of acknowledging the principle of equality in social intercourse. Ambedkar often remarked that „in the religious sense, if dogmas like caste and untouchability are taken as test, the untouchables are not Hindus?. He was vociferous in his observation that Hinduism was an obstacle to social unity.³

Thus a society based on status has to be restructured into a society based on contract. Though the Constitution of India begins with the phrase „We, the People of India?- a phrase contractual in nature, at the pragmatic plane performance of the contractual stipulations has been lopsided. In other words „equality? among the individual members of the society has to be ensured. Thus it is a part of the performance of these stipulations that the policy of „reservation? for the „backward? was envisaged. The

„backwardness? may be due to the age-old system of social structure, which in course of time had become so rigid that it would be an insurmountable obstacle in the process of establishing equality among individuals. This social structure also reveals male dominance, which in fact was absent in ancient times.

The process of Sanskritization and/or Westernization might have helped a few caste groups in attaining a higher social status. But “Sanskritization as model of status improvement for the Scheduled Castes seems to be relatively irrelevant.”⁴ Westernization, unlike Sanskritization, continuous to influence the people of different caste and communities.

This is because of the fact that Westernization implies the benefits of industrialism, which everyone desires to have and Sanskritization cannot deliver those benefits and in such a predicament the latter has been losing its relevance. But the process of Westernization is interlinked with the knowledge of a Western European language. In the India contest, English education became the trajectory for westernization.

The process of westernization started when Lord Macaulay introduced English as the language in Indian Provinces. But the impact was felt mainly on the upper castes and English education being passport to appointment in Govt. services, the benefits went to the upper and middle class people while the masses that belonged to lower castes or casteless remained ignorant and backward.⁵ This gradually created a cleavage and consequently the civil society got itself divided and the major division being „Brahmin versus Non-Brahmin? in many regions of India. Among the Non-Brahmin, there were different classes of people based on caste hierarchy. The issue of „reservation? should be understood in this background and it is also important to note that reservation to a certain extent prevented the consolidation of the Non-Brahmin communities within the Hindu fold.

To establish a democracy it is essential to ensure equal opportunity for all classes of people so that the dream of egalitarian society could be realized. People should have access to modern facilities, which, in turn, depends on the resources they could command. Here comes the necessity to provide reservation for the classes of people who deserve it. But at the same time „classes? or „castes? that had originated in the old feudalistic era, have been losing their significance and „individual? is getting more attention in the context of modern, western system of democracy. Yet from the point of view of Social Psychology, the whole process of Westernization has not gone deep into the social psyche of the people in India. This leads to a sort of hypocrisy in public life. People speak about socialist, egalitarian society, but in private life their behaviour reveals the strong faith in the cultural background of the past.

The attempts in the direction of reforming Hindu society by socio-religious movements in the 19^th and early 20^th centuries also reflected this contradiction. Instead of creating a casteless and classless society, they strengthened the groups based on caste.⁶ Obviously these groups began to demand due representation in government services. Such demands did not assume any dangerous proportion, thanks to the then govt. that responded positively to this issue.

The need for such reservation is too construed as a time-bound „program? because this action on the part of the State cannot go on forever. The time limit for this program has also been extended, may be due to political compulsions. Originally when the Constitution adopted „reservation? regarding representation in legislature it was only for 10 years, which was up to 1960; but the time limit has recently been extended to 2010. But the protective discrimination envisaged for education and employment for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other socially and economically backward classes of people, does not have any time limit. Another argument is that there is a potential danger that the periodical extension of as well as permanent protective discrimination might, instead of effecting equality through gradual regaining of balance between the erstwhile dominant and erstwhile backward classes, create a tendency among the backward to remain formally backward so that the benefits of protective discrimination could continue   for ever. In effect this might breed another variety of inequality in the social hermeneutics.⁷ Consequently the equality among the citizens might become a mirage and democratic institutions, to that extent, might suffer.

In such social scenario disputes are bound to arise. Getting education, obtaining positions of power- including positions in law-making bodies and administrative post- and resource sharing are some of the aspects of reservation. Rivalry among the communities is bound to occur because once privileged classes are losing their share of power and hitherto depressed classes are given the benefits of „protective discrimination?. The study of my research is about to understand the concept, origin, growth and scope of reservation system in India as well as safeguards institution regarding the reservation system and focuses this aspect on judicial approach in dealing with this social condition.

The existing literature on „reservation policy? will give a multi-coloured view on protective discrimination programmes. All three wings of the State legislature, executive and judiciary have to act in the unison for delivering social, political and economic justice to the citizens. But instead of a healthy co-ordination there is a subtle rivalry among them; especially between the political executive and judiciary.

The legislature is influenced if not dominated by partyism in a parliamentary system of democracy. This has led to Scheduled Castes organizing themselves into political party in various parts of India. The best example is Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP). Scheduled Tribes, to certain succeeded in having new states for Tribal?s and Hill people like extent Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttaranchal. Thus parliamentary system has encouraged the power barging and power broking and this has a boost to caste consolidation and not to caste elimination.

This tendency is reflected in the formation of political executive namely the formation of Council of Ministers both at the Centre and at the State levels. The permanent executive being dominated by the upper caste is not sincere in implementing the reservation policy in its letter and spirit. This inevitably leads to political as well as legal conflicts and political articulations clearly point out the need for an effective monitoring system to see whether the reservational laws are of help to the backward classes in overcoming their social disabilities. In a sense the backward classes to do get political awareness and they often feel that they are being used as „vote banks?. But this kind of thinking will only encourage divisive tendencies.

The judiciary, through in the initial stages approached reservation laws in dry legal way of interpreting laws by letter and grammar, later revealed a more liberal and active approach in interpreting reservation laws with the touchstone of Constitutional provisions. In legal disputes often the „upper caste? approaches the court and challenges the reservation laws. But recently this trend has been reversed.

On the concept of equality, as it is incorporated in the Constitution of India, Andre Beteille?s observation is noteworthy. What was at issue was not simply equality as right available to all individuals but also equality as a policy aimed at bringing about certain changes in the structure of society.

