Ram Madhav writes: Should converted tribals retain reservation benefits? The debate is on

Current demand rests on the Kartik Oraon’s Joint Parliamentary Committee and Lokur Committee reports, besides SC observations, insisting on identifying STs as those with a traditional faith, culture, customs, rituals, and practices. Those converting to other religions abandon most of these and hence should be de-listed, the argument goes

Last Sunday, lakhs of tribal people from more than 500 different tribes descended on the national capital. Their demand was for “de-listing”, a constitutional process by which the tribals who converted to Christianity or Islam would be denied ST status and the benefits that accrue thereof. The organisers demanded an amendment to Article 342 of the Constitution to that effect.

This sensitive issue has been a topic of tribal discourse for more than six decades. In the 1960s, a tribal Congress MP, Kartik Oraon, raised the issue for the first time. Oraon’s contention was that those who adopted Christianity or Islam automatically cease to be tribal because they no longer follow tribal customs and traditions. Oraon demanded exclusion of converted tribals from the Scheduled Tribes list. He presented a memorandum of the Joint Parliamentary Committee to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, supported by 235 MPs, with a proposed amendment to Article 342, which read: “3. Notwithstanding anything contained in Paragraph 2, no person who has given up tribal faith or faiths and has embraced either Christianity or Islam shall be deemed to be a member of any Scheduled Tribes.”

Unfortunately, Indira Gandhi didn’t pay much attention to the issue, and it lingered on. In the last two decades, the Janjati Suraksha Manch, an organisation committed to preserving the culture and traditions of tribals, has championed the cause left behind by Oraon. Oraon, who served as a minister in Indira Gandhi’s government, studied this complex issue and documented that barely 10 per cent of converted tribals were appropriating nearly 70 per cent of reservation benefits, leaving only 30 per cent for the remaining genuinely poor and the traditional 90 per cent of the tribal population. As the number of converted tribals grew over the years, estimated at around 20 per cent today, resentment among the non-converted too is growing. Their argument is that converts are enjoying the benefits of both ST reservations and minority welfare programmes.

At the root of this problem is a major constitutional anomaly. In 1950, at the time of the enactment of the Constitution, two separate Orders for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were promulgated. The Scheduled Castes order, in Paragraph 3, categorically stated that “Notwithstanding anything contained in Paragraph 2, no person who professes a religion different from Hinduism shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste”. Unfortunately, the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, promulgated around the same time, remained vague on the question of the definition of a tribe. Resenting this vagueness, in 2010, senior tribal leaders called on the President of India, Pratibha Patil, and submitted a memorandum signed by 27.67 lakh tribals from 26,253 villages across the country, demanding the de-listing of converted tribals from the ST category.

Questions regarding SC and ST converts went before the Supreme Court several times. Since there is constitutional clarity in the matter of the SCs, the courts have repeatedly said that the SC status cannot be extended to those not belonging to Hinduism, Sikhism, and Buddhism (as per the amendment to the SC Act in 1956). Whereas in matters relating to the ST converts, vagueness in the constitutional provisions led to courts taking suggestive positions rather than definitive orders. In an important judgment in 2004, the Supreme Court held that although it cannot be concluded that “merely by change of religion (a) person ceases to be a member of a scheduled tribe”, it insisted that the matter needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis. “In such a situation, it has to be established that a person who has embraced another religion is still… following the customs and tradition of the community, which he earlier belonged to,” it proposed.

The core issue is whether, like the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes too can have a clear definition. An Advisory Committee constituted by the Government of India in 1950 for the “revision of the lists of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes” vaguely defined that they are categorised as STs “because of the life led by them”. However, the Justice P B Lokur Committee, constituted in 1965-66 for identifying and listing STs, provided a broader definition. It identified “primitive traits, distinctive culture, geographical isolation, shyness of contact with the community at large, and backwardness” as the basis for identifying STs.

Current demand rests on the Kartik Oraon’s Joint Parliamentary Committee and Lokur Committee reports, besides Supreme Court observations, insisting on identifying STs as those with a traditional faith, culture, customs, rituals, and practices. Those converting to other religions abandon most of these and hence should be de-listed, the argument goes. This is not against any religion or conversion. The converted SCs and STs have full access to the welfare programmes available under the minority category. This demand is primarily to ensure that the traditional tribal population is not denied its legitimate rights over the ST provisions under the Constitution.

The writer, president of the Indian Foundation, is with the BJP