ST reservation: A special case of Meena and Gujjar Conflict in Rajasthan

Caste, Tribe and Politics of Reservation Th

e term 'Scheduled Tribes' first appeared in the Constitution of India. Article 366 (25) defined

scheduled tribes as "such tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within such tribes

or tribal communities as are deemed under Article 342 to be Scheduled Tribes for the

purposes of this constitution". Article 342 prescribes procedure to be followed in the matter

of specification of scheduled tribes.1

The first specification of Scheduled Tribes in relation to a particular State/ Union Territory is

by a notified order of the President, after consultation with the State governments concerned.

These orders can be modified subsequently only through an Act of Parliament.2 

The Constituent Assembly itself failed to address the criteria of providing reservation. The

Hindi version of the Constitution of India uses the term “Adim Jati”, primitive races, to

describe the Scheduled Tribes despite demands of the tribal members of the Constituent

Assembly to use the term “Adivsasi”. Article 342 does not define “Scheduled Tribes” but

only lays down the procedure for scheduling and de-scheduling of the tribes. Moreover,

scheduling of a “tribe” is done at the recommendation of the State government which takes

decisions on political considerations. Therefore, there are many communities which are

recognized as ST in one State but not in other States.3

 The Gujjar protest has ramifications beyond the States where they live. The Central

government has sought opinion of the Law Ministry while Rajasthan government

recommended 4 to 6 per cent reservation for Gujjars in the category of denotified tribals /

nomadic tribe. There is no separate category of reservation for “denotified tribes” - some of

whom have been classified as Scheduled Castes and some as Scheduled Tribes like the

1 Piarey Lal Mehta, CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION TO STS IN INDIA IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECTS, 107 (1991).2 Id, at 115.3 Sarin, supra note 3, at 2133.

Gujjars. Moreover, reservation has already touched 49% with 27% reservation for OBCs,

15% for the Scheduled Castes and 7.5% for the Scheduled Tribes. 4

The movement focussing on the demand to include Gujjars in the Scheduled Tribe category

had clearly been building up over the last few years, indeed ever since the Jats were declared

an Other Backward Classes group by the Vajpayee-led government at the Centre. The

Rajasthan BJP's election manifesto had itself promised the Gujjars an "upgradation" from

their current OBC status.5

The Gujjar protest has many lessons. There is, first, the question of backwardness. The

Gujjars, estimated to number 1.6 crore nationwide, are internally differentiated in terms of

religion, occupation, and socio-economic status. Historically, they have comprised a hugely

heterogeneous group ranging from the Gurjar-Pratihara rulers of north India to the Gujjar and

Bakarwal nomads of Jammu and the Kashmir valley who are today mostly Sunni Muslim.

There is said to have been a migration from Gujarat, Kathiawad, and Rajasthan to Kashmir in

the 6th-7th century and an earlier one from Georgia via Central Asia, Iraq, Iran, and

Afghanistan. In Uttarakhand, they comprise forest communities called Van Gujjars and in

Rajasthan Gujjar villages are in the Aravalli forests and they have been sought to be

"rehabilitated" from the National Parks of Sariska and Ranthambhor.6

The Gujjar protest raises the larger question of the categories followed by government

mentality, colonial and post-colonial. Do groups such as these constitute a tribe or caste? In

both Kashmir and Rajasthan, Gujjars are cattle-rearers, but have also become sedentary over

time. Should they be incorporated into the OBC or the Scheduled Tribe category? Under the

18th century revenue administration of eastern Rajasthan, the Gujjars were considered a

peasant group with a shudra status similar to the Meenas, Meos, Jats, and Ahirs. Nonetheless,

folkloric sources indicate a more ambivalent pastoral status — in a Mewati folk-epic, a poor

Gujjar woman whose only cow is killed by a tiger weeps in the mountains until she is helped

by Meo bandit-rebels!7

Another issue is the politics of inclusion into statist categories. In the aftermath of the

formation of the State of Rajasthan, the Meenas were declared a Scheduled Tribe but not the

Gujjars. The Meenas had been an erstwhile ruling group of the Amber kingdom who were 4 Shail Mayaram, Caste, tribe, and the politics of reservation, The Hindu (Jun 02, 2007), available at http://www.hindu.com/2007/06/02/stories/2007060202311200.htm. 5 G. S. Ghurey, CASTE AND RACE IN INDIA, 338 (1996).6 Id, note 354.7 G. S. Ghurey, THE SCHEDULED TRIBES, 178 (1995).