The claims to equality of individuals and collectivities are nicely balanced in the Constitution of India or that they can be nicely balanced. Law and politics in India have, in fact, been bedevilled by these conflicting claims ever since the Constitution came into effect. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that the Constitution treats the provisions in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

The main concern any political society should be the inequality from which some sections suffer. This inequality is to be understood as a historical continuum of an erstwhile character of a society. It might have created political inequality or economic inequality or both and consequently causing political inequality too in the world of realpolitik. Hence constitutional guarantees to social and economic equality along with government. This has been duly acknowledged in the Indian Constitution as special provisions. Ambedkar himself argued in the Constituent Assembly that these special provisions should not be allowed to „eat up? the general provisions of equality of opportunity for all individuals alike. These special provisions continue to be in force, and it cannot be argued that, because they take collective identities into account and perhaps even strengthen them, they are by definition hostile to the spirit of equality.⁸

The crux of the problem in cases relating to reservation can be easily understood in one can discern the conflicting facets of the concept of equality. Whenever the legality and legitimacy of reservation are discussed the concept of equality enshrined in Art 14 of the Indian Constitution becomes core theme. The policy of reservation is based on the argument that it would be injustice to treat socially and economically backward people on par with the „upper classes?.

The age of Reason contributed to the politics of the day in Europe the forceful slogan of „Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity? made popular by French Revolution⁹, which ignited the thinking world to establishing a political system that came to be styled as democracy.¹⁰ As democracy became the system of government accepted as a norm for the polity by the western world, it has become fashionable to assume that democracy is the best form of government and people in other parts of the world too should adopt such a system. In spite of having a long tradition of governance of states, the people of the Indian sub-continent also came under the spell of the colonial system and at least an articular section of Indian public opinion during the period of freedom struggle was in favour of the political system of the British masters.¹¹ Even in Britain the democratic system was a product of evolution and only at a later stage the sovereign power began to devolve gradually and the non-rate payers were given the voting right as a beginning to achieve what could be termed „political equality?.¹²

The concept of equality is an absorbing one. In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle says that „justice is equality, as all men believe it to be, quite apart from any argument?. It is pertinent to note that is Greek „equality? and „justice? are synonyms.¹³ An opposite extreme view could be obtained from Nietzsche who said, “Equality of all men is the biggest lie ever told.”¹⁴ It is only common place to say that individuals differ in many

respects. But they have a basic trait that is to be recognized and encouraged. In the beginning of 20^th century L.T. Hobhouse wrote:

As a matter of the interpretation of experience, there is something peculiar to human beings and common to human being without distinction of class, race or sex, which lies far deeper than all the differences between them, call it what we may, soul, reason, the abysmal capacity for suffering or just human nature, it is something generic, of which there may be many scientific as well as quantitative differences, but which underlies and embraces them all. If this common nature is what doctrine of equal right postulates, it has no reason to fear the test of our ordinary experience of life or of our study of history and anthropology.¹⁵

Equality has its ramifications reflected mainly as natural equality, social equality, political equality, economic equality, legal equality, and ultimately international equality. The list is not complete; yet it is interesting to note that in the social life of humans, a member of the society always faces problems connected with one kind of equality or other. This multi-dimensional aspect of equality generates complex issues. Parliamentary democracies, which demand support of the majority in the legislature for the political executive, makes the problems all the more complicated.¹⁶ Yet within a political society based on a legal framework of constitutionalism these problems should be solved in a peaceful atmosphere observing the legal principles laid down in the basic law of the land.

The concept of equality is intertwined with other social and jurisprudential concept like „right?, „liberty?, fraternity?, „property? and „Justice? thus making the concept a multi-dimensional one. Hence “of all the basic concepts of social, moral and political philosophy none is more intriguing and none is more baffling than it.”¹⁷ Perhaps this intriguing nature of the concept might have made Earnest Barker remark: “Equality is a protean notion: it changes its shape and assumes new forms with a ready facility.”¹⁸ However the term equality might evoke a sense of levelling. That is why Laski said;

“Undoubtedly it (equality) implies fundamentally a certain levelling process. It means that no man shall be so placed in society that he can overreach his neighbour to the extent, which constitutes a denial of latter?s citizenship.”¹⁹ He further elaborates this levelling process in the following words:

It means that my realization of my best self must involve as its logical result the realization by others of their best selves. It means such an ordering of social forces as will balance a share in its gain also. It means that my share in that gain must be adequate for the purpose of citizenship. It implies that even if my voice be weighed as less weighty than that of another, it must yet receive consideration in the decisions that are made. The meaning, ultimately, of equality surely lies in the fact that the very differences in the nature of men require mechanism for the expression of their wills that give to each its due hearing.²⁰

The mechanism about which Laski speaks has its legal dimension. Thus the basic law of the land shall contain provisions to ensure equality by a leveling process.

F.A. Hayek, another thinker of renown, says:

As a statement of fact it is just not true that all men are born equal. We may continue to use this hallowed phrase to express the ideal that legally and morally all men ought to be treated alike. But if we want to understand what this ideal of equality can or should mean, the First requirement is that we free ourselves from the belief in factual equality.²¹

He opines that there is a conflict between the concept of equality and the reality of inequality. At the same time he believes that „equality before law?, which is a prerequisite of a free society, would automatically entail equality in material welfare.

Equality becomes an essential ingredient for a better life and better life for their members is the aim of all political societies. A deeper analysis would bring forth the truth that the positive aspect of equality is achieved When there is “an appropriate

opportunity for each; what is to be equalized is not the opportunity to enter a profession or to be successful in business but the opportunity to lead a good life, or to fulfil one?s personality.”²² Therefore the sense of justice demands that when the policy of reservation is formulated and executed it must have the nexus with the objectives sought, namely „to lead a good life? and „fulfil one?s personality?. Whether this ultimate goal is achieved by the political systems, is a pertinent question to be asked both by the decision makers and by the justice deliverers.

