Mook Naayak मूकनायक
Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» भारत की मीडिया का जातिवाद Bharat ki Media ka Jativaad
Mon Feb 09, 2015 3:46 pm by nikhil_sablania

» आसानी से प्राप्त करें व्यवसाय और निवेश की शिक्षा
Mon Nov 03, 2014 10:38 pm by nikhil_sablania

» ग्रामीण छात्र को भाया डॉ भीमराव अम्बेडकर का सन्देश: कहा व्यवसायी बनूंगा
Sat Nov 01, 2014 1:17 pm by nikhil_sablania

» जाती की सच्चाई - निखिल सबलानिया
Mon Oct 27, 2014 1:57 pm by nikhil_sablania

» बाबासाहेब डॉ अम्बेडकर की दलितों के उत्थान के प्रति सच्ची निष्ठा का एक ऐतिहासिक प्रसंग
Mon Oct 27, 2014 1:44 pm by nikhil_sablania

» कैसे बाबासाहेब डॉ अम्बेडकर ने तैयार की दलितों में से पहले गजेटेड अफसरों की फ़ौज
Mon Oct 27, 2014 1:23 pm by nikhil_sablania

» बाबासाहेब डॉ. भीमराव अम्बेडकर की ईमानदारी का ऐतिहासिक प्रसंग
Mon Oct 27, 2014 1:12 pm by nikhil_sablania

» मिस्टर गांधी का ईसाई विरोध और मुस्लिम पक्ष - डॉ अम्बेडकर
Mon Oct 27, 2014 12:46 pm by nikhil_sablania

» डॉ अम्बेडकर के पुस्तक प्रेम की प्रशंसा
Mon Oct 27, 2014 12:34 pm by nikhil_sablania

Shopmotion


Navigation
 Portal
 Index
 Memberlist
 Profile
 FAQ
 Search
Affiliates
free forum
 

Supreme Court Gives Anti Dalit And Unconstitutional Verdict

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Supreme Court Gives Anti Dalit And Unconstitutional Verdict

Post  nikhil_sablania on Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:01 pm

Supreme Court Gives Anti Dalit And Unconstitutional Verdict

7 April – 2011 – Supreme Court's verdict: "Public land can't be allotted on caste, religious ground."

Bench of Justices: G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly (Both from privileged castes, one Kshatriya (Jain) and other Brahmin.)

"The allotment of land by the state or its agencies/instrumentalities to a body/organization/institution which carry the tag of caste, community or religion is not only contrary to the idea of secular democratic republic but is also fraught with grave danger of dividing the society on caste or communal lines," the apex court said.

Now, firstly this verdict is unconstitutional. Article 25 provides freedom of practice and propagation of religious affairs.

Religions are interim part of human civilization and human society. Thus state has to keep regard of its people and its faith. Monuments or other religious places require lands as do the schools, hospitals, offices, as part of human civilization. Thus when constitution provides “freedom of practice and propagation of religious affairs,” it has its duty to provide practical means. Otherwise it is like telling that you have right to eat, but banning giving food.

Now, this verdict is itself is caste discriminatory. It is Anti – Dalit.

In India there are three major religious beliefs. Brahmanical, Islamic, and Non-Brahminical (that is Dalits).
Under Brahaminical belief there are plenty of temples and religious places in India, with population of three percent Brahmins enjoying all. Kshatryias and Vaishyas are kept out of religion but they enjoy these temples and religious places by gaining higher social status, and becoming members of governing bodies and freedom to built temples with mainly Brahmin priests. So most of the temples already have a caste and communal basis.

There are many mosques as compare to population of Muslims.

Sikh, Christians and Jain communities have their religious places more than their population.

So this verdict has no impact on any above mentioned religion, caste and communities, as they are already enjoying religion, communal and caste benefits, as they already have more religious places than their population.

But whom this verdict has been target to? Surely if any community that would have negative impact of this verdict, and that has been targeted, that is Dalits, mainly Schedule Castes (SC) and Schedule Tribes (ST) comprising 25 percent of population of India.

Before round table conference in London in 1931, Dalits were never part of any religion. For Brahmins (and other privileged castes of Kshatriya and Vaishyas) they were separate entities outside their religion. Even when they were converted to Islam, Sikhism or Christianity, they remain separate and seen as lower human beings. Different names were given like Achhoot (untouchables), Panchmaasa (Fifth element, considering them outside the four castes of Hindus), Avarna (Having no Varna (Caste)). The different nomenclatures were not mere titles; it was meant to untitled a big community from any wealth of a nation, materialistic or any other. The nomenclature meant, no land, no rights, no money, no new clothes, no religion, no agriculture, no business, no marriage celebration, no banking, no cattle, no education. No and only no. It was only after seeing at round table conference that Hindus have to share the benefits of India with this fifth element of the society, a fake campaign was started to homogenize it with Brahmanism (or Hinduism). The ‘no’ turned into a ‘fake yes.’ The homogenization brought much damaged to the already deprived class, as they lost their political identity and rights. They lost their freedom again to Brahmanism (or Hinduism).

But this homogenized mass of people does understand its importance of keeping it heterogeneous. It knows that what it has lost its identity and complete rights in the nation to this unwanted imposition of a belief that has kept it worst than animals. It wants freedom, freedom to enjoy its free identity, freedom not to be labeled by some parasite. And it gets its freedom from its own values and beliefs. And such values and beliefs do want to breathe and need propagation. It requires real means for its survival. For this it require support of the state. It requires space, a real space, land.

People that restricted Dalits getting their separate identity are already having and enjoying their religious places more than their population. Making such a verdict as mentioned in the beginning would have a negative impact on the deprived classes of India and is aimed to stop them or to block them to get means to maintain their heterogeneity by means of religion, caste or community, is unconstitutional.

Many would wonder that this verdict has been given in the case of Hindus. In this case this is a step of inter-political rivalry of particular religion (or community). But this verdict would benefit both rivalry parties of same religion (of community) as it also stops the emerging identity of mass, whose rights are kept at low for enjoying much of the wealth of the state by a particular community or religion (privileged castes).
avatar
nikhil_sablania

Posts : 104
Join date : 2010-10-23
Age : 38
Location : New Delhi

View user profile http://www.cfmedia.in

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum