You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
जाटों को दिए गए अारक्षण को सुप्रीम कोर्ट न
- Thread starter tarzon
- Start date
shivamchaudhary
New member
Until UNITY in JATs itself, no one is going to take care of them.
We may be united at land level, but our MLA and MPs and so called Leader are not aligned for community benefits.
We may be united at land level, but our MLA and MPs and so called Leader are not aligned for community benefits.
माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के जजों को गांवों के गरीबी के दर्शन कराये जाने चाहिए। उनके भी प्रशिक्षण का एक अनिवार्य भाग होना चाहिए कि वे कुछ दिन बाढमेर या बांसवाड़ा के गरीब जाट किसान परिवार में रुकें और उनकी गरीबी को समझें। गरीब किसान किसी भी जाती या धर्म का हो वह गरीब होता है । आरक्षण की सुविधा छीनना उनके पेट पर लाट मारना है। माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय को चाहिए कि बड़े औद्योगिक घरानों की भी कुछ सुख सुविधाएं छीन कर गरीबों को लाभ दिलाये।
drrajpalsingh
New member
Annuling of Jat Reservation and New Criterion for Granting Backwardness Quota
What should be the criterion for granting backwardness for reservation facility is the latest outcome or say fall out of the two judge bench decision while quashing the central government notification granting Reservation to the Jats' in 9 states of Indian Union.
The Supreme Court strongly advised the Centre to gradually discard the "caste-centric definition of the backwardness" and evolve new practices to discover and address emerging forms of 'backwardness.'
The Supreme Court Bench held that under the constitution, the government had the mandate to "protect the most deserving backward class of citizens" instead of focusing only on historical injustice or to help groups of people to recover their ''lost ground'' through quotas.
To Read details of the decision :http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/sc-scraps-quota-for-jats/55079.html
And for suggestions on quota :http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/backwardness-can-t-be-caste-centric-forever-sc/55177.html
Also Read
In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court on Tuesday told the government to look beyond caste and evolve new methods to identify social groups as backward for the purpose of reservation in jobs and education.
Striking down the previous UPA government’s decision to include the politically influential Jat community in the central Other Backward Classes (OBCs) list, a bench of justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton F Nariman said that though caste may be a prominent and distinguishing factor for easy determination of backwardness, it cannot be the sole criterion.
“New practices, methods and yardsticks have to be continuously evolved, moving away from caste-centric definition of backwardness,” the bench said, citing the court’s historic verdict last year giving legal recognition to transgenders. It said the government must identify such new emerging groups as socially and educationally backward classes based on ground realities.
The ruling forces the government to crunch data and not lean on historical injustice to decide who gets benefits; it also takes away a trump card that political parties in power have played over the years to win votes.
The court scrapped the March 2014 notification that included Jats from nine states — Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand — in the central OBC list, saying the decision was based on “outdated data” and amounted to “retrograde governance”.
The SC judgment came on a batch of petitions challenging the Centre’s decision on the grounds that it ignored the advice of the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) against including Jats and that it was politically motivated as it came a day before Lok Sabha polls were announced. The NDA had defended its predecessor’s decision.
Uttar Pradesh Rashtriya Lok Dal president Munna Singh Chauhan blamed the Narendra Modi government for not pursuing the case properly in court.
But Amarjeet Malik, a professor of sociology in Meerut College, said that even though it brought disadvantage to him personally as a Jat, he agreed with the ruling.
“These two communities (Yadavs and Jats) are well off now and they don’t need reservation,” he said.
The court said that despite presumed advancement of all citizens on every front, there had been only inclusions and hardly any exclusion from the central as well as state OBC lists. “This is certainly not what has been envisaged in our constitutional scheme,” it said.
Reservation for OBCs in government jobs was introduced by the VP Singh government in August 1990. The SC had in its Mandal verdict in 1992 upheld the policy but put a 50% ceiling on it and asked the government to ensure the exclusion of rich people, or the so-called creamy layer. The UPA-I government in 2008 introduced reservations for OBCs in central higher educational institutions. This too was upheld by the SC with a rider that the government would increase the number of seats for general category students.
Maintaining that backwardness was a manifestation caused by several independent circumstances that may be social, cultural, economic, educational or even political, the bench said, “An affirmative action policy that keeps in mind only historical injustice would certainly result in under-protection of the most deserving backward class of citizens, which is constitutionally mandated.”
The government defended ignoring the NCBC report on the grounds that it was advisory in nature and not mandatory. Rejecting this contention, the SC said the law governing NCBC stipulated that the commission’s advice was ordinarily binding and could be overruled only for strong and compelling reasons. The court found no such reason in the reservation notification for the Jats.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/chand...e-jats-in-obc-quota-pti/article1-1327207.aspx
Members are requested to contribute their suggestions/views on the issue.