dispossessed by Rajputs much like the Bhil rajas elsewhere in Rajasthan and Gujarat. The

Meenas' own internal categories of difference — the zamindari and chowkidari Meenas —

suggest their presence in the middle peasantry. The Amber/Jaipur kingdom gave the Meenas

a special status — their vermilion mark anointed the king and they guarded the treasury. The

Gujjars were treated as a shudra group in the Mughal period and subject to a differential

system of revenue assessment by the much-expanded Jaipur kingdom. In eastern Rajasthan,

Brahmins paid 12 per cent, Rajputs 33 per cent, and raiyati groups such as Meenas, Gujjars,

Jats, and others up to 76 per cent of the produce.8

The current protest is about entitlements in jobs and educational institutions, and the

perception that in the last 50 years Meenas who had a comparable socio-economic status have

forged way ahead of the Gujjars by being declared a Scheduled Tribe. While the former

acquired a high representation in the State and all-India services, the latter have to resort to

mining and construction labour and, at best, minor clerical jobs. At its heart, it is also a

critique of a model of economic growth that has not trickled down and the failure of the neo-

liberal model of development that seeks to establish glitzy SEZs (special economic zones),

film cities, and emerald, gold and diamond souks but ignores the rural hinterland's

predicament of receding groundwater resources, low crop yields, and livelihood crises.9

The Gujjar protest represents another moment in the transformation of caste politics. Surely,

caste is about unequal ritual and social statuses and untouchability, but contemporary caste

represents visions of justice and equality. Thus, while the earlier phase of lower caste

assertion had been about displacing upper castes, a good deal of the caste discourse now is

about challenging "creamy layers." Gujjar anxieties are shared by Ahirs, Malis, and others

that the Jats are cornering all the privileges for OBCs and everyone else is losing out.10

In the last two decades, affirmative actions have been diluted for vote bank politics. Apart

from the Scheduled Tribes (Adivasis), affirmative actions were also meant for the

untouchables – the lowest Caste in the Hindu caste system. However, affirmative action has

now been extended to the Other Backward Classes (OBCs). It is an established fact that in

rural India OBCs and other middle castes perpetrate more atrocities against the Dalits than

the Brahmins. The reservation for the OBCs diverts the attention away from the acute

discrimination and violence faced by the Dalits – the untouchables. Manual scavenging

8 Id, at 189.9 S. Malik, COMMENTARIES ON THE SCS AND STS (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT, 1989), 554 (1994).10 Ghurey, supra note 10, at 220.

despite being banned is carried out by the untouchables, not by the OBCs. Affirmative

actions are meant for these Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. Unfortunately, affirmative

actions have been diluted for vote banks and there is no stopping.11

Gujjars must, nonetheless, also undertake a self-introspection into why a non-violent `chakka

jam' took a violent course and into the larger problem of the politics of quotas. If the creamy

layer bedevils Rajasthan's over-inflated OBC category, it is even more the bane of the

Scheduled Tribe category where the marginality of the truly backward Bhils and Garasias has

only intensified under the welfare state. Gujjar caste people are demanding a lower

scheduled status, instead of their current, higher OBC (Other Backward Class) status. Further,

will merely being listed as a Scheduled Tribe ensures quality school education, better quality

teaching, and jobs? Finally, what are the gender imbalances that reservation often entails,

especially given the experience of certain upwardly mobile individuals who keep their caste

wife for the village and undertake inter-caste marriages in the city?12

Struggle of Meenas and Gujjars for Reservation

During the colonial period, upward mobility characterised a small section of the north Indian

peasantry including Jats who benefited from the East Yamuna canal but most peasant castes

and western Jat factions faced an increasingly desperate situation under pressure of high

revenue assessment, famines, and growing indebtedness. Gangs of Gujjar, Meena, Mewati

raiders had come into being in the late 18th century and become active in the early 19th

century feeding into a colonial discourse of para-criminality that led to the making of the

infamous Criminal Tribes Act of 1870-71.13

The Gujjar mobilisation then is multi-faceted. It is about legitimate democratic aspirations

and citizenship. Gujjars contend that they have contributed significantly to the anti-colonial

struggle and to the Indian state. In the districts of Meerut, Bijnor, Alwar, and Bharatpur they

mobilised against the `firangi' (foreigner) in 1857, a contribution that they claim has not even

been recognised.14

11 Virginius Xaxa, Protective Discrimination: Why Scheduled Tribes Lag Behind Scheduled Castes, 36(29) ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY 2765, 2768 (2001).