Modern democracy postulates „equality? as the cardinal principle of governance, because of the very fact that democracy presupposes the participation of citizens in the decision making process, and the very decisions the citizens are making or authorize others to make on their behalf affects their future and thereby affects the future of the political society of which they are members. For the better functioning of democratic system political equality becomes the most indispensable ingredient. All democratic states, therefore, ensure equality of citizens by way of giving each one of them one vote. But this „equality? is inadequate because of the very fact that other inequalities, especially economic and social inequalities, overwhelm the political equality. Thus 'inequalities' in other spheres of life become significant for this will breed inequities, which will, from within, disrupt the very democratic fabric.

Inequality is inherent in humans. The Marxian philosophy would proclaim that the inequalities were caused by the fact of who owns the means of production. And hence the class difference and consequently class-conflict between the „haves? and „have- nots? is inevitable. The panacea for resolving this lies in the establishment of socialism. Thus the socialist thinkers make the concept of equality an avowed norm for achieving the utopia of a classless society. Obviously the emphasis of the socialist thinkers is on the economic equality. Criticizing the Marxian approach Bertrand Russell says, “The greatest political evil is not inequality of wealth as the Bolshevik theorists insist, but inequality of power."²³

More or less in the same fashion Dahrendorf points out authority as the basis for inequality. As Bains remarks:

“[H]is contribution, however, lies in his recognition of authority as the basis of inequality. In conclusion, it may be stated that power plays a major role in the unequal distribution of resources.”²⁴ Thus the concept of equality has an inevitable nexus with that of power. But again power has its own ramifications. A person may try to develop his personality and he may use every avenue power he has. This could be termed as „developmental power?. But there are persons who may try to extract advantages from the abilities of others. This could be termed as „extractive power„. This is the qualitative aspect of power. It all depends on the inherent capacity of persons concerned. It has a value - dimension also, because the society may not approve of any misuse of power. The basic principle that society imposes certain moral as well as legal obligations upon the members should understood in the light of this basic postulate.²⁵

Equality is a normative concept. It implies that all persons should be treated equally by providing equal opportunity so that they could develop their personality and thereby the State may also be benefited. In a given socio-politico-economic situation, perfect equality becomes an ideal to be achieved, nevertheless it is a pragmatic program that is to be sincerely adopted and vigorously pursued. In this regard it would be better if the lawmakers take note of what Rawls says. There are two essential aspects of equality. “First each person is to have equal right to extensive basic liberty compatible with similar liberty of other. Second, social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both

The concept of equality, therefore, poses problems both at the, philosophical level and on the pragmatic plane. As Ben and Peter?s state: A positive egalitarianism, demanding similar treatment of all, irrespective of any difference, would clearly lead to absurdities. To sweep away all distinctions would be to commit injustices as inexcusable as any under attack. Moral progress is made as much by making new and justifiable distinctions as by eliminating established but irrelevant „inequalities?.²⁷

It seems that for the elimination of irrelevant inequalities, what Laski calls, „the levelling process? is required.²⁸ However perfect equality is impossible to achieve and hence “equals should be treated equally and the unequal unequally and the respect in which they are considered unequal must be relevant to the differences in treatment that we propose.”²⁹ Yet the question remains who is to assess the inequality and what normative yardstick one has to adopt.

By the middle of 20^th century „equal treatment? of humans had become a strong political as well as emotional issue. It became a cardinal principle of „human rights?. The concept of human right in general acquired an emotional content, especially since the pogrom unleashed by Nazis during World War ll. The subsequent Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations gave a global legitimacy to the concept of

„equality?. The modem democracies invariably incorporated these rights into their Constitutions.³⁰ It became a significant principle of democratic constitutionalism.

The modern liberal democracies, is that to decide the degree of inequality and consequent affirmative action to be taken should „classes of people? be taken as the basic unit or the "individual„. This problem is reflected in the discussion regarding

„civil rights? questions in the United States. As Nesiah points out: “Thomas Sowell (1981a), among the first Black academics to speak out against preferential policies, argues that affirmative action programmes have made suspect the qualifications and occupational status of every member of the groups benefited. Sowell has been particularly critical of the application of affirmative action within the academic community.”³¹ Again he continues to reproduce Sowell?s arguments:

Sowell distinguishes between what he sees as two contradictory senses in which the term 'civil rights? is used. In the first, „civil rights? means that individuals are viewed and treated within a framework, which is „blind? to their gender or ethnic origins. In the second, „civil rights? has come to be equated with affirmative action „biased? towards specific ethnic groups or one particular gender. Sowell?s quarrel is with the latter interpretation, and he is particularly critical of the principle of „proportional equality?.³²

In this context observations of Professor Ronald Dworkin are indeed relevant. Speaking on affirmative action, he emphasizes the need to distinguish equality as a right from equality as a policy.³³ According to him political theory has virtually ignored this distinction. He further states that there is a distinction between the right to equal treatment and the right to treatment as an equal. The former is „the righ to an equal distribution of some opportunity, resource or burden? the latter treatment implies the right „to be treated with the same respect and concern as anyone else?.³⁴ It seems that the latter one has a socio-psychological dimension. In spite of Constitutional commandments and legal provisions that guarantee „equality?, there is hostility and rivalry among the communities. Another observation by Ivan Reid about the British society is indeed thought provoking. “These issues (relating to social class

differences) are based on questions of social equality and justice.”³⁵ Emphasizing the role of education in this regard he says, “For some the provision of equal opportunities is a sufficient end in itself, for others the end is equality of outcome, which is only achieved when educational attainment of the classes, sexes and ethnic groups is identical.”³⁶

The concept closely connected with equality is „social justice?. Justice is a word with a host of semantic ramifications. It was the support around which the dialogue on Plato?s Republic revolves. And „ideal state? became the only answer to realize the ideal of justice. The concept is too intangible to be comprehended and too evasive to be implemented. Yet one can safely proceed on the assumption „that justice is a positive ethical social value.?³⁷ Stone has described this ethical value content in the following words: “Men can judge things to be just or unjust without formulating any norms attendant on the vague notions which base their judgments; but to explain such judgments, they will always be found to resort to propositions which are tacitly, if not expressly, normative.”³⁸

The Preamble of the Indian Constitution too declares Justice, social, political and economic as the noble objective. But unfortunately the Constitutional practice for over half a century presents a sad story of deviation, distortion and dysfunction. Equality of treatment is one of the cardinal principles of a democracy. But in a society that has been practicing inequality as a way of life a sudden shift in the power structure that equality would bring about is something intolerable. But social justice demands this power shift.

