YOGESH SAXENA DISCUSS GAYATRI MANTRA POWER WITH SACCHA BABA JI

YOGESH SAXENA INTRACTION WITH PARAM PUJYA SACCHA BABA ASHRAM PRAYAG A...

YOGESH SAXENA INTRACTION WITH PARAM PUJYA SACCHA BABA ASHRAM PRAYAG A...

HINDU BUNGLING ARYAN INVASION THEORY BY WITZEL'S CALIFORNIA COMPAIGN DENIAL BY HINDUS ACTIVISTS SRI RAM SWARUP AND SRI SITA RAM GOEL & LORD RAMA BRIDGE BY SRI SUBRAMANIAN SWAMI

Hindu bungling and as an unmixed triumph for Aryan theory retained in school books, theories on which  own career and reputation rest to a large degree. This is far from the case, though this was how it was portrayed on partisan websites. Both paid a heavy price both financially and in credibility. He soon found himself in disreputable company with fly by night evangelical outfits, communist groups and the like, hardly worthy of a senior professor at a prestigious university proud of its liberal credentials. The enduring power of the Aryan invasion theory and of academics subscribe to it. The fact is both are headed into the dustbin of history. In 2005, “Collapse of the Aryan invasion theory”, by Greek Vedic scholar Nicolas Kazanas, it was already old hat. Where are its advocates? In the wilderness, fighting to save themselves and their departments which are being eliminated by universities from Berlin to Cambridge. His tour of India where he tried to drum up support for his programme was an embarrassment. He was ridiculed even by schoolchildren questioning his Sanskrit while at the prestigious India International Centre in Delhi, eminent scholar Kapila Vatsayan politely but firmly put him in place.  This episode merits attention as it illustrates the hazards of basing a narrative on personalities rather than issues. Personalities come and go — whatever happened to Angana Chatterji — but issues move much more slowly. The issue today is no longer the Aryan invasion but rebuilding a foundation for the study of ancient history on a scientific basis. Several publications treat the Aryan theories in the same light as Creation science and reject papers that use it. This needs to be mentioned because the author devotes a great deal of attention to personalities like Meera Nanda and their positions.  Hindu activism mentors  like Sri Ram Swarup and Sri Sita Ram Goel, especially the latter who provided an intellectual foundation for nationalism. He laments their passing and also the fact that such vigour is absent among present day workers. This may be so, but as the author himself notes, their work is now common property and many of their ideas have been adopted by Hindus worldwide, especially by the diaspora. This is not to suggest there is no room for improvement. The author is very much on the mark when he accuses Hindu intellectuals of lethargy and obscurantism.   There are discussions of karma and rebirth, humour in Hinduism, Macaulay, historicity of the Vedas and the like in which he expresses opinions on these and other topics where the reader has to accept or reject them based on one’s own beliefs and prejudices. (This reviewer found most of them to be familiar and a few, like his interpretation of apauresheya, to be plain wrong. Philosophy, metaphysics in particular, is not the author’s Witzel’s California campaign and  the Subramanian Swamy scandal) to Rama’s Bridge to Sati and Vedic Seers. strength.

INDIAN DALIT ABANDONED, ABUSED, EXPLOITED , RAPED IN BARBARIC CASTE SYSTEM

The India's dalits are the most abandoned, abused, exploited, raped and killed in the name of the barbaric caste system, there is a nationwide terrorist killing of dalits goes on right under the nose of the State and Central so called govt but they care the least to do anything about it, but they are also the part of abusive system, most crimes and caste abuses are preventable and controllable by the governments but in most cases the govts work hand in glove with the perpetrators, even the police system itself seen in the forefront of abusing the voiceless, helpless dalits. Most Dalit MLAs, MPs, Ministers are slaves to the party they belong so they do not open their mouth even if there is a mass massacre infront of their eyes, the dalit politicians do not have any morale, dignity or courage to protect their own people.

Recently, 300 homes of dalits been rampaged  cash, jewellery, properties stolen, vehicles and homes been torched and burned down to the ground.  More than 300 homes in more than 3 villages been attacked by the caste animals vanniyar groups, 2000 strong men and woman joined together, planned it for months and unleashed this horrible, unspeakable rampage  our people are without home, food, clothes and shelter (other than the ones donated most recently).

