THE TRIBUNE, APRIL 11, 2016
Facts on Jats
Facts on Jats
MG Devasahayam's article “Lopsided development
& Haryana cauldron” (March 29) highlights the skewed “development model”
and the plight of the peasantry in Haryana. However, it has many factual
errors. Firstly, only two subgroups — “Chillon Jats and Gutka Jats” —
constituting a miniscule segment of Jats in Haryana were identified as backward
by the Mandal Commission Report. But he purports to say that the entire Jat
caste was identified so. Secondly, Devi Lal had resigned from the VP Singh
government not because of being at loggerheads with him on the issue of Jat
reservation, but due to a host of other issues, including that concerning his
son OP Chutala. Thirdly, the Justice Gurnam Singh Commission was instituted by
the then government (although working under the tutelage of Devi Lal) to
identify the other backward castes/classes in Haryana for reservation in
Haryana only. The Centre/Deputy Prime Minister per se had no role to play in
it. Fourthly, based on the Justice Gurnam Singh Commission Report, Hukam
Singh-led then Haryana Government had declared Ahir, Gujjar, Jat, Sikh, Jat,
Bisnoi, Saini, Ror, Tyagi and Rajput as backward castes. But the next
government of Bhajan Lal, following the Supreme Court order in the Indira
Sawhney case (1992), constituted another BC Commission in 1993 under Ramji Lal
and based on its report dropped out Jat, Jat Sikh, Bisnoi, Ror, Tyagi and
Rajput from the list of OBCs.
RAJENDER
GOYAL, Bahadurgarh
Full
piece entitled “Factually incorrect” reads thus:
Factually
incorrect
I read M.G. Devasahayam’s Article
“Lopsided development & Haryana cauldron” (THE TRIBUNE, 29th March,
2016).
(Available at: http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/lopsided-development-haryana-cauldron/214734.html ).
Learned author has aptly highlighted about the skewed “development model” and
consequent plight of peasantry community, amongst others, in Haryana. However,
it is replete with many factual inaccuracies in certain material aspects.
Firstly only two subgroups namely “Chillon Jats and Gutka Jats[1]”
constituting a miniscule segment of Jat caste in Haryana were identified as
backward in the Mandal Commission Report although he purports to say
that entire Jat caste in Haryana was identified so. Secondly Ch. Devi Lal Ji
had resigned from VP Singh Government not because of being at loggerhead with
him on the issue of Jat reservation, but due to a host of other issues,
including that concerning his son Sh. OP Chautala.[2] In
fact, Late Ch. Devi Lal and Chautalas consistently frowned upon caste based
reservations and strongly advocated for reservations based on economic criteria
before a sudden volte-face taken during Jat Reservation agitation of February
2016. Moreover, around the time Mandal Commission Report was implemented (and
even for a quite long time thereafter), Jat caste in Haryana used to
perniciously look down upon reservations. Thirdly the Justice Gurnam Singh
Commission was, however, instituted by the then Government of Haryana led
by Sh. OP Chutala (although working under the tutelage of Ch. Devi Lal) in 1990
to identify the other backward castes/classes in Haryana for reservation in the
State of Haryana only. The Central Govt/Dy Prime Minister of India per se had
no role to play in it. Fourthly, based on Justice Gurnam Singh Commission Report, Sh. Hukam Singh led the then Haryana
Government had notified Ahir, Gujjar, Jat, Sikh, Jat, Bisnoi, Saini, Ror, Tyagi
and Rajput as backward castes (although Justice Gurnam Singh Commission had not
identified Rajputs as backward). But next Govt. led by Ch. Bhajan Lal did not
implement the said notification and in the guise of following
Supreme Court order in the Indira Sawhney case (1992) constituted another
Backward Class Commission in 1993 headed by Sh. Ramji Lal and based on its
report the Jat, Jat Sikh, Bisnoi, Ror,
Tyagi and Rajputs were eventually dropped out. The record may be put straight
accordingly.