Secondly in an unequal society, social justice demands unequals to be treated unequally. In other words those who were at the lower rungs of the social ladder must be given the benefits of „protective discrimination? for the obvious reason that they cannot compete with those who have already been at the upper strata. But here too social tension is created owing to the process of „power shift? from the classes of citizens who were enjoying it to some other classes who were deprived of it. This

again is to be resolved if social justice is to become reality. The period of transformation inevitably brings in points of conflict. And herein comes the Judiciary that tries to restore justice by umpiring. Hence people often approach the Court in the hope of getting justice. There are many laws including directives in the Constitution for ensuring social justice to the people especially to the underprivileged. Yet even today social justice in its philosophic content has come to become distorted at the pragmatic plane. But this is not something confined to Indian condition.

As Justice V.R. Krishna lyer comments: „The Statute Book of India contains much legislation designed to lift the Dalits, to abolish their disabilities and to give them special opportunities for advancement in education and in employment. Bonded labour is by law abolished. Untouchability, by Constitution, is forbidden. The Civil Rights Act goes a long way to eliminate injustice inflicted on the Dalits. Especially stem punishments are prescribed for commission of offences against Scheduled castes and Tribes, but these magic remedies sleep as paper tigers. The social evils continue. The economic wrongs go on. The law is dead, vis-a-vis these unfortunates. There are plans and sub-plans, schemes and projects worked out by the administration at the Central and State levels. There are special reservations for employment and education and these facilities look like reverse discrimination. But what are the raw realities? Tolstoy?s biting words set the tone for a social audit of the performance. The abolition of slavery has gone on for a long time. Rome abolished slavery. America abolished it, and we did, but only the words were abolished, not the thing.?³⁹

In the Indian political scenario, social justice became an adjunct to the political discourse when Western political philosophies of „liberalism' and „socialism? made inroads into the minds of the educated elite. The elite among the depressed and backward classes came to consider „social justice' an indispensable agenda and as much important as freeing the country from the colonial shackles. This ideal was symbolized in Ambedkar and his efforts to give social justice its due place in the basic law resulted in the incorporation of provisions for reservation.

The jurisprudential perspective of the problem of resolving the conflicts arising out of inequalities has given rise to certain doctrines like „reservation?, „protective

discrimination? and „affirmative action?.⁴⁰ Among these the policy of reservation is move political in nature for it tries to strike a compromise between the equality principles envisaged by law and the political solution that would appeal to the concerned group of citizens. In doing so the supposed purpose is to achieve „social justice?. When this policy is given legal expression by way of constitutional guarantee and statutory protection, the justification is found in the doctrine of „protective discrimination?. The dynamics of law demands that it must be put into effective action. The role of the executive, therefore, is emphasized in the doctrine of

„affirmative action?. But all these doctrines are only the reflection of various dimensions of the principle of equality in its political ramifications, legislative formulations, executive endeavours and judicial activism.

Legislations regarding „reservation? could be traced back to the colonial period. By the middle of 19th century there emerged reformers in many parts of India. One such reform was the byproduct of persuading the natives especially the depressed classes by the Christian missionaries. This might have inspired the Hindus to effect social reforms or they might have felt ashamed to have such practices as caste discrimination. Consequently there were such moderate reform movements in many pans of the subcontinent. For example a movement was started in the Madras Province in l852.⁴¹ In 1858 the Government of Bombay Presidency declared that „all schools maintained at the sole cost of Government shall be open to all classes of its subjects without discrimination. But this policy was hardly enforced. For instance a Mahar boy was refused admission and the Bombay Education Department justified the action of the school by saying that „it would not be right for the sake of a single individual, the only Mahar who had ever yet come forward to beg for admission into a school attended only by pupils of caste, to force him into association with them, at the probable risk of making the institution practically useless to great mass of natives.⁴² By 1923 the same Government decided to cut off aid to educational institutions that refused admission to members of the Depressed Classes. ⁴³ But often the reform movements addressed issues, which were considered anachronistic and superstitious. The reform movements were concerned not with the evils of caste system as such, but of broader social issues like widow remarriage and education of women and opposition to child marriage. As Galanter says they are issues, „which reflected higher

caste practices, and options? Caste system as such was not challenged.⁴⁴ Some authors tried to discover 'Brahminism? as the root reason for the discriminatory behavior.

Jyotiba Phule a social activist felt the necessity of reforms within the Hindu fold. In 1860 he called attention to the deplorable conditions in which the depressed classes lived end also the discriminatory treatment meted out to them. In 1858 the Government of Bombay Presidency declared that „all schools maintained at the sole cost of Government shall be open to all classes of subjects without discrimination.? During that time the British Government took a serious view of the question of depressed classes. In 1880s, the British administration set up scholarships, special schools and other beneficial programmes for the Depressed Classes. The progressive minded princes in the native states like Baroda, Kolhapur, and Travancore took similar initiatives.⁴⁵ Tracing the historical evolution of the policy of reservation, the Committee on the Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes stated:

Realising the inequatious distribution of posts in the administration between different castes and communities, the rulers of some of the then princely states, who were genuinely interested in the upliftment of disadvantaged sections of the society, took initiatives and introduced reservations in the administrative posts in favour of backward castes and communities in their States as early as in the first quarter of 20^th century. Mysore and Kohlapur were amongst the first to do so. Because of the movement for social justice and equity started by the Justice Party, the then Presidency of Madras initiated the reservation in Government employment in 1921. It was followed by the Bombay Presidency comprised of the major portion of present states of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Gujarat. Thus the first quarter of the 20^th century saw reservation in Government employment in almost whole of South India.⁴⁶

The census of 1910, classified the population into (a) Hindus. (b) Animists and Tribals and (c) The Depressed classes. Thus the plight of the depressed classes was addressed for the first time.