The tragic scene of villages look much like a second world war or a war zone where only rubble's can be noticed. Such is the extent of this criminal looting, arson, torching of homes, the govt is dealing this situation like a street fight, as if nothing happened and everything is hunky dory, the police came to the scene after all the houses been looted and burned down for about 6 hours of looting  The police showed up may a day or two days after the incident or perhaps after all the homes been brought down to the grounds. The state chief or country's Prime Minister or home minister gave a damn about such violence or rampage  none off them said anything about this rampage  let alone visiting, such is the audacity of people and the ruling governments, even the opposition parties or organizations paid due attention to this incident.

Dear Anonymous  wherever you are, and whatever format you are, the dalits of India need your help, can you do something about this tragedy?, the state and central govt that watched these tragedy and did nothing must be punished, must be made accountable and responsible, but more that the 2000 strong caste animals are hiding in the nearby forests, the vanniyar leaders who instigated or hatched this grand scale arson and looting are at large and hiding in forests, can the anonymous punish them. Can the anonymous warn the Tamil Nadu and Indian govt and make sure they do everything to protect these innocent, peace loving and hardworking dalits of India, the Original owners of this country live like slaves in their own country and are treated much lesser than animals, such is the plight of India.

Where are you Anonymous, can you hear the crying of Dalits, their sufferings reach your ears...?. The Police, Press and Politicians are the worst bystanders of the country while the daring, day light robbery of the vanniyars unfolded last week, no international press or humanitarian groups yet, no voices from distance yet?

HISTORY OF LEGAL EVOLUTION AFTER CRIMINAL TRIBES ACT, 1871 ABOLITIONS AND REGIDITY IN IMPLEMENTATION OF WELFARE SCHEMES BY CENTRAL GOVENMENT TILL B.P.MANDAL RECOMENDATIONS

The history of legal evolution of the Criminal Tribes is adequately described in several scholarly works7. However, I would like to evoke a brief summary here for the purpose of a swift recall. The earliest legal provision on regulating the criminal tribes is found in Regulation No. XXVI of 1793. The famed fiction by Taylor8 titled ‘Confessions of a

Thug’ in early years of nineteenth century helped to create a popular imagery of criminal tribes. In the year 1830, the British administration created a separate ‘Thuggi and Dacoity Department’ and gave it powers of summary trials and execution to control the activities of the criminal tribes and ensure safer highways. Later when the Criminal laws were

consolidated to create the Indian Penal Code in 1860 and Criminal Procedure Code in 1898, several sections9 were devoted to this subject of regulating criminal tribes and nomadic communities. However, these provisions were not enough and finally the Criminal Tribes Act 1871 was enacted. The said Act in the initial years also proved to be

of no use for regulating nomadic tribes and eunuchs, hence, several amendments were made. The legal provisions were so scattered and varied in different parts of the British controlled territories, the British Government brought a central legislation in the year 1924 to consolidate these legal provisions for Criminal Tribes. United Province Government had appointed a committee to inquire into the functioning of the Criminal Tribes Act before Independence, and it submitted its report in 1947. This report echoed the same prejudice against the nomadic and criminal tribes. This committee felt that till the Gypsies settle down, they will continue the life of crime. It proposed that “efforts should be made under sanction of law, (suitable provision may be made in the Habitual offenders and Vagrants Act) to settle them and teach them a life of industry and honest calling as against idleness, prostitution and crime to which their conditions of

existence make them prone.” The Habitual Offenders and Vagrants Act that the above mentioned committee envisaged

proposed to contain provisions for dealing with Habitual Offenders of the following three

categories:

(i) “Those, who in spite of good environments and family traditions, become

habitual criminals,

(ii) Those who, because of bad environments, particularly family traditions and

associations, take to life of crime according to the custom of their group and

family and who are, therefore, not so much immoral as amoral.

(iii) Vagrants without any settled occupations, who lead a life of crime prostitution

and idleness. Separate provisions will naturally have to be made in the Act to

meet the requirements of each category of criminals; while there will be

common provisions too.”11

The last two categories suggested in this classification propagated the earlier definition of

‘Criminal Tribes’. The remedies sought for these three categories of Habitual offenders

were teaching honest livelihoods, their moral rehabilitation, and diagnosis of their

pathological and psychological abnormalities and their scientific treatment. These

correctional activities would take place within the strict discipline of a jail. In real terms,

the jail became the space where these people were trapped into the exploitation of the

industrial and market economy and imposed new culture and morality.

