Abstract
This article examines the constitutional, historical, and political debates surrounding the demand for extending Scheduled Caste (SC) status to Christian and Muslim Dalits in India. Drawing on Constituent Assembly Debates, archival materials, judicial decisions, government affidavits, petitions, and my previous scholarship, it challenges the claim that SC reservation was originally conceived as religion-neutral. The article argues that SC reservation emerged as a specific pre-constitutional agreement rooted in the Poona Pact and designed to address the historical injustice of untouchability within Hindu society. Its provisions were subsequently extended to Sikh and Buddhist converts under particular historical and political circumstances but did not encompass Christian and Muslim communities. Examining the arguments advanced by proponents and opponents of inclusion, the article demonstrates that competing interpretations of secularism, equality, social justice, and minority rights lie at the heart of the controversy. It further contends that the contemporary demand for inclusion reflects broader transformations in Indian politics shaped by the dynamics of Mandal, Mandir, Market, and Minority politics, as well as changing judicial approaches to reservation. The article concludes that the debate is not only a question of constitutional interpretation but also concerns the nature of India’s social contract, the purpose of affirmative action, and the future of group-based rights in a plural democracy.
Recommended Citation
Kumar, Arvind
(2024)
"Constitutionalism, Social Justice, and Social Contract: Unpacking the Debate on Scheduled Caste Reservation for Christian and Muslim Dalits,"
National Law School Journal: Vol. 18:
Iss.
2, Article 6.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.55496/TOMJ8105
Available at:
https://repository.nls.ac.in/nlsj/vol18/iss2/6
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.55496/TOMJ8105