12 Malik, supra note 12, at 558.13 P. K. Mohanty, Development of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Independent India: Leads and Lags, 19(04) JOURNAL OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT 535, 545 (2000). 14 Kavita Srivastava’s Report on Last Year’s Gujjar Confrontation in Rajasthan, (June 11, 2008), available at http://kafila.org/2008/06/11/kavita-srivastavas-report-on-last-years-gujjar-confrontation-in-rajasthan/.

Soon after independence the Bhil Meenas got reservations in the Districts of Dungarpur,

Banswara, Chittorgarh and Udaipur. At the time of 1931 census the Bhil Meenas were over

20,000, however today they have reduced to half they are only 10,000 in number. The Gujjars

(also known as Gurjars) predominantly inhabit north and northwest Indian states of Jammu &

Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan,

Gujarat, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. In the Hindu “Varna system”, they are

categorized as “Kshatriya”.15

There are around 53 million Gujjars in India. In Rajasthan, they comprise about 11% of the

total population. In Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh, Gujjars have been

recognized as Scheduled Tribes. In Rajasthan, they are classified as Other Backward Classes

(OBCs) and are entitled to quotas in state-run education institutions and government jobs.

Their demand is being strongly opposed by Meenas, a tribal community of the state who fear

that their shares in the affirmative action will erode.16

This was an issue of contention for the Meenas as they felt that they also deserved to be STs

so they decided to raise their voice against this injustice as they called it. Under the

leadership of Lakshmi Narayan Jhirwal they organized themselves and hence on 11th June

1952, Meenas organized a conference (sammelan) near Dudu (Jaipur) district for the

inclusion of the Meena community in the Schedule list for reservation. The Gujjars supported

this wholly. On the recommendation of the MP from Dausa constituency called Raj Bahadur

Singh, then CM Jai Narayan Vyas sent his recommendations to the Central Government.17

The Cabinet of the Union of India appointed retired CJ Kaka Kalelkar as the chairman of the

commission to understand whether the Meenas need to be selected for ST. The commission

recommended only the Chowkidar Meenas as suited for the ST reservation. He was assisted

by Jaganath Mehta, IAS, the chairperson of the Rajasthan Social Welfare Board. They

surveyed and gave a report about the socio economic condition and their backwardness.18

15 Deepak Kumar Shrivastava, LEGAL PROTECTION OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND TRIBES: CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS AND SOCIAL JUSTICE, 98 (2012).16 Bhanu Pratap Singh, Gujjar Quota Protest on Tracks, Jaipur-Delhi Rail Service Hit, THE TIMES OF INDIA (December 25, 2010), available at http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-12-25/india/28229691_1_gujjars-raseri-jaipur-agra-national-highway.17 Shrivastava, supra note 18, at 110.18 Govinda Chandra Rath, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA: THE CONTEMPORARY DEBATE, 68 (2006).

The Meena MP from Rajasthan called Captain Chutan Lal advocated with the Government

and got the term Chowkidar removed from the Chowkidar Meena category selected for

reservation. Thus he managed to get all the Meenas into the schedule tribe list.19

Then on 25th May 1976, The Gujjar community organised themselves for the first time at

Dholpur. Strategically they invited two Chief Ministers from Madhya Pradesh S. C. Shukla

and P. C. Sethi and the-then CM of Rajasthan, Haridev Joshi who was accompanied by two

senior cabinet ministers Shiv Charan Mathur and Jagganath Pahadia, they presented to

Brahamnand Reddy the UOI Home Minister the Memo demanding their inclusion in the ST

list. The Dholpur Sammelan was held under the leadership of KL Verma, Coordinator.20

The UOI Home Minister immediately in Dholpur itself instructed the Rajasthan CM Haridev