[1].Gutka (गुटका), a small sect, some 60 souls in number, of the Bhall section
of the Jats found in Hadiara, a
village in Lahore. They are descendants of
one Gurbakhsh Singh, a Sikh Jat who earned the nickname of Gutka (" a
collection of all that is bad ") by his thieving propensities not long
before the British conquest of the Punjab. He owned little land, and poverty
compelled his descendants to continue his career of crime.
See at: http://www.jatland.com/home/A_glossary_of_the_Tribes_and_Castes_of_the_Punjab_and_North-West_Frontier_Province_By_H.A._Rose_Vol_II/G
It may also be noted that no such subgroup
by the name of “Chillon Jats” in the Jat caste in Haryana exists to the best of
the knowledge of the present author.
[2]. See at: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=HY7cAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT299&lpg=PT299&dq=devi+lal+resigned+from+the+post+of+deputy+prime+ministership&source=bl&ots=ds6HXOZJA5&sig=pXUApYjw9xXmndnfFtiqAJjogdI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiwhMXx6-XLAhXLGI4KHS1yB0AQ6AEIJTAC#v=onepage&q=devi%20lal%20resigned%20from%20the%20post%20of%20deputy%20prime%20ministership&f=false
Also see
at:
Posts
1 comment:
The State of Haryana in consequence of the said directin in Indra Sawhney case has enacted the Haryana Backward Classes Commission Act, 2016 (Haryana Act No.9 of 2016) (hereinafter referred to as - ‘BC Commission Act’). The said BC Commission Act it is stated in the ‘Statement of Objects and Reasons’ that as per provisions under Article 340 of the Constitution to sort out the issue of social and economic backwardness of various castes, the Haryana Government set up its First Backward Classes Commission on 07.09.1990 under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice Gurnam Singh (Retd.). On the recommendations of the Commission, the State Government vide notification dated 05.02.1991 included ten castes, Ahir, Bishnoi, Meo, Gujjar, Jat, Jat Sikh, Ror, Saini, Tyagi and Rajput in the list of Backward Classes and provided reservations to these castes on 05.04.1991. The State Government re-examined the reservation policy and issued order on 12.09.1991 that till a final decision was taken, recruitment would be made according to the status prevalent prior to the letter issued on 05.04.1991. The effect of the same evidently has been that the Jats were not included amongst the castes entitled for the benefits of reservations. It has been further stated in the ‘Statement of Objects and Reasons’ of the BC Commission Act that on the recommendation of the second Backward Classes Commission, the State Government on 07.06.1995 included five castes namely, Ahir/Yadav, Gujjar, Saini, Meo, Lodh and Lodha in the list Backward Classes. Further on 20.07.1995, the Backward Classes were bifurcated in two Blocks ‘A’ and ‘B’ and provided twenty seven percent reservation, sixteen per cent to Block ‘A’ and eleven per cent to Block ‘B’. Since the State Government had been receiving various representations from various other castes including Jat, Jat Sikh, Ror, Tyagi, Bishnoi and Mulla Jats/Muslim Jats for providing reservations in Government Jobs and Educational Institutions, the Haryana Government vide its notification dated 08.04.2011 reconstituted the Haryana Backward Classes Commission under the Chairmanship of Justice (Retd.) K.C. Gupta. On the basis of the study got conducted by the Commission from the Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, it submitted its recommendations on 12.12.2012 and recommended ten per cent reservation in employment in Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts and in admission in educational institutions for these castes in addition to the already notified twenty seven per cent reservation to the Backward Classes. Four per cent reservation was also provided in Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ on 28.02.2013 (later on increase to five per cent on 15.07.2014). A reference has thereafter been made to the said decision being challenged in this Court. Thereafter it was suggested that the State Government may give statutory status to the Haryana Backward Classes Commission on the pattern of National Commission for Backward Classes Act, whose advice it was said shall ordinarily be binding on the State Government. The matter was also examined by the Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana and it had been suggested that the steps be taken to constitute the Haryana Backward Classes Commission by giving its statutory status.
(As set-out in the judgment by Chandigarh High Court on 1ST September in CWP No. 9931of 2016 (O&M) - Murari Lal Versus State of Haryana and others)
Post a Comment