Eight years later in 1918, the Maharaja of Mysore, having received a petition from the depressed class people, appointed Miller Committee to go into the question of adequate representation of non-Brahmin communities in the services of the State. When the First World War started in 1914, Britain began to pay more attention to the war. And, perhaps to elicit the support of the people in India Britain thought about some Constitutional reform. In the political history of India an association in Madras Province initiated representation to the depressed classes. There was also a strong public opinion in favour of this demand. A minute of dissent by Sir C. Sankaran Nair clearly reflected this trend in the political atmosphere of that time. According to him, “the non-Brahmin and depressed classes have awakened to a sense of their political helplessness and to their wretched condition, and no longer contend to rely upon the government which has left them in this condition for the past hundred years, claim a powerful voice, in the determination of their future.”⁴⁷ Thus increasing political awareness among the non-Brahmin Classes and Britain?s need to have Indian people?s cooperation in war efforts prompted the British rulers to adopt a policy of encouraging the „gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to the progressive realization of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British empire?.⁴⁸

After studying the views expressed by various organizations in India, it was decided to provide representation in the Provincial Assemblies and the Central Legislative Assembly. In the provinces ruled by the British a systematic attempt for the betterment of the Depressed Classes was started with the introduction of Montague- Chelmsford Reform incorporated in The Government of India Act, I919. A demand for the adequate representation in the legislatures was justified on the ground that the depressed classes were subjected to the intellectual and cultural domination of Brahmin priest class.⁴⁹

In fact the non-Brahman movement had organized into the South India Liberal Federation in 1916. Later it came to be known as Justice Party after the name of its

English newspaper, edited by TM. Nair, a physician by profession. “As a first step, the party agitated for reserved seats for non-Brahmins in the legislative councils, accompanied in by the Montague-Chelmsford Reforms."⁵⁰ The main objective of the Justice Party was getting communal representation in the Government offices.

In reply to a question raised in the Madras legislative Council in the year 1914 it was answered that the total of registered graduates of the Madras University was 650 of whom 452 were Brahmins, I2 non-Brahmin Hindus and 74 belonged to other communities. The Madras legislative Council, the Senate of the Madras University and other local and public bodies composed of a large number of Brahmins and the non-Brahmins had hardly a chance of entering these bodies. Out of the 128 permanent District Munsifs in I919, 93 were Brahmins, 25 non-Brahmin Hindus and the rest consisted of Muslims, Indian Christians and Anglo-Indians. Out of 1007 Gazetted posts 609 were filled with Brahmin as against 398 posts held by non-Brahmins, Muslims and Christians. Out of 17,225 clerical posts 9813 were held by Brahmins...⁵¹

Moreover not a single non-Brahmin was elected to the Legislative Council during the first three decades since it started functioning in I882 when it was started to I917. Thus it was no wonder that when under the Government of India Act 1919 elections were held the Justice Party came out successful and formed ministry. The Indian national Congress had not participated in the elections. It was this Government of Madras that introduced what was later termed as „Communal G.O, which, in the post- Constitutional period, was challenged in Champakam Dorairajan vs. State of Madras.⁵² It will not be wrong to state that there was a widespread awakening among the „depressed classes? and this led to their claiming for adequate representation in the legislatures. Jaswal writes:

The result of the First Dispatch on Indian Constitutional Reforms was that the existence of depressed classes was recognized for the first time in Indian History under the Government of India Act 1919 with the result that among the fourteen non-official members nominated by the Governor general to the Central Legislative Assembly, one was the representative of the „depressed

classes?. In the provincial legislatures the depressed classes were represented by four nominations in the Central Provinces, two in Bombay, two in Bihar and one each in Bengal and United Provinces. In Madras ten members were nominated to represent nine specified depressed classes.

It was after the Act of 1919 that the Scheduled Castes, popularly known as depressed classes became a „political entity? for consideration in future set up of constitutional reforms. A thorough examination of the Report of the 32^nd Indian National Congress shows that the Congress has mustered enough strength to pass a resolution to urging the people of India to remove all disabilities that were imposed by custom upon the depressed classes. ⁵³

In Madras Province Periyar E.V. Ramasamy spearheaded the non-Brahmin Movement. He declared that „communal justice? was only a means to an end and the end would be casteless society. Periyar E.V. Ramasamy broke with the Congress in 1925 on the issue of dominance of Brahmins within the Indian National Congress in the Madras Province and started the Self Respect Movement with a view to bringing about all round change in Tamil society.⁵⁴ So with the positive urge to protect the rights of depressed classes, there emerged the negative force of anti-Brahminism. Often casteism was identified with Brahminism and due mainly to the impact of Western ideals of equality and socialism the non-Brahmin, if not anti-Brahmin, movements emerged in different parts of India. .

The Government of India Act 1919 had a provision that a statutory Commission would be appointed after ten years to report on the matter of establishing a responsible government in India. In keeping with this provision, the British Government appointed Simon Commission. The Commission did not have any Indian member in it and was „all-white? one, in spite of protests from the Indian National Congress and Gandhi the Commission toured every Indian province. The Commission went through memoranda from Government of India, from Committees appointed by the provincial legislative councils and from non-official sources. Obviously the final report contained recommendations for reform. One of the recommendations was the need to safeguard the minorities and other depressed classes of people. The report of the

Commission focused the issue of the depressed classes not only as a social issue of caste, but also as an issue with serious political ramifications. The Commission was of the opinion that the uplift of the depressed classes depended on their gaining political influence, if not participation in the governmental processes. Obviously the representatives of the depressed classes were to be present in the legislature. Many provinces like Bihar and Orissa suggested they would opt for „nomination? because the depressed classes were too backward to choose their own representatives. But the Commission did not favour this idea for it felt that depressed classes needed Opportunities for getting used to ideas and practices of self-government.