What should be the criterion for granting backwardness for reservation facility is the latest outcome or say fall out of the two judge bench decision while quashing the central government notification granting Reservation to the Jats' in 9 states of Indian Union.
The Supreme Court strongly advised the Centre to gradually discard the "caste-centric definition of the backwardness" and evolve new practices to discover and address emerging forms of 'backwardness.'
The Supreme Court Bench held that under the constitution, the government had the mandate to "protect the most deserving backward class of citizens" instead of focusing only on historical injustice or to help groups of people to recover their ''lost ground'' through quotas.
To Read details of the decision :http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/sc-scraps-quota-for-jats/55079.html
And for suggestions on quota :http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/backwardness-can-t-be-caste-centric-forever-sc/55177.html
Also Read
In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court on Tuesday told the government to look beyond caste and evolve new methods to identify social groups as backward for the purpose of reservation in jobs and education.
Striking down the previous UPA government’s decision to include the politically influential Jat community in the central Other Backward Classes (OBCs) list, a bench of justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton F Nariman said that though caste may be a prominent and distinguishing factor for easy determination of backwardness, it cannot be the sole criterion.
“New practices, methods and yardsticks have to be continuously evolved, moving away from caste-centric definition of backwardness,” the bench said, citing the court’s historic verdict last year giving legal recognition to transgenders. It said the government must identify such new emerging groups as socially and educationally backward classes based on ground realities.
The ruling forces the government to crunch data and not lean on historical injustice to decide who gets benefits; it also takes away a trump card that political parties in power have played over the years to win votes.
The court scrapped the March 2014 notification that included Jats from nine states — Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand — in the central OBC list, saying the decision was based on “outdated data” and amounted to “retrograde governance”.
The SC judgment came on a batch of petitions challenging the Centre’s decision on the grounds that it ignored the advice of the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) against including Jats and that it was politically motivated as it came a day before Lok Sabha polls were announced. The NDA had defended its predecessor’s decision.
Uttar Pradesh Rashtriya Lok Dal president Munna Singh Chauhan blamed the Narendra Modi government for not pursuing the case properly in court.
But Amarjeet Malik, a professor of sociology in Meerut College, said that even though it brought disadvantage to him personally as a Jat, he agreed with the ruling.
“These two communities (Yadavs and Jats) are well off now and they don’t need reservation,” he said.
The court said that despite presumed advancement of all citizens on every front, there had been only inclusions and hardly any exclusion from the central as well as state OBC lists. “This is certainly not what has been envisaged in our constitutional scheme,” it said.
Reservation for OBCs in government jobs was introduced by the VP Singh government in August 1990. The SC had in its Mandal verdict in 1992 upheld the policy but put a 50% ceiling on it and asked the government to ensure the exclusion of rich people, or the so-called creamy layer. The UPA-I government in 2008 introduced reservations for OBCs in central higher educational institutions. This too was upheld by the SC with a rider that the government would increase the number of seats for general category students.
Maintaining that backwardness was a manifestation caused by several independent circumstances that may be social, cultural, economic, educational or even political, the bench said, “An affirmative action policy that keeps in mind only historical injustice would certainly result in under-protection of the most deserving backward class of citizens, which is constitutionally mandated.”
The government defended ignoring the NCBC report on the grounds that it was advisory in nature and not mandatory. Rejecting this contention, the SC said the law governing NCBC stipulated that the commission’s advice was ordinarily binding and could be overruled only for strong and compelling reasons. The court found no such reason in the reservation notification for the Jats.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/chand...e-jats-in-obc-quota-pti/article1-1327207.aspx
Members are requested to contribute their suggestions/views on the issue.
Last edited:
drrajpalsingh
New member
Would the Government pay attention to the advice of the Supreme Court to abolish the caste based quota reservation system or not. If yes, When ? To acquaint the readers on some of the points raised by Hon'ble Two Member Bench of the Supreme Court, full report from the Tribune published today in Chandigarh edition is produced below acknowledging the copy right of the Tribune to the original version :
"The Supreme Court today strongly advised the Centre to gradually discard the “caste-centric definition of backwardness” and evolve new practices, methods and yardsticks to discover and address emerging forms of backwardness.
“The government should open the quota gate only to the “most distressed,” a Bench comprising Justices Ranjan Gogoi and RF Nariman said while quashing the Centre’s 2013 notification granting the status of other backward classes (OBC) to Jats to facilitate them avail of reservation in jobs and education.
It noted that the list of OBCs had always been subjected only to inclusions, not exclusion of those who no longer deserved reservation.
Under the Constitution, the government had the mandate to “protect the most deserving backward class of citizens,” instead of focusing only on historical injustice or to help groups of people to recover their “lost ground” through quotas, the SC said.
Explaining emerging forms of backwardness, the Bench said people belonging to the third gender could be placed under this category. It said the recent judgment of the apex court granting the OBC status to the third gender was path-finder.