Joshi to quicken this demand legally and get back to the centre. In 1977 amendments took

place by the GOI in the SC and ST list. Subsequent to that no changes have taken place in the

last thirty years.21

In 1981, Several castes including the Gujjars gave their recommendation to the CM of

Rajasthan S. C. Mathur to be included in the ST list. The Social Welfare Department

examined all the caste recommendations and found that the Gujjars do not fit in the GOI

criteria of inclusion in the list. The criteria of classifying a community as ST include

indications of primitive traits, distinctive culture, geographical isolation, shyness of contact

with the community at large, economic and educational backwardness and the community’s

lack of access to regular means of livelihood. This criterion is not spelt out in the constitution

but it has become a well established and it sums all earlier definition used. Later in the same

year, the CM Shiv Charan Mathur did not include them in his recommendations to the GOI

while recommending the inclusion of the Gadoliya Lohar and the Banjaras in the S T list.22

In 1994, The Gujjars become OBCs with the CM Bhairon Singh Shekhawat recommending

to the centre that they be included as OBCs on the basis of the State OBC Commissions

recommendations earlier in the year. The role of Rajesh Pilot was acknowledged for ensuring

this.23

19 Singh, supra note 19.20 Rath, supra note 21, at 71.21 Indra Munshi, Scheduled Tribes Bill 2005, 40(41) ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY 4406, 4407 (2005).22 Id, at 4408.23 Gujjar stir in Rajasthan unabated, spreads to other states, (June 3, 2007), available at http://www.dancewithshadows.com/society/gujjar-stir.asp.

Then for about a decade this issue was not paid any attention by Gujjars but in June 2003,

Vasundhara Raje during her election campaign better known as Parivartan Yatra, commits to

the Gujjar her support for their inclusion in the ST list if brought to power. Prime Minister

Atal Bihari Vajpayee promised the Jat Mahasabha for their inclusion in the OBC list against

the recommendations of the OBC commission and they were notified in the list of the OBCs

in 2004 before the parliamentary elections. The Gujjars never opposed this move of the

inclusion of Jats in OBC.24

The Jats also put a condition that the OBC quota would not be broken up. After the Jats being

declared OBC in early 2004, they started getting all the jobs. Which got the Gujjars Angry

and discontented felt cheated. This demand picked up a new energy and felt that they should

get out from here. They asked for “ati pichada varg status”, but not given.25

In 2005, the Rajasthan Gujjar Maha Sabha President Ram Gopal Guard, also the President of

the District Panchayat of Jaipur district from a BJP seat, sat on a fast with forty others to

remind the BJP that they must live upto their commitment of sending the recommendation to

the centre of them being included in the ST list. A Cabinet Minsters advisory committee is

constituted under the leadership of the Home Minister of Rajasthan, Sh.Gulab Chand Kataria

to look into this matter. It met soon after and took a decision to ask each Collector to send a

report on the socio economic condition of the Gujjar community in their district as required

by the GOI.26

In 2006, Dausa district reviewed the commitment of the Government and took a decision to

set up another platform on the issue of reservations and appointed Col. Bainsla as the

president of the Gujjar Reservation Committee for inclusion in the ST. The CM again assured

them that she would stand by her commitment. The Gujjars wanted to put pressure on the

Government like how the Jats were able to do it in 2003.27

September, 2006, a huge protest rally is organized in Hindon. The response is so good that

the Gujjar leaders are also taken by surprise. The community manifested its anger at the

Governments attitude of delay and inaction that they expressed it by doing a violent protest

24 Rath, supra note 21, at 73.25 Supra note 17.26 Supra, note 17.27 Special Correspondent, Gujjar Protest Continues for 6th Day, Rail Routes Blocked, THE TIMES OF INDIA (December 25, 2010), available at http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-12-25/india/28260623_1_bandikui-gujjar-protest-gangapur-lalsot-route.

consisting of a Rail Roko agitation. They ended up pulling out rail tracks so that the

Government would take a note of the issue and so would the media. The trick did work. The

Chief Secretary came by helicopter to meet the agitators. He assured them that on 15 th

September the CM would meet them and their problem would be resolved. The CM met the

Colonel Bainsla and others and assured them that their demand would be met. The

Government acted soft on the agitators and did not book cases against them.28

In 2007, after waiting for 8 months, the Gujjar Arakshan Sangharhsh Samiti (GASS) led by