The depressed classes demanded a separate electorate. But the Commission did not favour this. However the Commission was not against reserving seats for them. The Commission recommended to reserve seats, for the depressed classes in general constituencies and these seats would be filled by election in which both depressed classes and others would participate.

In I923 government decided not to give grants to those aided schools that refused admission to the children of the depressed classes. In 1928 Government of Bombay set up a Committee under the chairmanship of O.A.B. Starte to identify the Backward Classes and recommend special provisions for their welfare. In the meanwhile under the leadership of Ambedkar the Depressed Class people had begun to articulate forcefully their demands. The Simon Commission, which came to study and make recommendations for Constitutional reforms held negotiations and consultations with different groups of people. The representatives of the „untouchables? participated in them. In the words of Galanter, “Dr. Ambedkar, by this time recognized as an important spokesman, appeared before the Commission to demand reserved seats for the untouchables in legislative bodies, special educational concessions, and recruitment to government posts recommendations substantially accepted in the Commission?s report.”⁵⁵

He argued: The depressed classes in India present definite problem in political and social evolution. They are the resultants of historical forces, religious, economic and social. They are the embodiment of exploded (sic) social ideas and the disabilities

imposed on them by the original framers of Hindu polity have been aggravated by long centuries of segregation and neglect. The origin of these classes and the beginning of their woes rightly belong to the domain of historical research but their betterment, economic and educational, is an imperative problem. Their class- consciousness is growing, stimulated partly by the sympathy of the Government and partly by the belated awakening of the Hindu social conscience.⁵⁶

In the Report submitted in 1930 backward people were categorized: (a) Depressed Classes, (b) Aboriginals and Hill Tribes and (c) Other Backward Classes. But there was stiff opposition to the recommendations of the Simon Commission Report. Therefore the British Government convened a RTC in November 1930, to which delegates from different parties and interest groups were invited. Unfortunately the Indian National Congress, which claimed that it was the only organization that truly represented the people of India, did not participate for it was engaged in The Civil Disobedience Campaign against the government. Though Gandhi, the unquestioned leader of the National Movement, was opposed to any kind of reservation, later changed his position and conceded to setting up separate electorates to religious minorities like Muslims, Sikhs and Christians. But he opposed vehemently separate electorate for the „depressed classes?.⁵⁷ The Round Table Conference ended in failure. Subsequently the British Government appointed Lothian Committee in December 1931, to formulate a system of franchise whereby all sections of the people would be represented in the legislatures. The Committee was specifically required „to investigate the need, justification and methods to ensure adequate representation for the Depressed Classes.? As one writer observes:

The Hindu members of the Lothian Committee, the members of the provincial Franchise Committees, and the Hindu witnesses in several provinces conspired to minimize the number of untouchables. Perjuring themselves, the witnesses denied the existence of untouchables in their province. In the United Province, for example, the Franchise Committee reported the number of untouchables as just 0.6 million as against the 1931 (census) figure of 12.6. In Bengal the

Franchise Committee figure was 0.07 million whereas the census figure was

10.3 million. Before the RTC the census figures of the untouchables had not been challenged. When the upper castes found that the untouchables would get representation and facilities based on their population, they resorted to lies to deny the existence of untouchables.⁵⁸

In 1931 six months after the publication of Simon Commission Report, a Round Table Conference was convened in London to review the Commission?s Report and how a new Constitution for India could be worked out on the basis of the recommendations of the Commission. Ambedkar and Rao Bahadur Srinivasan represented the Depressed Classes in this Conference.

The focus of the Conference was the position of minorities in the future structure of Government in India. Ambedkar and Srinivasan demanded separate electorate and adult franchise. But the separate electorates were not to be a permanent feature. But the discussion went on without reaching an agreement. Subsequently there was convened the Second Round Table Conference. This time Gandhi also participated; but he vehemently opposed to the system of separate electorate for the Depressed Classes. He criticized the separate electorate as a devise of the British strategy of

The Franchise Committee of the Conference was unable to reach an agreement on the representation of minorities. Thus the then Prime Minister of Britain Ramsay Mac Donald was authorized to make an award, which would be binding on all parties. Called as Communal Award, announced in August I932, it „granted their demand for separate electorates in areas where they were concentrated in addition to regular votes they would cast as members of general electorate.?⁵⁹ The award proclaimed:

Members of the depressed classes qualify to vote, will vote in general constituency. In view of the fact that for a considerable period those classes would be unlikely by the means alone, to secure adequate representation in the legislature, a number of special seats will be assigned to them...These seats will

be tilled by election from special constituencies in which only member of the

„depressed classes?, electorally qualified, will be entitled to vote. Any person voting in such special constituency will, as stated above, be also entitled to vote in a general constituency. It is intended that these constituencies should be formed in selected areas where the depressed classes are most numerous and that except in Madras, they should not cover the whole area of the province.⁶⁰

Gandhi was opposed to this award.⁶¹ After a month he started a fast unto death to resolve the issue of representation of depressed classes of people in the Assembly. A modern historian writes:

...his (Gandhi?s) friends as well as his opponents wondered why he chose this particular issue for so terrifying a tactic, since it seemed directed more against the untouchables than the British Government. Gandhi considered this issue central to the very survival of Hinduism. However for that reason he was willing to concede more reserved seats to Ambedkar for his party than the British had done. All he asked was that the depressed classes should not think of themselves as members of any religious community but Hinduism.”⁶² Gandhi openly declared, “I believe that if untouchability is really rooted out it will not only purge Hinduism of a terrible blot but its repercussion will be worldwide. My fight against untouchability is a fight against the impure in humanity.”⁶³

The mediators between Gandhi and Ambedkar put in all their effort and both of them met at Yervada jail where Gandhi had been a prisoner of the British Government. It was here that he started his „fast unto death? against the separate electorate for Depressed Classes. Now the responsibility of saving the life of Gandhi fell on all sections of Indians. But Ambedkar had a different opinion.

