Dear Arnab, As a sociologist I share your confusion. Much of it emanates from the judiciary. The proliferation of Indian jurisprudence on social issues and affirmative action has been chaotic. STs in the north-east are matrilineal and not patrilineal, leave alone patriarchal. It is paradoxical that while the government of India wants the tribes to be integrated into the so-called mainstream society it is not willing to accept their cultures and family systems. As of your question about losing religion by conversion, I had an article in the New Indian Express of March 11, 2008. I am giving below the url.
http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEM20080310215800&Page=M&Title=Main+Article&Topic=0&; Supreme Court and the SCs Tuesday March 11 2008 08:19 IST P RADHAKRISHNAN THE observations by the Supreme Court on whether the Christians would admit that they practise caste system and the Dalits among them face social discrimination, and the query since when the Muslims have started following the caste system seem to convey its perception of social deprivations in terms of religious texts, and its confusion between text and context. To place the debate in perspective there are six issues to be discussed here. One, as the emergence of Dalits among the Hindus is often attributed to Manus misdeeds through his now infamous injunctions, and the SC Hindus are the lower segment of the Hindus, the Christian and Muslim demands raise the question whether there are corresponding segments among them. The answer is yes for at least three reasons: (a) There is a world of difference between religion as ideology and religion as praxis; and change of religion by itself does not change the social reality through which religion expresses itself. Stated differently, the social disabilities of several centuries do not vanish by a mere change of religion; more so, when the converts do not live in a society of their own religion, but live in the society of the dominant religion which they have left. It is precisely for this reason that there has been indigenisation of the religion of the converts. Consequently, the Christian and Muslim reality in India is not the same as in other countries, and it is meaningless to apply to it textual ideals of equal brotherhood and so on. In this context it is important to recall the observations of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, in his Annihilation of Caste, that caste being primarily the breath of the Hindus, the Hindus have fouled the air all over and everybody is infected, Sikh, Muslim, and Christian. (b) Far from being proselytism, that is, making of individual converts who at conversion are abstracted from their social and cultural context, conversions in India have been migration from one religion to another; or conversion of individuals and whole groups without detaching them from their social context. (c) The Catholic tradition of accommodation. When Robert de Nobili established the mission in Madurai in 1606, he set himself up as a Christian sanyasi, separating from most contacts with low-caste Christians and conforming to high caste patterns of behaviour in food, dress, etc. His initial converts were from the high castes, including Brahmins, and he allowed them to maintain most of their customs. They were not required or encouraged to break caste by associating with the mainly Paravar Christian congregation or with foreign Christians. By becoming a Christian, he wrote, One does not renounce his caste, nobility, or usages. The idea that Christianity interfered with them has been impressed upon the people by the devil, and is the great obstacle to Christianity. Thus, de Nobilis converts were allowed to retain their tuft (kudumi), sacred thread, customary bathing and food rules, and all the regulations governing social intercourse. It was therefore possible for them to remain Christians within Hindu society. In spite of papal decrees of 1734 and 1744 denouncing untouchability as alien to Christianity, and widespread criticism of the Jesuits who were identified with this policy of accommodation, it became generally accepted among Catholics that caste was a civil institution, which could be used for evangelistic purposes and maintained with only minor modifications within the Church. A major outcome of this has been the social reality of Dalit Christians, caste-based segregation of the converts within the church, and caste discrimination both among the clergy and the laity. Two, the issues raised by the court are not new; they were debated by the colonial administration in the context of Hindu converts to Christianity. To draw upon a part of this debate, in the context of representations to the Madras government on securing to Indian Christian pupils of backward origin the concessions admissible to the backward classes under the Madras Educational Rule, in 1924 the Director of Public Instruction wrote: Christianity is a religion while Panchamas (present SCs) form a social class with a definite place in the caste system of the Hindus and it is not possible for any single individual to profess two different religions, Christianity and Hinduism at one and the same time and furthermore Christianity does not accept any caste. So that logically a person may be a Christian in which case he cannot accept any caste system, and is not a member of a backward class or he may be a Hindu Panchama or Adi Dravida in which case, he may be a member of a backward class. But he cannot be at one and the same time both, Christian and Hindu (Panchama), both non-backward and backward. Responding to the DPIs argument the Education Secretary contended that conversion by itself does not automatically and materially alter the economic condition of the classes or remove their educational backwardness. Three, though the SC list first appeared in a specific colonial context as part of the Government of India Act 1935, under pressures from the Depressed Classes and the prolonged campaign of their leader Dr. Ambedkar, and the groups included in the list were only Hindu Untouchables, what was the purpose of creating the SC list as part of the Constitution? It was not for abolition of untouchability, that too among the Hindus alone; the provision for that was in the fundamental rights under Article 17, which refers to only untouchability and its practice in any form without reference to religion. If the SC list was for social amelioration of the groups included in it, it is only legitimate for Christians and Muslims to demand that the groups similarly placed among them as the Hindu SCs are also enumerated and included in the list. Failure to do so will perpetrate the Hindu tilt of the state in implementing a major provision of a secular Constitution. Four, though the Government of India asked the Ranganath Mishra Commission on religious and linguistic minorities to examine the demand of Christians and Muslims, and the commission recommended delinking SC status from religion by an amendment to the