MP Vinod Chawda: Modi Confirms No Quota In SC-ST Reservation; SC Opinion Only

The BJP has clarified its stance on the reservation in the quota. Kutch MP Vinod Chavda claimed today that Prime Minister Modi assured him in a meeting that the BJP is not considering any changes regarding the reservation in the quota. It is merely an opinion of a panel of Supreme Court judges.

Supreme Court’s Historic Verdict on August 1

On August 1, the Supreme Court delivered a historic verdict. The bench of seven judges ordered the creation of a new sub-category within the SC-ST category, providing separate quotas for extremely backward classes. This decision caused a nationwide reaction, with various organizations announcing a ‘Bharat Bandh’ on August 21. However, no political party has yet clarified its position. Meanwhile, the BJP has revealed its stance, stating it is not in favor of implementing the new reservation.

Vinod Chavda’s Video Statement

Today, outside the Parliament House, Vinod Chavda posted a video. He said, “Today, all MPs met with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. He assured us that neither the central government nor any state government of the BJP is considering the reservation in the quota or any criminal aspect. It is only the opinion and view of the Supreme Court’s panel of judges. Congress and opposition are misleading SC and ST communities by spreading rumors about removing reservations. We, the MPs, made a representation to Prime Minister Modi.”

BJP’s Position on Reservation

Vinod Chavda told Divya Bhaskar that no state government or party of the BJP is considering any changes. The Supreme Court’s comment is their opinion. The central government or BJP’s state governments or parties are not considering any changes. The reservation will remain as it is and will not be altered. The reservation will stay intact according to the Supreme Court’s opinion.

Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court’s bench of seven judges, with a 6:1 majority, stated that reservations within reservations can be made for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). Currently, the SC receives a 15% reservation and the ST receives 7.5%. After the Supreme Court’s decision, states can create separate quotas for weaker sections within the SC and ST categories from this 22.5% reservation.

Gujarat’s SC and ST Community Members’ Reactions

Out of the 182 seats in the Gujarat Assembly, 28 are reserved for ST and 14 for SC. In the state’s 26 Lok Sabha seats, 4 are reserved for ST and 2 for SC. Divya Bhaskar attempted to gather opinions from 42 SC and ST members of the Gujarat Assembly and 6 MPs regarding the Supreme Court’s decision.

Mohan Konkani’s View on the Judgment

Mohan Konkani, BJP MLA from Vyara, stated that he has not fully studied the verdict yet. He mentioned that governments tend to make decisions that benefit them, and both sides need to be considered. While 15-20% of the community might benefit from the reservation, other sections might be left out and could face injustice. Politically, some communities might benefit, but others might not. There could be benefits in employment and education, but issues remain regarding communities that have progressed. Surveys mostly occur in urban areas, leaving rural areas out, which could result in both losses and gains for different communities due to the verdict.

Chaitar Vasava’s Concerns on Protests

Chaitar Vasava, Aam Aadmi Party MLA from Dediyapada, expressed concerns that the implementation of this verdict might lead to a roster agitation. He believes the decision might be against the SC and ST communities, causing potential harm. Discussions with organizations will take place, and social platforms will be used for collective action. Concerns about the data or surveys used by the court or government for implementation are raised, as there is no data on the number of extremely backward classes.

Anant Patel’s Criticism

Congress MLA Anant Patel from Vansda commented that reservations were granted due to centuries of social discrimination and educational backwardness. He questioned if these reasons no longer exist. His stance suggests a view of dividing the SC and ST communities for political gain.

The System is Already in Place in Gujarat: Ramanlal Vora

Ramanlal Vora, the BJP MLA from Idar and former Cabinet Minister, stated that students in schools should first receive scholarships. Scholarships have income limits from the first day. People who are employed never receive scholarships. This has been the case not just today but from the beginning. It is a fact that such people never receive anything. Sometimes it is possible that employment might be available based on SC categories, but otherwise, nothing happens. In Gujarat, there are boards and corporations for socially and legally backward groups, including the Atipachhat Board Corporation, Safai Kamdar Corporation, Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Antyodaya Corporation, and boards for Scheduled Castes, Tribals, and OBCs. There are 146 OBC castes, with 40 being nomadic and liberated castes, which have a separate board. However, nothing seems to be effective in Gujarat. The implication is that the division has already been made. There is a separate provision in the budget, unlike in states where such provisions do not exist.

Danta Congress MLA Welcomes the Verdict

Danta Congress MLA Kanti Kharadi welcomed the verdict, stating that the decision was based on the SC-ST population, so it should be implemented. It is not clear who will benefit from this decision, as the implementation is the government’s responsibility. SCs and STs should receive full benefits. Currently, the benefits of reservations are not being received. The government does not accept the SC-ST quota, although provisions do exist. If the provisions were followed, SC and ST communities would not be unemployed.