Colonel Kirori Singh Bainsla meets in Hindon, Karauli district. Since the Government has

done nothing they take a decision to intensify their struggle in order to get the Government to

respond to their issue. The programme announced was to blocking the key Highways. This

was announced in all papers in Jaipur. The Home Minister also had a meeting with the Home

Secretary and the DG Police and they decided to impose Sec 144 of Criminal Procedure

Code. Police begins arresting a large number of people. The state government agreed to set

up a three-member Committee to examine the community's demand for ST status.29

 The Committee headed by Justice Jasraj Chopra, retired judge of the Rajasthan High Court,

submitted its report to the State Government on 17 December 2007. It rejected the Gujjars’

demand for ST status as they did not meet the criteria of identification of the Scheduled

Tribes. However, the Committee recommended a special package of benefits.30

 On the basis of the recommendations of the Justice Chopra Committee, the state government

on 18 December 2007 decided to set up a four-member high level Committee, to prepare the

package of benefits. On 17 May 2008, the Committee headed by Ramdas Agarwal announced

a geographic-specific Rs. 282 crore package for Gujjars. The package would directly benefit

a population of 9-10 lakh Gujjars living in the districts of Alwar, Sawai Madhopur, Karauli,

Dholpur and Jhalawar. The Gujjars rejected the offer and started a new round of

demonstrations on 23 May 2008.

Successive governmental commissions have held that Gujjars do not meet the criteria for

inclusion in the Scheduled Tribes. The five criteria laid down by the Centre for identification

of tribals are (a) indications of primitive traits, (b) distinctive culture (c) geographical

isolation, (d) shyness of contact with the community at large, and (e) backwardness.

28 Id.29 Munshi, supra note 24, at 4408. 30 Supra, note 17.

Judicial Decisions

Indian constitution protects the interest of everyone equally and as a result constitution

provides the protection to the people who are considered as minority groups on the basis of

socio-economic background, culture, language, etc. under Article 15(4), 16(4), 16(4)(a),

16(4)(b), 330, 332, 333, 335 of Indian Constitution. There were so many issues came into

courts regarding reservation and its policies after the independence. So many castes have

protested to get reservation and few had succeeded also. Supreme Court had always given its

decisions regarding the reservation on the basis of socio-economic backwardness of the

castes. Here researcher is discussing the landmark judgements which had contributed in

mitigating the protests regarding demand of reservation.31

State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan32 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of

India. This verdict led to the First Amendment of the Constitution of India. It was the first

major verdict regarding reservations in Republic of India. In its ruling the Supreme Court

upheld the Madras High Court verdict, which in turn had stuck down the Communal

Government Order (G.O) passed in 1927 in the Madras Presidency. The Communal G.O had

provided caste based reservation in government jobs and college seats. The Supreme Court's

verdict held that providing such reservations was in violation of Article 29 (2)33 of the Indian

Constitution.

Later in Venkataramana v. State of Madras34 case, it was t held that "reservation of posts in

favour of any backward class of citizens cannot, therefore, be regarded as unconstitutional".

Then in M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore35, it was held that the caste of a group of persons could

not be the sole or even predominant factor though it could be a relevant test for ascertaining

whether a particular class was a backward class or not. Backwardness under Article 15(4)

must be social and educational, and that social backwardness was, in the ultimate analysis the

result of poverty. One’s occupation and place of habitation could be other relevant factors in

determining social backwardness. The court invalidated the test of backwardness which was

based predominantly, if not solely, on caste.

31 Shrivastava, supra note 18, at 210.32 State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, AIR 1951 SC 226.33 Article 29(2), THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION, 1950.34 Venkataramana Vs State of Madras, AIR 1951 SC 229.35 M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore, AIR 1963 SC 649.

In T. Devadasan v Union of India36, a rule of the Central Government which actually reserved

only 17.5 per cent post in the central services for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

but provided for carrying forward of their unfilled quota to the next two succeeding years, if

suitable candidates were not available, was invalidated on the ground that accumulation of

17.5 per cent in three years would come to approximately 54 per cent and in the instant case

it had come to 64 per cent because out of 45 vacancies, 29 went to reserved quota. Hence in

final verdict court struck down the 'the carry forward' rule for backward classes far exceeded

50 per cent.