But Gandhi viewed the Award „an attack on Indian unity and nationalism and harmful to both. That time Gandhi had become hero of millions in India and even the

depressed class leaders like M.C. Raja thought it their duty to save the life of Gandhi. Hence the mediators between Ambedkar and Gandhi actively intervened and at last Ambedkar agreed to meet Gandhi at Yervada prison. After much haggling they reached an agreement.

According to this historic agreement depressed classes would get 147 seats in the provincial councils instead of 71 promised in the Ramsay MacDonald?s award. The Depressed classes could get 18% of the seats in the Central Assembly also. The British Government accepted this agreement between Ambedkar and Gandhi and incorporated it as an amendment to the Communal Award of the Prime Minister of Britain. Subsequently Gandhi ended the fast and the following week was celebrated as Untouchability Abolition Week.⁶⁴ It seems that Gandhi knew the rising political awareness among the backward classes and depressed classes. These developments reflected in the next Constitutional document namely Government of India Act I935.

The Government of India Act 1935 replaced the term „depressed classes? with

„Scheduled castes?.⁶⁵ Accordingly separate lists of scheduled castes were notified for various provinces in 1936. The Act also defined „scheduled castes? as „such castes, races or tribes or groups within castes, races or tribes which appear to His Majesty -in- Council to correspond to the classes of persons formerly known as the depressed classes as His Majesty-in-Council may specify?. Even though seats in the legislature were reserved both for the „minority? communities and for the „depressed classes?, reservation in the public service was denied to the „depressed classes?, whereas the minority communities enjoyed „reservation? in the public services. The reason stated for this was: “In the present state of general education in these classes the Government of India considers that no useful purpose will be served by reserving for them a definite percentage of vacancies out of the number available for Hindus as a whole, but they hope to ensure that duly qualified candidates from the depressed classes are

not deprived of their opportunities of appointment merely because they cannot succeed in open competition.⁶⁶

While Gandhi started Harijan Sevak Samaj to uplift the Depressed Classes, Ambedkar formed the Independent Labour Party (1936) to put pressure on Government for obtaining more resources for the Depressed Classes. Later in 1942 it became All India Depressed Classes Federation. When in I942 Gandhi and the Congress opposed war efforts and started the famous „quit India„ movement, Ambedkar, by contrast supported the British policy and its war efforts. He became a member of Viceroy?s Executive Council. He used his position in the Government to further the interests of the Depressed Classes. During this time in a „Memorandum? he submitted to the Government, he demanded reservations not only in legislative seats but also in education and Government employment. This was perhaps a crucial moment for the Colonial Government and thus his demand was accepted and this became the basis for the policy of India when it was framing the Constitution. Ambedkar played his card well by cooperating with the Colonial Government and made available some concrete gains for the Depressed Classes. The Independent India could not go back on this commitment of the previous government. It had to recognize these gains and the framers of the Constitution had to evolve a policy of protective discrimination based on this already accepted principle. The pertinent question here is, would the framers of the Constitution have incorporated protective discrimination clauses in the basic law if Ambedkar had not made the British Government recognize the plight of the depressed classes and won for them the valuable concessions from the then Government.

Thus in 1942 the scheduled castes obtained 8.5 per cent reservation in Central services. The framers of the Constitution adopted the policy of reservation as the continuation of the policy that had been followed by the British Government in India. In many Provinces and native States legislations were enacted for uplifting the Depressed Classes.

Thus the socio-political scenario of the thirties of the 20^th century was one in which the so-called Depressed Classes had begun to articulate their aspirations and in principle at least the upper class Hindus had to recognize the rights of the Depressed

Classes. In many regions in India the Hindu Temples were opened to depressed Classes people. This was a significant step on the path of the social uplift of the Depressed Classes. And rightly Ambedkar was able to coherent effectively the aspirations of depressed classes and adopt befitting political strategies to make gains for them.

The Maharaja of Travancore issued Temple Entry Proclamation in 1936.⁶⁷ In 1938 Madras Presidency enacted Madras Removal of Civil Disabilities Act followed by Bombay Government?s Bombay Harijan Temple Entry Act, I943 and the United Provinces Removal Social Disabilities Act, I947. Perhaps these initiatives in the form of even legislations paved the way for a silent socio-political revolution and this changing scenario became the backdrop for the discussions of the framers of the Constitution.

At the same time at the pan-Indian stage Constituent Assembly came into existence in December 1946. But the birth of the Constituent Assembly was not without the birth pangs.⁶⁸ Though not a sovereign body in the beginning, the Constituent Assembly assumed sovereignty later. Comparing the Constituent Assembly of India with Philadelphia Convention (1787) and to the States-General of France (1789) a scholar Points out that the American and French bodies constituted towards the end of eighteenth century were “articulate only in the general way, while in India a strong political factor had emerged by the time the Constituent Assembly was convened. That was the party system. It is in and through the political parties that the socio economic forces in India had crystallized.”⁶⁹

The Constituent Assembly worked for about three years in framing the largest constitution of the world. The ideals, about which the Freedom Movement had spoken, were to be translated into Constitutional provisions. One of them was the

protection of the socially backward communities. The rhetoric of establishing an egalitarian society found its vociferous expression in the words of Nehru.⁷⁰ According to Anirudh Prasad, “At that time the issue of reservation was pleaded, explained, accommodated and accepted with the national spirit to assimilate sections of society including the intended beneficiaries of the reservation policy into the main stream of national life.”