With regard to ‘Vagrant’ or Gypsies, the committee appointed in United Province took

the view that the policy of restricting them to settlements and industrial or agricultural

colonies should continue with changes in the administration of these settlements and

colonies. The committee further writes that “this we do, not merely with the aim of

protection of society from an outbreak of crime, but in the interest of the settlers’ reform

itself. Without having equipped themselves with moral anchorage, the settlers let loose,

are bound to behave like derelict ships and meet a similar doom. The Criminal Tribes Act 1924 remained in force till its repeal in 1952- five years after our independence. During this period, two private bills seeking to repeal the Criminal Tribes Act were also introduced in the Central Legislative Assembly in 1946 and 1949.

The first bill was not moved after the introductory stage and consequently it lapsed. The

second bill was not proceeded with after the introductory stage as the Honorable Minister

of Home Affairs gave an assurance that a committee would be appointed to enquire into

the working of the Act in the Provinces and to recommend whether the Act should be

modified or repealed.

Consequently, an Inquiry committee was established under the chairmanship of

Ananthsayanam Ayyangar in 1949 by resolution No. 22/1/49-Police-I, dated 28th Sept

1949 of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Government of India. Ayyangar’s Committee

recommended repealing the Criminal Tribes Act 1924 and similar provisions which

declared an individual as a criminal on the basis of his caste or birth in a particular gang

or class. Thus, the Ayyangar committee’s recommendations removed the legal

inconsistencies that Criminal Tribes Act had with the Constitution of India. On the

contrary, it failed to redress the popular prejudice against the nomads and the denotified

tribes. These age-old prejudices came flooding back in the form of ‘Restriction of

Habitual Offenders Act’. The State policy on Criminal Tribes and Nomadic Tribes is found to have two major aspects, i.e., legislative measures to control and regulate them, and the other is to subject

them to ‘welfare’ measures. The welfare measures planned is found to be always

concomitant to the reasons for which they are brought under control and regulatory

regimes. Thus, Ayyangar’s inquiry committee recommended several steps towards

amelioration of the Criminal Tribes after the repeal of the Act. The social and economic

deprivation was believed to be the reasons for their dereliction and there was fear that

without welfare activities these malevolent syndromes may regenerate. It wrote: “the

members of Criminal Tribes have been labouring under manifold disabilities over a long

period. As a class, they are socially backward and economically depressed. It is,

therefore, essential to help them to improve their conditions and also to see that those

who had criminal propensities in the past but are reformed now, do not revert to crime on

the repeal of the Criminal Tribes Act.13”

The Government of India accepted some of the recommendations by Ayyangar’s

committee. The Government of India repealed the Criminal Tribes Act 1924 with effect

from 31st August 1952 by the Criminal Tribes Laws (Repeal) Act, 1952 (Act No XXIV of

1952). But to keep effective control over the hardened criminals, the Habitual Offenders

Act was placed in the statute books. The welfare angle of the State policy was ensured by

putting these communities as Schedule Tribes, Schedule Castes or Backward Classes.

Though, these communities were fitted into the schemes of special protection and

attention under the Constitution of India, but they somehow missed the attention in the

national debate to eradicate the worst forms of social prejudices that had resulted into

centuries of exploitation, harassment and subjugation. In order to gain an understanding as to how ‘Criminal Tribes’ and ‘Nomads’ missed the opportunity of the formation of the modern Indian State and society, we need to take a quick glance at historical progression of the welfare and empowerment of the

marginalised communities in India. The history of special welfare programmes for the

deprived and marginalized people in the history of India can be traced back to 1885,

when the Madras government formulated the infamous ‘Grant-in-Aid Code’ to regulate

financial aid to educational institutions, providing special facilities for students of

depressed classes. The second major step in this direction was taken by the Maharaja of

Mysore in 1918. He appointed Sir L. C. Miller, the then Chief Justice of Mysore, to

recommend steps for adequate representations for non-Brahmins in the services of the

State. And on recommendation of the Miller committee Government of Mysore issued

orders in 1921 extending special facilities to backward communities with regard to

education and recruitment in state services.

In the same year, 1921, the Madras State Legislative Council passed a resolution in

favour of increasing the representation of non-Brahmins in the government services. In

1927, the said scheme was expanded by dividing all the communities in the State into

five broad categories and earmarking separate quota for each category. The next example

comes in 1928 from the Government of Bombay, which instituted Mr O. H. B. Starte to

identify backward classes and recommend special provisions for their advancement. This

committee classified the backward classes into three categories, i.e., 1. ‘Depressed

classes’, 2. ‘Aboriginal and hill tribes’, 3. ‘Other backward classes’; and recommended

special facilities regarding education and recruitment in Government services. The first

systematic attempt for the political empowerment of ‘Depressed classes’ was made with

the introduction ofMontague-Chelmsford Reforms of 1919, when separate representation

on a number of public bodies was given to members of these classes.

The Constitution therefore concentrated on the social prejudice towards the ‘tribes’ and

‘untouchables’ and treated the rest of the population as ‘poor’ described as ‘socially and

economically backward classes’ in the Constitution. As a consequence, the social

prejudices against the Denotified Tribes and Nomadic communities, failed to enter the

arena of constitutional deliberations. The Indian State remained hegemonic and the Civil

Society lingered its connivance and exonerated itself from any democratic obligation by

shifting the blame on to these victims. The ‘Schedule Tribes’ and ‘Schedule Castes’

though got special protection under the Constitution of India, the ‘other backward

classes’ remained uncovered. Those ‘Criminal Tribes’ and the ‘Nomads’ who did not fit

into the definition of the schedule caste or schedule tribe, were left in lurch continuing

their fight against the age-old prejudices. After independence, the first backward class commission was appointed on the 29^th January 1953 under the chairmanship of Kakasaheb Kalelkar. This commission suggested that the erstwhile ‘Criminal Tribes’ should not be called ‘Tribes’ nor should the names

‘Criminal’ or ‘Ex-Criminal’ should be attached to them. They could be simply called

‘Denotified Communities’14. The Kalelkar Committee further recommended that “these

groups may be distributed in small groups in towns and villages where they would come

14 The Report of the Backward Class Commission, 1955, Government of India Press, Delhi, para 48.

in contact with other people, and get an opportunity for turning a new leaf. This would

help in their eventual assimilation in society”15. The Kalelkar commission tried to end the

isolation and promoted their assimilation into the mainstream. The terms of assimilation

was not stated in clear language. But, looking at the overall idiom of the report, it would

be safe to presume that the assimilation was excessively compromising and was at the

cost of their cultural identity. Thus the policy guideline proposed by Kalelkar

commission undermined the democratic rights of denotified tribes and totally ignored

their entitlement to protective discrimination as guaranteed to schedule castes and tribes.

Let us now examine what Kalelkar commission contemplated for the nomads. It takes

special note of the ‘wandering communities’ in later part of the report. “There are a large

number of small communities who eke out a precarious existence in the countryside.

They have no fixed place of residence and they move from place to place in search of

food or employment. They often rear pigs and poultry, hunt wild animals to satisfy their

hunger and collect forest produce to make a living. They live in thatched sheds or gunny

tents, and move in groups. They believe in witchcraft. Because of the insecurity of their

life, some of these communities are given to crime. It should be special responsibility of

Government to give them a settled life.16” The report also discusses the ‘traditional

beggars’ or ‘religious mendicants’ who were mostly covered under Prevention of

Begging Act- ???, another appalling enactment by British Government17. The Kalelkar

commission considered the problem of beggary in India is a social and religious malice

and legislation is not an effective tool to solve this. He pointed out that glorification of

the alms giving is found in almost all religious denominations living in India. Beggary in

Indian context is regarded as a form of insurance against crime. The popular belief is that

unless you give a decent living to able-bodied persons, you must be prepared to give

alms; otherwise people will take to crime.

The recommendations of the first backward classes commission was not accepted by the

government due to difference of opinion about whether caste should be the basis for

defining backwardness. After a detailed examination of the commission’s report, the

Government laid its copy together with a Memorandum of action taken before each house

of Parliament on September 3rd 1956 in compliance with Article 340(3) of the

Constitution. The government did not take any concrete action on the recommendations

of the Kalelkar commission. The government stated in this memorandum that “the

Planning Commission had already formulated the development programmes for the

removal of backwardness and the main point to be stressed was whether the special needs

of the backward classes could be intensively and effectively served by appropriate shifts

of emphasis or by rearrangement of priorities within the framework of the existing

programmes or whether additional programmes needed to be drawn up.

After presenting the Memorandum to the Parliament, the Government made efforts “to

discover some criteria other than caste which could be of practical application in

determining the backward classes. The Deputy Registrar General was asked to conduct a

pilot survey to see if backwardness could be linked to occupational communities instead

of caste. Such a survey was undertaken but it failed to throw up the desired criteria. The

matter was also discussed at a conference of State representatives on 7th April 1959 and

subsequently reviewed at a meeting of State officers convened by the Ministry of Home

Affairs, but no consensus emerged as a result of these efforts.

The central government ultimately took a decision that no all India lists of backward

classes should be drawn up, nor any reservation made in the Central Government service

for any group of backward classes other than Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Consequently, on August 14th 1961, the Ministry of Home Affairs addressed all the State

Governments stating, “While the State Governments have the discretion to choose their

own criteria for defining backwardness, in the view of the Government of India it would

be better to apply economic tests than to go by caste”18. Regarding the preparation of lists

of backward classes it was observed, “Even if the Central Government were to specify

under Article 338 (3) certain groups of people as belonging to ‘other backward classes’, it

will still be open to every state government to draw up its own lists for the purpose of

Articles 15 and 16. As, therefore, the State Governments may adhere to their own lists,

any all-India list drawn up by the Central Government would have no practical utility.19”

After receiving this directive from the Ministry of Home Affairs, some of the state

governments set up committees or commissions to determine the criteria to be followed

to identify the backward classes and prepare the list of backward classes for their

respective states20. Other states/Union Territories (Assam, Delhi, Haryana, Himachal

Pradesh, Meghalaya, Orissa, Pondichery, and Rajasthan) notified their OBC list without

appointing any committee or commission. These states mostly relied on the lists of OBCs

maintained by them for the grant of post-matric scholarships under the Education

Ministry’s scheme formulated in 1944, and another list prepared by the Commissioner for

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes at the time of drafting the First Five Year Plan.

In the meanwhile, the list of Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes were finalized by

the Presidential order in 195021. The list of the Scheduled Castes drawn in 1950 was a

revised version of the list of SCs under the Government of India Order (SC), 1936, made

under the Government of India Act 1935. This was in turn the continuation of the list of

‘Depressed Classes’ prepared by the Census Commissioner in 1931. Similarly, an attempt

to list ‘Primitive Tribes’ was also made in Census of 1931, and this list was later adopted

into the Government of India Act 1935 as ‘Backward Tribes’. This list of ‘backward

tribe’ was adopted with some minor alterations in 1950 as the list of ‘Scheduled Tribes’.

Hence, the identification and classification of the backward classes by the Government of

India embark on the norms adopted in Census of 1931. In the context of enumeration of

‘caste’ and ‘tribe’ the following paragraph is worth quoting here:

“The column eight in the general schedule provided for an entry of ‘caste tribe or

race’. The term ‘caste’ needs no definition in India; ‘tribe’ was provided to cover

the many communities still organized on that basis in whose case the tribe has

not become a caste; it was likewise determinate enough, and no attempt was

made to define the term ‘race’, which is generally used so loosely as almost to

defy definition.22”

Instead of providing a rigid definition of ‘depressed classes’, the J.H. Hutton as

commissioner of Census operations of 1931 prescribed some possible tests to be

considered by the superintendents of census operations. These tests as prescribed by

Hutton are as follows:

“1. Whether the caste or class in question can be served by clean Brahmans or

not.

2. Whether the caste or class in question can be served by the barbers, watercarriers,

tailors etc., who serve the caste Hindus.

3. Whether the caste in question pollutes a high caste Hindu by contract or by

proximity.

4. Whether the caste or class in question is one from whose hands a caste Hindu

can take water.

5. Whether the caste or class in question is debarred from using public

convenience, such as roads, ferries, wells or schools.

6. Whether the caste or class in question is debarred from the use of Hindu

temples.

7. Whether the ordinary social intercourse a well educated member of the caste or

class in question will be treated as an equal by high caste men of the same

educational qualifications.

8. Whether the caste or class in question is merely depressed on account of its

own ignorance, illiteracy or poverty and but for that would be subject to no social

disability.

9. Whether it is depressed on account of the occupation followed and whether but

for that occupation it would be subject to no social disability.23”

J. H. Hutton, who was the Commissioner of Census in 1931 further wrote on criteria

followed for identification of the depressed castes:

“No specific definition of depressed castes was framed and no more precise

instructions were issued to the superintendents of census operations, because it

was realized that conditions varied so much from province to province, that it

would be unwise to tie down the superintendents of census operations with too

meticulous instructions. The general method of proceeding prescribed was that of

local inquiry into what castes were held to be depressed and why and he framing

of a list accordingly. It was decided that Muslims and Christians should be

excluded from the term ‘Depressed Class’ and that, generally speaking, hill and

forest tribes, who had not become Hindu but whose religion was returned as

Tribal, should also be excluded and in the numbers of the exterior castes given

below these principles have been followed.24”

Thus, the variation of the social reality in different parts of Indian territory prevented the

identification of ‘depressed’ and ‘exterior castes’ on the basis of a set of rigidly defined

criteria. The general guidance issued by the commissioner of the Census 1931 only

covered the social oppression arising out of the practice of untouchability. It did not

cover other forms of social oppression such as ‘stigma of criminality’ and social

exclusion and atrocities practiced against ‘nomads’. The Census of 1931 also excluded

the caste groups following Christianity, Islam and other non-Hindu religion from the list.