In General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari37, the Supreme Court held that the

power of reservation which is conferred on the State could be exercised by it not only for

providing for reservation in appointments but also for providing representation in selection

posts as well as promotional posts.

Rangachari38 case decision was overruled in the Mandal Commission case39, the Court

observed that the policy of reservation has to be operated year wise and there cannot be any

such policy in perpetuity. Further it also held that Art. 15(4) does not mean percentage of

reservation should be in proportion to the percentage of population of the backward classes to

the total population and that it was the State’s discretion to keep reservation at reasonable

level by taking into consideration at all legitimate claims and relevant factors. The court held

that reservation could be made only in respect of direct recruitment at any level but not in

respect of promotions.

Also the Supreme Court dealt with “creamy layer” at length. That case dealt with reservation

of backward classes in case of public employment. Justice Jeevan Reddy stated that ‘creamy

layer’ can be, and must be excluded from the purview of reservation. He emphasized that

upon a member of a backward class, reaching an advanced social level or status, would no

longer belong to the backward class and would have to be weeded out. After excluding the

creamy layer alone, would the class be a compact class and such exclusion would benefit the

truly backward. The Supreme Court had observed that ‘the backward class under Art. 16(4)

means the class which has no element of creamy layer in it. It is mandatory under Art. 16(4)

that the state must identify the creamy layer in a backward class and thereafter excluding the

36 T. Devadasan v Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 179.37 General Manager, S. Rly. v. Rangachari, AIR 1962 SC 36.38 Rangachari, AIR 1962 SC 36.39 Indira Sawhney & Ors v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477.

creamy layer extend the benefit of reservation to the ‘class’ which remains after such

exclusion.’40

The latest judicial decision of SC regarding the much debated issue of reservation is Ashoka

Kumar Thakur v. Union of India41, The main contention raised by counsels appearing for the

Respondents regarding inclusion of creamy layer for the purposes of reservation centered on

the idea that the objective of reservation under Article 15 and Article 16 is different. The

contention was that reservation under Article 15 is not a poverty alleviation programme nor is

it a programme to eradicate unemployment and nor is it a programme to educate all the

backward classes. It is to bring about equality among different castes. Therefore it was

contended that if the lower castes are deprived of the facilities and opportunities in the name

of the creamy layer, then it will be counterproductive and would frustrate the very object of

reservation, namely to achieve equality in status, facilities and opportunities. The court

upholds the adoption and application of “other backward classes” to SEBCs (socially and

economically backward classes) in Article 15(5) which must naturally apply to Article 15(4)

too.

In all these cases researcher has observed that the reservation has been given by following the

provisions prescribed under Indian Constitution and also it was based on socio-economic

condition of particular caste.

Conclusion

After researching the issue of reservation brought into picture by Gujjars, the researcher will

conclude that the reservation should not be given to any community without following the

procedure prescribed under the Constitution of India.

Therefore if we are to an egalitarian society, early, where all the people enjoy equitable status

and have equal opportunity to achieve prosperity, we will have to shed away the temporary

crutches of reservation sooner than later, otherwise the prolonged use of these crutches will

incapacitate Indian society for ever. And we will end up with a caste based fractured society

whose various groups of people will ever remain suspicious of each other and social strife

would be witnessed every now and then. Such a scenario will move our country and its

people towards dark tunnel of despair and chaos.

40 Mandal Commission, AIR 1993 SC 477.41 Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, (2008) 6 SCC 1.

Since reservation is the most sensitive and most debated issue in India, a sudden change in

present framework of reservation is almost impossible. Thus the need of the hour is that we

should take such steps which would protect the weaker sections of society and

simultaneously empower them so much that the need for reservation itself gradually fades

away. Only thereafter, the dream of our constitution framers and for that matter of any well

meaning society, to create real equality among all citizens of the country, can be materialised.

There will be fewer agitations and even lesser conflicts between the proponents and

opponents of the reservation policy. Everyone would see the end of the dark tunnel of caste

based divisive system, where after no one would require reservation as there will be equality

among all sections of people of this country and the country will forge ahead at a blistering

pace as its talented souls will be nurtured everywhere which will harness their true potential

resulting in long lasting prosperity to this country.