TEN YEAR RESERVATION AND SC STATUS ONLY FOR HINDUS CAME BY AMMENDMENT

 

Ten year period and giving the benefit of sc only to hindus

 

 

Harijan leaders were demanding separate minority status but KM munshi and otHers gave amendment that only hindus will get sc reservation

 later on Jawaharlal Nehru included Sikhs in sc and rajiv Gandhi included baudh in sc for vote bank politics

27 august 1947

Prof. Shibbban Lal Saksena (United Provinces: General) : Mr. President Sir, my amendment is No. 85 and it says that the words "scheduled castes" be deleted from the schedule. The purpose of the amendment is that scheduled castes should not be classed as separate minority but should be treated as an integral part of the Hindu community. My amendment reads-

That from group C of the Schedule to para 1, the words "7 Scheduled castes" be deleted.

I would like to draw the attention of the Assembly to one important declaration. It is this. It will be remembered that Mr. Jinnah has often tried to include the Scheduled castes in the minorities; and on June 26, 1946, in a letter from Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad to Lord Wavell, and the latters reply thereto, Lord Wavell is reported to have said:

"........ if any vacancy occurs among the seat, allotted to the minorities, I shall naturally consult both the main parties before filling it."

Mr. Jinnah has thus included the Scheduled Castes among the minorities. But so far as we are concerned, we consider the Scheduled Castes as belonging to Hindus, they are not a minority, they have also always formed part of us. I am glad Mr. Munshi has brought up his amendment, which meets my purpose and I therefore withdraw my amendment, in favour of his.

Shri K. M. Munshi (Bombay: General) : Sir, because amendment No. 85 has been moved by Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena I move the amendment standing in my name:-

"That in amendment No. 85 of List III, dated 26th August 1947, the words "7. Scheduled Castes" be deleted and the following para. be added after para :-

"1-A. The section of the Hindu community referred to as Scheduled Castes as defined in Schedule I to the Government of India Act, 1935, shall have the same rights and benefits which are herein provided for minorities specified in the Schedule to para. 1"

 

 

Actually ten year period was proposed by mahavir tyagi ji and it was accepted although the majority of harijan leaders were opposing this but sardar patel  accepted this

 

26 may 1949

Mr. President: Then there is the amendment which was moved by Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava.

Pandit Balkrishna Sharma (United Provinces: General): I think the mover accepts the amendment.

The Honourable Sardar Vallabhbhai J. Patel: Yes, Sir, I accept the amendment.

Mr. President: The question is;

"That the following be added to the Motion:-

"The provisions for reservation of seats and nominations will last for a period of ten years from the commencement of this Constitution.'"

The amendment was adopted.

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

rajput victory on mugal राजपूतो की मुस्लिमो पर जीत 1

Image
source of this article भारत के सबसे प्रसिद्ध इतिहासकार डॉ राम गोपाल मिश्रा जी ने अपनी किताब indian resistance to muslim invasion में इन सभी युद्ध का वर्णन किया है यह किताब अमेज़न पर और सब जगह उपलब्ध है आप गूगल सर्च करिए मिल जाएगी      अगर  बहन बेटियों की शादी से किसी का राज बच जाता तो  पाकिस्तान अफगानिस्तान बांग्लादेश ईरान इराक सीरिया अफगानिस्तान  तुर्किस्तान जैसे और 50 देशों के भी धर्म और राज बच गए होते  क्योंकि जब क़ासिम ने राजा दाहिर को हराया तो उनकी बेटियों पर भी कब्जा किया राज भी छीन लिया यही हाल यही हाल अलाउद्दिन गजनवी सब ने किया आज अगर हम अभी भी हिन्दू है तो इसका कारण ये है राजपूतों की मुगलों मुस्लिम मुसलमानों पर  जीत 636 सबसे पहला आक्रमण अरबोने समुद्र के रास्ते से मुंबई के नजदीक थाना में किया जिसमें उनकी बुरी तरीके से हार हुई 640 में खलीफा उमर ने समुद्र के  रास्ते से सिंध पर विशाल सेना भेजी लेकिन उनके कमांडर mugraiah को सिंध के ब्राम्हण राजा ने मार डाला खलीफा उमर की भारत के अलावा कही भी हार नहीं हुई थी इस हार से पूरा मुस्लिम जगत सुन्न...
Read more

a dalit lady Shrimati Dakshayani Velayudan ( who opposed ambedkars separate electorate demand and termed is antinational like muslim leage

  28 AUGUST 1947 Shrimati Dakshayani Velayudan (Madras: General) Mr. President I find that for the Motion four Members have given their names and first comes the name of the Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. I am surprised to find that a Member who came in as result of a joint electorate came forward to move this amendment whereas a member who, was all the while standing, for separate electorates and for the so-called percentage is not to be seen in the House to-day. If there was any sincerity in moving this amendment we could have found the person who headed the list, and I do not know why another member took up that responsibility. There may be some reason behind the scene. ' The Mover of the amendment, Mr. Nagappa, said when they come to, the Assemblies as a result ,of joint electorates they may not be coming With the votes of the community and so they are not entitled to represent the community. If Mr. Nagappa thinks that he has come here as a result of such an election, the wises...
Read more

reservation is not right any govt is free to not give sc st obc or any type of reservation

  Reservation is not a fundamental right says Supreme Court see an article in hindu paper february  11 2020 Reservation as right: on Supreme Court judgment      It is quite understandable that a recent  Supreme Court judgment  , that there is no fundamental right to claim reservation in promotions, has caused some political alarm. The received wisdom in affirmative action jurisprudence is that a series of Constitution amendments and judgments have created a sound legal framework for reservation in public employment, subject to the fulfilment of certain constitutional requirements. And that it has solidified into an entitlement for the backward classes, including the SCs and STs. However, the latest judgment is a reminder that affirmative action programmes allowed in the Constitution flow from “enabling provisions” and are not rights as such. This legal position is not new. Major judgments — these include those by Constitution Benches — note that Articl...
Read more