Thank you Prof Borges for your very informative post and the weblinks. I shall go through the information in detail over the week-end and come back with a detailed response. In the meanwhile, here is my prima facie response:
1. Apparently, Prof Borges is confusing reservation of seats in Parliament based on religion with reservation of economic and social benefits to dalits. 2 Any person conversant with Indian history would know that there was proportional representation based on religion in the provincial assemblies. Hence, the Congress ruled in some provinces and the Muslim League were in power in some provinces. This was the state of affairs at the time of independence. Incidentally even cricket was played based on religious representation. In the pentangular tournaments there were teams representing the Hindus, Muslims, Parsis, Europeans and the Rest. On a side note, my uncle played for the Rest and later on represented Punjab in the Ranji Trophy.(being based out at Patiala and teaching at the Yadavindra Public School). Hence at the time of drafting of the Constitution by the Constituent Assembly, many members thought of proportionate representation based on religion. But many others learning from the tragic partition of India and the resulting bloodshed rose above self and self-interest and idealistically opted for a secular state without religious representation. The only exception was made in case of Anglo-Indians for whom 2 seats were reserved. Seats in certain constituencies where they were in a majority / large numbers were also reserved for members of the SC/ST in view of their peculiar disabilities. It should be noted here that there was at this point of time no distinction made between religions. All members of ST/ST of whatever religious persuasions were extended the same benefits. However, this status quo was upturned suddenly on 10th August 1950 by a Presidential Order, mark you, and not by Parliamentary legislation, excluding persons professing religions like christianity, buddhism, islam and sikhism from availing of reservations and benefits. There was no discussion, no debate, no circulation of white papers, simply nothing. The logic and reasoning that was given was that except for hinduism all other religions did not recognise castes. 2. However, this logic and reasoning was turned on its head when after protracted struggle, Sikhs were granted the benefits in 1956 and Buddhists in 1990. Prof Borges, kindly note. Both Sikhism and Buddhism are egalitarian religions and do not recognise castes like christianity and islam. To understand the mindsets one needs to fast forward to the year 2000. Guru Nanak's and Mahavir's birth anniversaries were celebrated by the government (then BJP) with great fanfare. But the 2000 birth anniversary of Christ was totally ignored. Christianity and Islam are treated as foreign religions and Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism are treated as Indian religions. Even if one were to refer to the definition of Hindu in the Indian Constitution, a Hindu is defined as a person who does not profess the Christian, Islam, Jewish or Zoroastrian religion. But the term Hindu includes a jain, buddhist and sikh. That the Jains, Sikhs and Buddhists consider themselves as minorities and not as Hindus is another story. 3. If Prof Borges were to acquaint himself with Articles 25 & 30, he would perhaps realise that these are fundamental rights given to practice, propagate and profess one's religion and to establish and administer educational institutions. They do not provide for government support, reservation and assistance to the poor and needy like the dalits. 4. The Indian Constitution was adopted on 26th November, 1949 and came into effect on 26th January 1950. At this point of time ALL dalits of whatever religion were entitled to reservations and benefits. This was suddenly changed on 10th August 1950, seven months later, NOT by an Act of Parliament but by a Presidential Order. Regards, Marshall