In the present context of affairs in regard to these unfortunate countrymen of ours who have not had these opportunities in the past, special attempts should be made, of course, in the educational and economic field and even in the political field to see that they have a proper place till they find their own legs to stand upon without the external aid.⁷¹

The debate on the resolution moved by Nehru in the Constituent Assembly regarding

„aims and objects? that later formed the Preamble of the Constitution, clearly reveal the sentiments of different sections of the people. Even though majority of the member whole heartedly supported the resolution Ambedkar had his own apprehensions. He said:

. . .I must confess that, coming as the Resolution does for Pundit Jawarharlal Nehru who is reported to be a socialist, this Resolution, although non- controversial is to my mind very disappointing. I should have expected him to go much farther than he has done in that part of the Resolution. As a student of History I should have preferred this part of the Resolution not being embodied at all. When one reads that part of the Resolution, it reminds one of the Declarations of the Rights of Man which was pronounced by the French Constituent Assembly. I think I am right in suggesting that after the lapse of practically 450 years, the Declaration of Rights of Man and the principles which are embodied in it has become part and parcel of our mental make-up. I say they become not only the part and parcel of the mental make-up of modern man in every civilized part of the world, but also in our country which is so

Orthodox, so archaic in its thought and its social structure hardly anyone can be found to deny its validity. To repeat it now as I Resolution does, is to say the least, pure pedantry. ..The Resolution suffers from certain other lacuna. I find that this part of the Resolution, although it enunciates certain rights, does not speak of remedies...⁷²

Leaders of the Congress party were very articulate in upholding the rights of the Depressed Classes and offer them adequate safeguards for exercising those rights. But doubts were also expressed regarding the effectiveness of these measures.⁷³ On the one hand a member from Madras criticized separate electorate as an effective safeguard for Scheduled Caste reservation:

...Even if the Harijans are given this percentage of votes and this kind of electorate system, the Harijans are in a position to withstand the attractions that they will have to face at the time of elections. So many parties can set up candidates and they can purchase the Harijans and put up any candidate they desire and any candidate can come up in the Assembly, and certainly he may not represent the community though he may get percentage of votes that is desired by this system. As long as the Scheduled Castes, or the Harijans, or by whatever name they may be called, are economic slaves of other people, there is no meaning demanding either separate electorate or joint electorates or any other kind of electorates with this kind of percentage. Personally speaking I am not in favour of any kind of reservation in any place whatsoever.⁷⁴

On the other hand a Harijan Member, Nagappa   vociferously argued for reservation for the ancient people who had been exploited by those who came later and dominated them. Quoting the number of Scheduled caste members and their population in various parts of the country, he tried to focus on the point that „reservation? was essential with regard to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Unlike Scheduled Caste representatives, the Scheduled Tribes representatives expressed their voice of dissent by asserting that they being the original inhabitants need to be treated with dignity. Jaipal Singh from Bihar said:

...If there is any group of Indian people that has been shabbily treated, it is my people. They have been disgracefully treated, neglected for the last 6000 years. The history of the Indus valley civilization, a child of which I am, shows quite clearly that it is the new comers-most of you here are intruders as far as I am concerned-it is the new comers who have driven away my people from Indus Valley to the jungle fastness. This Resolution regarding aims and objects, moved by Nehru is not going to teach Adivasis democracy. You cannot teach democracy to the Tribal people; you have to learn democratic ways from them. They are the most democratic people from earth. What my people require is not adequate safeguards as Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru has put it. They require protection from Ministers that is the position today. We do not ask for any special protection. We want to be treated like every other Indian. . .the whole history of my people is one of continued exploitation and dispossession by the non-aboriginals of India punctuated by rebellions and disorder, and yet I take Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru at his word. I take you all at your word that now we are going to start a new chapter, a new chapter of Independent India where there is equality of opportunity, where no one will be neglected. There is no question of caste in my society. We are all equal. Have we not been casually treated by the Cabinet Mission, more than 30 million people completely ignored? It is a matter of political window dressing that today we find six tribal members in the Constituent Assembly. How is it? What has the Indian National Congress done for our fair representation? Is there going to be any provision in the rules whereby it may be possible to bring in more Adivasis and by Adivasis I mean not only men but women too.

Again he remarked:

.. . I think there has been juggling of words going on to deceive us. I have heard of resolutions and speeches galore assuring Adivasis of a fair deal. If

history has to teach me anything at all, I should distrust this Resolution, but I do not.⁷⁵

The discussion went on to the question of representation in the legislature and many expressed hope that the proposed Constitution would guarantee equality and at the same time protect the rights of the depressed classes.

But there are also voices of frustration. For instance H.J. Kandekar came with his own experience. He said: “I remind you of the Poona Pact. I place before you the example of my own province. In Central Provinces where we constitute 25 per cent of the population and we are entitled to 28 seats, we are given only 20 seats in pursuance of Poona Pact. When have out eight seats gone?... Harijans cannot tolerate such injustice. They should be given representation according to their numerical strength.⁷⁶

Provision regarding „untouchability? in the draft Constitution was generally welcomed. Eventually the fundamental right of „not being subjected to any discrimination? came to be qualified by the provisions to procure „protective discrimination?. According to Nesiah, unlike Martin Luther King. Jr, Ambedkar was in a position of authority for as the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution and Minister of Law, „he was vested with both real and symbolic authority at the highest level'. Hence he was able to intervene effectively for the emancipation of Dalits. According to one member the inclusion of Ambedkar in the cabinet showed that there was a change of heart on the part of the caste Hindus.⁷⁷ But later events revealed the fact that it was not really a change of heart, but only a political expediency that made the Congress leadership offer Ambedkar such a position. But the relevant question is whether Ambedkar could or did exercise any real power.⁷⁸ It would be safer to say that his skill as a lawyer was utilized by the then Congress Government.

Report on the Minority Rights, based on which the discussion on political safeguard of the depressed classes was carried on. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, who presented the Report said in conclusion:

On the whole this report is the result of careful sifting of facts on both sides. One thing I wish to point out. Apart from representation in the Legislature and the reservation of seats according to population, a provision has been made allowing the minorities to contest any general seat also. There was much controversy about it, both in the Advisory Committee and in the Minorities Committee; but it has been passed by a majority. There was also another point which was a matter of controversy and that was on behalf of the Muslim League and a section of the Scheduled Castes. The point was raised that a certain percentage of votes should be considered necessary for a successful candidate. This was a matter of controversy and amongst the Scheduled Castes themselves a very large majority sent me a representation yesterday saying they were against this. But in the Advisory Committee it was discussed and It was thrown out by a large majority.⁷⁹

Speaking on the Report P.S. Deshmukh said that the report was highly satisfactory; but at the same time he voiced the fear that the so called majority might be marginalized. He said: