The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) said on October 17 that the demand for extending reservation benefits to converts from the SC/ST communities is “anti-constitutional” and “anti-national”. Along with Valmiki Mahasabha, the VHP would also organise mass awareness campaigns across India to make Dalits aware of their rights, said its joint general secretary Surendra Jain.
The Government of India had appointed a commission headed by former Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan to examine the SC status of Dalits after conversion last week. The VHP said it “reiterates that Scheduled Castes are the persons who have historically been deprived on the basis of their castes; while the ‘Abrahamic’ religions claim to have no caste distinction among them, therefore SC reservation cannot be extended to them”.
Speaking in Delhi, Mr. Jain said, “VHP opposes the idea of giving Scheduled Caste status to people who claim to have historically belonged to the SCs, but have converted to another religion.” He added that mass awareness campaigns will be launched across India to make people aware of their rights.
VHP international working president Mr. Alok Kumar said in 1950, the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order was issued making it clear that only Hindu Scheduled Castes would get reservation facilities.
“Despite this, Christian missionaries and Islamic organisations have been making constant efforts with their irrational demands to extend this facility to converted SCs. We wouldn’t allow to snatch the constitutional rights of SCs”, said Mr. Kumar.
He further said that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and many Prime Ministers, including Jawaharlal Nehru, had not acceded to the demand to extend benefits to converted SCs.
“When Rajiv Gandhi, H.D. Deve Gowda and Manmohan Singh tried to accept this demand, they witnessed nationwide protests. The Sachar Committee in 2005 and the Ranganath Committee in 2009 had made some recommendations in this regard, but due to their self-contradictions and wrong methodologies, their recommendations could not be implemented,” he added, while noting that cases with similar interests were rejected in the Supreme Court as well.