The Verdict Should Be Implemented: Ramesh Katara

Ramesh Katara, BJP MLA from Fatepur, stated that the verdict should be implemented and benefits should be provided. If there are seats available, they must be allocated. If reservations come, according to the rules, then tribal children will get some space. Tribals live from Ambaji to Umaragam. Some are in good conditions, while others are not.

Even Tribals Are Facing Competition Now: Tushar Choudhary

Tushar Choudhary, Congress MLA from Khedbrahma and former Central Minister, mentioned that the verdict talks about categorization and the introduction of a creamy layer. This is an inherent right. Now even tribals are facing competition. It is not that there are no students; admissions are based on merit, so the introduction of a creamy layer does not make sense.

Quotas in Gujarat Reservations: What Do Experts Say?

Dr. Vidyut Joshi, a writer and thinker, told Divya Bhaskar that reservations are meant to support the backward classes. This is mentioned in Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution. The responsibility of providing reservations lies with the states. Therefore, some castes might fall under reservations in Maharashtra but not in Gujarat. He stated that the Supreme Court also mentioned in the verdict that states should not provide reservations arbitrarily but should decide based on data. For example, in Gujarat, the Anjana Patels are included in OBCs. If Anjana Patels are not backward, how can they be classified as OBCs? No data was collected on them, and they were included in OBCs, which should not be the case.

Dr. Vidyut Joshi Explained the Unequal Distribution of Reservations with Examples

Supporting the implementation of the Supreme Court’s verdict in Gujarat, Dr. Vidyut Joshi explained that reservations are mentioned in the Constitution and should be provided by the state. However, looking at how damage occurs, an example is that 33% of ST scholarships are taken by the 3% population of the Dhodia tribe. The Halpati and Nayaka tribes do not receive much benefit from scholarships. Similarly, in employment, the Rathwa, Choudhary, Gamith, and Dhodia tribes are categorized as ST, with 25 tribes in total, but the benefits are not received by everyone, indicating that currently, a few tribes receive more benefits from reservations.

Significant Controversy Expected in the Future

Political analyst and professor Hemantkumar Shah stated that the Supreme Court’s verdict is highly controversial and will lead to significant disputes in the future. The court has stated that all Dalits are not equal. Therefore, some castes receive more benefits from reservations, some receive very little, and some receive none at all, necessitating reservations for different Dalit castes. He provided an example, noting that Gujarat has 35 castes categorized as Dalit. With an estimated 4.5 to 5 million Dalits in Gujarat, the 7% reservation should be divided among these 35 castes according to the verdict. Shah expressed concern that if SC and ST categories receive reservations based on caste, it could lead to major issues. If the distribution is not done properly, it could result in injustice to Dalits, as all sub-castes’ quotas will be fixed.

Reservations Are Not a Perfect Solution to Inequality

Dalit human rights activist Martin McWan told Divya Bhaskar that he views the Supreme Court’s decision in two ways. The decision is rational. There is internal discrimination within Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Although the court has noted that equality does not exist, reservations are not an ideal solution to end inequality. The verdict does not address women but only caste-based inequality. While 50% reservation for women in local bodies has been achieved, why not in jobs? Therefore, more emphasis should have been placed on this issue.

Should This Verdict Be Implemented in Gujarat?

When asked whether this verdict should be implemented in Gujarat, Martin McWan said that while no such law has been framed in Gujarat, similar laws have been made in Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Punjab, but later overturned by the Supreme Court or High Courts. In Gujarat, a movement was conducted in 1992 demanding a 2% reservation for Valmiki community students in PTC jobs, which was successfully implemented, and the Gujarat government passed a resolution for it. McWan suggested that if the recent Supreme Court verdict is implemented across the country, the Gujarat government cannot claim that it is unnecessary.

Implementation of the Verdict May Increase Internal Conflicts Among SC-ST Sub-Castes

Martin McWan further noted that the verdict does not reduce reservations. The reason for the verdict is that some sub-castes received more benefits while others received none. However, the implementation of this verdict may increase internal conflicts among SC-ST sub-castes. Additionally, the government often provides many reasons to avoid implementing reservations. Reservations are never fully implemented.

Retired Professor Gourang Jani’s View

Retired Professor Gourang Jani from Gujarat University told Divya Bhaskar that as a scholar and citizen, he supports the Supreme Court’s decision. However, there is no data or study on how reservations should be allocated. If the verdict is followed, even marginalized Dalits will benefit, but whether it will eradicate untouchability remains a major question.

Need for Evaluation of the Last Three Generations

“According to the 2011 census, SCs and STs have different castes. Currently, the Gujarat government needs to collect updated information on all these castes, including an assessment of the last three generations. Information on education levels, government and private job holders, and land ownership is required. The government departments should have this information, and based on this data, the process can start, but we lack sufficient data.”

“When the government decides, whether reservations will be provided based on population or backwardness is a significant issue. The conditions of Dalits and tribals differ in rural and urban areas.”