SC, ST reservation; Modi attacked Nehru: What is the former prime minister’s position?

SC ST reservation Modi attacked Nehru What is the former

With his comments on reservation at a rally in Bihar on Tuesday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi made another point on the issue.
That is, “The truth is, if it was not for Ambedkar, Nehru would not have allowed reservation to SC/STs,” he said.

At the same time the opposition Federation of India accused it of wanting to change the constitution and extend reservations to religious minorities.

Check out the Constituent Assembly debates on giving constitutional status to reservations:

What is the initial arrangement for booking?

The Constitution, when first enacted, included provisions for reservation in political institutions and public employment for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Now Article 16 of the Constitution was initially known as Draft Article 10 when the members of the Constituent Assembly debated it on November 30, 1948 to allow reservation of appointments to government jobs for citizens who are not adequately represented by any backward citizens.

The phrase “any backward class” in the draft version (and ultimately the final version) was hotly contested. Many members believed that the phrase “backward classes” was not defined anywhere else in the Constitution and that the phrase was too vague.

What was the opinion of the members of the Constituent Assembly?

Congress members Chandrika Ram and Dharam Prakash were among the country’s first Dalit lawyers and future Rajya Sabha MPs from Uttar Pradesh.

It is recommended that the term Scheduled Caste be expressly included in place of (or in addition to) the term “Backward Classes” to clarify which groups can get the benefit of reservation.

On the other hand, members of the Congress like Loganath Mishra and Damodar Swaroop Seth demanded removal of reservations for backward classes.

Addressing the Assembly, Mishra said that everyone has the right to employment food, clothing, shelter and all necessities. But it is not a fundamental right for any citizen to claim a share of government employment, it should go only on the basis of merit. It can never be a fundamental right.

What was BR Ambedkar’s opinion?

Addressing the debate surrounding the word backward, Ambedkar acknowledged that it was a general principle. However, he argued that the word backward is a necessary qualification to ensure that all citizens are given equal opportunity in public employment, with the exception of reservation to the backward communities.

What was BR Ambedkar’s opinion?

Addressing the debate surrounding the word backward, Ambedkar acknowledged that it was a general principle. However, he argued that the word backward is a necessary qualification to ensure that all citizens are given equal opportunity in public employment, with the exception of reservation to the backward communities.

What was Nehru’s view on reservation?

Although Nehru did not contribute to the debate on the articles of reservation in the Constituent Assembly, after he became Prime Minister, he wrote to the Chief Ministers in June 1961.
He emphasized the need to empower the backward groups by giving them access to good education and not by reserving jobs on the basis of caste and religion.

It is true that we are bound by certain rules and conventions regarding helping SCs and STs. They deserve help, but I don’t want any kind of reservation, especially in service, the only real way to help the underprivileged is to provide opportunities for good education.

This includes technical education, which is gaining more and more importance. All others provide some kind of crutch that adds neither strength nor health to the body,” he wrote.

In the letter, he said reservation based on caste and caste “swamps bright and talented people while society is second-class or third-class”. “I am saddened to know how far this business of reservation has gone into communal considerations,” he added.

What does the Constitution say about appropriation in legislatures?

Constitution introduced reservations for SCs and STs in Lok Sabha and State Assemblies under Articles 330 and 332. Some members of the Constituent Assembly, including Prajeshwar Prasad and HJ Khandekar, argued that reservation was an inadequate measure and would not bring any improvement to the oppressed communities.

Prasad believed that nominal representation of SCs and STs would not lead to economic and educational development, saying that some elected leaders would raise a raucous cry but not achieve anything substantial.

Objections were also raised regarding the 10-year time limit for reservations under Article 334 (Draft Rule 295-A). Under the Constitution, the provisions for reservation in the Lok Sabha and Assemblies were supposed to expire after 10 years, and a large number of members expressed doubt that any kind of standard could be reached within such a short time.

For example, Jaibail Singh, a member of the Independent and tribal rights activist, said, “I am sorry that it was only ten years because I firmly believe that India is not going to become a paradise and everyone is not going to become a graduate in ten years. Everyone should learn political education.

What is the current state of fate?

Despite heated debate in the Constituent Assembly, these articles were eventually adopted with some modifications.

However, Article 334 is subject to constitutional amendments where the 10-year limit is extended by an additional 10 years each time. More recently, in 2020, following the Constitution (104th) Amendment Act, the deadline for SC and ST reservations in legislatures was extended to 2030.

These successive extensions are now subject to a challenge pending before the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here