CASTE BASED CENSUS

Categorization often leads to segregation of the society which otherwise tend to be knit as a closely woven fabric. And the introduction of caste-based census in the census of 2011 will lead to a similar result. At present the economic stability and societal sanctity is already dwindling, courtesy, the existing disparity among the different communal groups having their own ethics and religious moralities. Take into consideration the Kashmiri separatists or the Telangana activists, does the government of India has lesser problems to deal with that people from different factions of the society urge for including caste in the 2011 census?

Petty arguments that support caste-based census on the name of economic empowerment of the depressed classes by providing adequate reservations depending upon their caste, fail to see the wider picture. Census is a tool to help the existing bureaucrats and executives to form plicies that in the interest of the “aam aadmi”. It is not a mechanism to provide amplified voice to caste based prejudices and sectarian interests. The Mandal Commission enlisted 2300 types of OBCs and already 18,740 types of SCs and STs are enumerated as per 2001 census. But counting heads for the backward classes in present day will lead to vociferous demands by various groups for irrelevant reservations. Keeping this problem aside another major concern is the absence of strong footed base for declaring a particular caste as backward or forward. For instance, the Kurmis of Bihar enlisted in the government records as SCs unanimously demand for the status of Kshatriya to gain social respectability. On the other hand Marathas of Rajasthan want to be reclassified to be tagged as Kunbis to attain the profits assigned to OBCs. There is yet another issue. The Vanjaras are OBCs in Maharastra, SCs in Karnataka and STs in Andhra Pradesh. Thus we have a lucid picture of how lissome the government of India has to be in case of caste-based census. This is truly a messy affair which the citizen of India should condemn.

But the GoM appointed to give their opinion on caste-based census has opined in favour of it. This is a blow on the individualism of an Indian citizen who in the present date prefers to live a dignified life in united India rather than an undignified one in “reserved” India. There is a mass awakening which foresights the long-term loss the caste-based census will lead to. Endorsing the reservation policy in the name of people’s welfare will undermine the self-respect of an individual who wants to be recognized as Indian citizen rather than a group of sectionalized Indians. The young blood is more sceptic about this issue which is evident from the resistance of the students’ community in Delhi. The Indian masse are intellectuals today. It is a Herculean task to lure them by hollow promises of higher standards of living which the politicians assure of accomplishing by enumerating SCs, STs and OBCs. The inclusion of caste-based census is just another game of vote bank politics. This will merely be a means to provide statistical data to vote hungry politicians regarding the population of their constituency. This will lead to further segregation of the society. It seems that we are still stuck with the British policy of “divide and rule”. If this is what we get from freedom then was colonial rule any worse?

Justice M.N.Rao, the chairperson of the National Commission for Backward Classes supports the view of class within class division as he argues that this will lead to further percolation of government aids to lowest strata of the society. But the issue worth discussing is that is it only the SCs, STs and the OBCs who are in dire need of government aids? Why can’t we have a reservation policy based on the economic status of an individual or the family as a whole? Why can’t we provide aid to the “poor citizen” of India rather than providing reservation to a “categorized herd”? is this pure political will or an evidence of world’s largest democracy being shorn of ideas? It’s you- the “independent Indian citizen” to decide.

WOMEN'S BILL......the YESes n the NOs

The recent times has seen a gradual upsurge in the capabilities of women in every sphere of life, be it economic or the administrative aspect. The rise of the self made parliamentarian Meenakshi right from the grassroots stresses on the point that parliament is no longer seen by women as a far reached body.To ensure better representation of women the previous UPA government had laid the Women's reservation bill in the Rajya Sabha and had constituted a committee to look into it. Today the new government is already functional yet the thought of getting the bill passed creates a lot of hustle and bustle both in the ruling alliance as well as the opposition.The bill will not be passed overnight,not even in the recent time as it has to be scrutinised by a new parliamentary panel.

The earlier committee headed by Congress MP EM Sudarshan Natchiappan had done the necessary spadework by holding discussions with several parties and the CMs of seven states ina abid to reach a concensus on the issues on which few political parties had some reservations.The committee also had discussions with the chief secretary as the bill had to go for ratification after it had been passed in the parliament.But with the new government in power does it mean that the entire labour has to be redone?

Thinking the other way round...does the passsage of Women's bill make us chauvnist in any way?Are we being partisan?Should we leave women to come up to which so ever position they want by their own capabilities?Should the bill be stalled?If these statements are true then there should have been no reservations for scheduled castes or scheduled tribes in any institutions or companies.The basic aim of reservation is the upliftment of a particular section of the society.And looking at the present state of women in India we can perspicuously say that there is a pressing need to pass this bill.

Sharad Yadav of the Janata Dal (United) will always be remembered in the context of Women's reservation bill for his sarcastic statement that the passage of this bill will get more short hair women into the parliament.Although later on he retracted from the statement but his penchant for this dramatism stays alive even with the passage of time.Apart from Sharad Yadav even Mulayam Singh has a similar view and even Lalu Prasad Yadav aligned himself with this view after maintaining an initial diplomatic silence.Along with them Jaya Prada and Uma bharati are also dissatisfied with the present draft of the bill.

The previous UPA government had an easy majority in its last session to get this bill passed but it was stalled either by politically motivated views or due to shortage of time,which only our high profile leaders can clarify.And in this session even after enthusiastic persuasion by the opposition we can see no light in the context of this bill being passed.So will we see any favourable outcome of this bill and the cascaded effect of upliftment of women or will the bill hang within the doors of the parliament just like a mere pendulum which always has the urge to defy gravity but is stuck at a single point??

ARE WE REALLY SECULAR??

The preamble of our constitution begins with "We the people of India....."....But in reality do we really mean WE?? The people of India have constantly oscillated between religious fanaticism and secularism.And hence the saying of Jonathan Swift in Gulliver Travels goes quite true in stating that "we have just enough religion to make us hate but not enough religion to make us love one another".

Talk about the unfortunate Babri masjid demolition in 6th december 1992 or the torching of the train carrying karsevaks by miscreant arsenors in 2002,this country has always been hit in the name of religion.And thus the major question still persists-"are we really secular?" Quoting the term secular in certain texts or delivering it in speeches doesnt make us feel the indepth meaning of this word.For this we need to broaden our own outlook and restrain ourselves from being myopically self referential.

We have immense credentials within ourselves and do not require any foreign stamp for certifying what we already have.Say for instance A.R.Rahman.When we can love him for getting us the Oscar why cant we love his entire community with a brotherly feeling? Just because Rahman is oscar certified and the rest of them are not? Why do we first pick ourselves to be of a particular religion and then an INDIAN? Its high time that we chose to rise above this religious chauvnism and throw away the thoughts of nepotism and strive towards being a better Indian.

Swami Vivekananda once quoted "religion is not in doctrines,in dogmas or in intellectual arguementations; it is being and becoming,it is realisation".So lets pledge not to distract this path of realisation from its ultimate goal.Religion is something which should give us peace of mind rather than taking away a piece of our mind.So lets put our swords back at its place and instead sharpen the swords of our brains so that we can be directed towards a preosperous and a glorious nation,so that our future generations can have a safe haven to reside in.