This list of ‘exterior castes’ or ‘excluded castes’ in Census of 1931 were adopted in the

Government of India Act 1935. Similar trajectory was followed in the preparation of the

list of Scheduled Tribes. The list of ‘Primitive Tribes’ which was prepared at the time of

Census of 1931 formed the list of ‘Backward Tribes’ in Government of India Act 1935.

The list was further extended in 1950 and 1956 under Constitution of India as Schedule

Tribes. Primitiveness and backwardness were the two major criteria followed as tests

applied in preparing the list. As a result of this, the State policy of ‘protective

discrimination’ and ‘affirmative action’ remained narrow and selective. After

Independence, many of the communities who remained outside the purview of the

‘reservation policy’ expressed their dissatisfaction. The government, as a response to this

considered their proposal to revise the list of ‘Schedule Caste’ and ‘Schedule Tribe’.

However, the policy canvas froze to the scope of the Indian Constitution.

In 1965, an advisory committee was constituted for the revision of the Scheduled Caste

and Scheduled Tribes list by Government of India under the chairmanship of Mr Lokur.

In revising the list of Scheduled Tribes the Lokur Committee looked for indications of

primitive traits, distinctive culture, geographical isolation, shyness of contact with the

community at large and backwardness. The committee also considered that the tribes

whose members have by and large mixed up with the general population are not eligible

to be in the list of Scheduled Tribes. The Lokur committee took a stricter view in the

matter of fresh inclusions in the list of Scheduled Tribes and stuck to the criteria fixed in

the Government of India Act 1935.

Although the Lokur Committee in general followed a strict guideline for entertaining the

requests of revision of the Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribes list, its remarks on

Denotified and Nomadic Tribes look quite interesting. In the matter of defining them as

Denotified and Nomadic Tribes, the Lokur committee observed that it would be more

scientific to refer to them as communities. It further writes that “members of the

denotified and nomadic tribes posses a complex combination of tribal characteristics,

traditional untouchability, nomadic traits, and an anti-social heritage25”. The Lokur

committee furthermore observed that their ‘discussion with the state governments reveal

that the type of developmental schemes usually designed for Scheduled castes and

Scheduled tribes have not benefited the denotified and nomadic tribes to any significant

extent because of their relatively small numbers, and their tendency to be constantly on

move. It is also clear that while these communities may possess some of the

characteristics usually associated with the Scheduled Cates and Scheduled Tribes, the

dominant factors which govern their life are their anti-social heritage and tendency to

move from place to place in small groups.

The Lokur Committee was so convinced about the distinct characteristics of the

Denotified Tribes and Nomads that it felt “it would be in the best interest of these

communities if they are taken out from the lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes and treated exclusively as distinct group, with development schemes specially

designed to suit their dominant characteristics”26. However, the Lokur committee decided

to maintain the status quo due to the limitation of time and absence of adequate

information they could not decide the cases of individual communities belonging to

Denotified and Nomadic Tribes.

The distinctions such as ‘anti-social heritage’ and ‘tendency to move from place to place’

pointed out by the Lokur committee again reiterate the social prejudice against these

groups. As the Lokur committee had observed, some of these communities who shared

characteristics akin to the SCs and STs were classified in the official lists prepared in

different states and Union Territories. Those who did not fit into this Constitutional

format were covered under ‘educationally and socially backward’ communities.

The Kalelkar commission which delved into the issue of classification and identification

of ‘educationally and socially backward’ communities immediately after independence

gives extensive description of communities to be considered for this purpose. The first

two categories described here are: “1. Those who, owing to long neglect, have been

driven as a community to crime. This group is now resolved into those belonging to SC,

those belonging to STs- the remained will be considered as belonging to ‘Other

Backward Classes’. 2. Those nomads who do not enjoy any social respect and who have

no appreciation of a fixed habitation and are given to mimicry, begging, jugglery,

dancing etc.27” Later, in 1978, Shri Morarjibhai Desai, the then Prime Minister of India,

declared the constitution of another Backward Classes Commission under the

chairmanship of B. P. Mandal. This commission submitted its report to the president Shri

Neelam Sanjiva Reddy on 31st December 1980.