Constitution (SCs) Order, 1950, and inclusion of Dalits among Christians and Muslims in the SC list, the refusal of the government to make the report public makes its bona fides suspect. Five, though the National Commission for Scheduled Castes has endorsed the recommendation of the Mishra Commission, its rider that inclusion of Dalit Christians and Muslims in the SC list should not encroach upon the benefits of those accessing reservations is questionable. Once the Dalit Christians and Muslims are included in the SC list they should be part of the same list, eligible for the entire package of affirmative action including political representation as now available to the SCs. Six, if Christians and Muslims did not recognise Dalits among them and demand the same treatment to them as to the Hindu Dalits till recently, it is the state that needs to be blamed. Had the state paid adequate attention to the SCs immediately after the Constitution came into force and continued it systematically, say for ten years, affirmative action as envisaged in the Constitution would have come to an end long ago. By its political chicanery and pussyfooting, as R H Tawney rightly stated in his classic work Equality, the state has only prolonged its indulgence in inducing a thousand donkeys... to sweat by the prospect of a carrot that could be eaten by one. That indulgence has proved to be an irreversible and costly perversion of the very idea of welfarism. The writer is Professor of Sociology, Madras Institute of Development Studies, Chennai You can also access this article by typing "Supreme Court and the SCs" in the google search. Best, P. Radhakrishnan ----- Original Message ----- From: Arnab Sen To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 4:54 PM Subject: Re: [ =>> Jharkhand <<= ] HC dismisses plea against Tribal Christians' ST status I don't claim to expertise on the constitution but a Santhal friend of mine, not a lawyer but a knowledgeable social activist, explained to me that if a non-ST man marries an ST woman, the offspring do not get special benefits. A patrilinear social structure is taken for granted. So is the implicit assumption that a person who converts to another religion somehow leaves her / his tribe / caste identity behind in an amorphous catch-all category called Hindu. Obviously as an anthropologist I cannot subscribe to either assumption, but forget the administration and law-makers, even academia takes categories related to caste and tribe for granted and cannot question their bases. Anyone for debate? Arnab On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 7:47 PM, WILLIAM KISKU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Very fair indeed. Just a clarification on variation of the theme. Any expert on this aspect of constitution can shed some light, please. If a scheduled tribe MAN marries a NONSCHEDULED TRIBE WOMAN, are the offsprings still eligible and can they continue to enjoy the benefits of reservation ??? What happens if vice versa happens... ie, a SCHEDULED TRIBE WOMAN MARRIES A NONSCHEDULED TRIBE MAN.?? William --- Roopa Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A fair judgement. > rgds > roopa > > --- On Fri, 13/6/08, Gladson Dungdung > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Gladson Dungdung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [ =>> Jharkhand <<= ] HC dismisses plea > against Tribal Christians' ST status > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Friday, 13 June, 2008, 4:14 PM > > > > > > > > > > > HC dismisses plea against Tribal Christians' ST > status > > > > > > > Pioneer News Service | Ranchi > > > The Jharkhand High Court on Thursday rejected the > petitioners' plea that challenged the continuation > of reservation and other privilege to Tribals who > have converted to Christianity and other religions. > > > > > > In 2002, petitioner Karpara Hansda and wife of > Sangram Besra had filed a PIL, followed by another > writ by Baliram Marandi, in which they sought to > debar Tribals converted to Christianity and other > religions from availing the reservation and other > benefits that are extended to all members of > Scheduled Tribes as per the Constitution. > > > > > > Karpara Hansda contended that just as Scheduled > Castes or Dalit Christians are denied reservations > and other benefits and protections on conversion > from Hinduism to another religion, so also should > tribals who convert to Christianity should be denied > such benefits and protections. > > > > > > The petitioner further tried to show that on > conversion the converted tribals no longer adhere to > many of their former traditions and culture and the > difference is "in black and white", and since there > is this loss or negation of culture and tradition > they should no longer be regarded as Scheduled > Tribes and hence they should not be given those > benefits. > > > > > > Meanwhile, this year an intervener petition was also > filed by Christopher Kispotta, a Christian and PC > Murmu, a traditional faith person, opposing the > contentions and prayers of the petitioners that > converted Tribals are no longer members of Scheduled > Tribes and hence no longer entitled to protections > and benefits. > > > > > > The intervener petitioners on their petition > submitted that Article 366 of the Constitution > specifies Scheduled Tribes from existing tribes, > which is that it builds on existing primordial > identities of the tribes. > > > > > > The interveners also cited definitions of Tribals > and indigenous peoples as defined in international > legal texts such as the International Labour > Organisation Convention 107 and a certain World Bank > document, which comprehensively account for these > communities. They also submitted that to deny > converted Tribals ST status and benefits merely on > change of religion to Christianity would be racist. > > > > > > Advocate for petitioner NK Sahani, Government's > counsel Sumeet Gadodia and interveners' lawyer > Ratnaker Bhengra made brief arguments. > > > > > > The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice MY Eqbal > and Justice DK Sinha after hearing the arguments, > and after referring to the 2004 Supreme Court > judgement in State of Kerela verses Chandramohanan > which lays down, "... as a broad proposition of law > it cannot be accepted that merely by change of > religion a person ceases to be a member of the > Scheduled Tribe,...", rejected the contentions and > prayers of the petitioners and dismissed the writs. > http://www.dailypio neer.com/ indexn12. asp?main_ > variable= RANCHI&file_name=Ranchi2% > 2Etxt&counter_img= 2 > > -- > > > > > > > Jharkhand Network | Jharkhand.org. in/network > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Explore your hobbies and interests. Go to http://in.promos.yahoo.com/groups/ William Kisku -- Arnab Sen Flat # 2622, Sector C Pocket 2 Vasant Kunj New Delhi 110070 INDIA Phone: (+91) 9811004308, (+91 11) 26124928 Jharkhand Network | Jharkhand.org.in/network