Backwardness should not continue to be assessed on the basis of the claims of the self-proclaimed classes or on the perception of the advanced classes as to the social status of the “less fortunate” people.“Neither can any longer backwardness be a matter of determination on the basis of mathematical formulae evolved by taking into account social, economic and educational indicators” under Articles 15(4) and 16(4),” the Bench held.
Acknowledging that caste was associated with backwardness and a prominent and distinguishing factor for easy determination, the Bench pointed out that the SC had been routinely discouraging the identification of any group as backward solely on the basis of caste."
Under the above given facts and circumstances, members can devise newer methods and give expression to their ideas on all aspects of reservation policy as it prevails and what new criterion, if any, be applied by the authorities.
"The Supreme Court today strongly advised the Centre to gradually discard the “caste-centric definition of backwardness” and evolve new practices, methods and yardsticks to discover and address emerging forms of backwardness.
“The government should open the quota gate only to the “most distressed,” a Bench comprising Justices Ranjan Gogoi and RF Nariman said while quashing the Centre’s 2013 notification granting the status of other backward classes (OBC) to Jats to facilitate them avail of reservation in jobs and education.
It noted that the list of OBCs had always been subjected only to inclusions, not exclusion of those who no longer deserved reservation.
Under the Constitution, the government had the mandate to “protect the most deserving backward class of citizens,” instead of focusing only on historical injustice or to help groups of people to recover their “lost ground” through quotas, the SC said.
Explaining emerging forms of backwardness, the Bench said people belonging to the third gender could be placed under this category. It said the recent judgment of the apex court granting the OBC status to the third gender was path-finder.
Backwardness should not continue to be assessed on the basis of the claims of the self-proclaimed classes or on the perception of the advanced classes as to the social status of the “less fortunate” people.“Neither can any longer backwardness be a matter of determination on the basis of mathematical formulae evolved by taking into account social, economic and educational indicators” under Articles 15(4) and 16(4),” the Bench held.
Acknowledging that caste was associated with backwardness and a prominent and distinguishing factor for easy determination, the Bench pointed out that the SC had been routinely discouraging the identification of any group as backward solely on the basis of caste."
Under the above given facts and circumstances, members can devise newer methods and give expression to their ideas on all aspects of reservation policy as it prevails and what new criterion, if any, be applied by the authorities.
maddhan1979
Banned
1.The fact of the matter is that the land holdings of agricultural communities have decreased, so has the income in agriculture.
2.The amount of labor if calculated by an agriculturist in terms of "Man working Hours" is very high in comparison to any given job in the country.
3.Calculating the input cost of growing crops, is very high as compared to return in agriculture sector.
4.Calculating the risk factor involved (nature is changing, so is climate therefore the crops which ready to be harvest can go waste within minutes, if the there is fire, thunderstorm, rain hailstorm, etc.) is very high and is increasing at a fast rate due to global warming.
5.Agriculture is still labor intensive and rudimentary and not totally mechanized and industrialized therefore, farmers tend to have multiple children to help in the labor intensive agriculture. Having many children have decreased the land holding to bare minimum.
6. Due to poor education system and corruption in government machinery it is not possible for the a village kid to get city or town job easily.
7. Already farming in the country is in a poor condition and farmers are committing suicides across the country.
8. As Jats have roots in agriculture therefore the need for reservation for Jats is of utmost importance.
There is no reason as to why Jats should not have reservation.
2.The amount of labor if calculated by an agriculturist in terms of "Man working Hours" is very high in comparison to any given job in the country.
3.Calculating the input cost of growing crops, is very high as compared to return in agriculture sector.
4.Calculating the risk factor involved (nature is changing, so is climate therefore the crops which ready to be harvest can go waste within minutes, if the there is fire, thunderstorm, rain hailstorm, etc.) is very high and is increasing at a fast rate due to global warming.
5.Agriculture is still labor intensive and rudimentary and not totally mechanized and industrialized therefore, farmers tend to have multiple children to help in the labor intensive agriculture. Having many children have decreased the land holding to bare minimum.
6. Due to poor education system and corruption in government machinery it is not possible for the a village kid to get city or town job easily.
7. Already farming in the country is in a poor condition and farmers are committing suicides across the country.
8. As Jats have roots in agriculture therefore the need for reservation for Jats is of utmost importance.
There is no reason as to why Jats should not have reservation.
Very Shocking judgement. Time to unite and to hire best to best Lawyers for revision.
Agree brother. It is only possible when Current Jat MLA, MP and Minister will support this decision.
Had it been anyother case, big mouths like Law minister would have come out with statements like, "parliament is supreme and Judiciary shouldn't be enacting or changing laws". Remember likes of Siebel of the earlier era.
When the same laws were used to grant reservation to other casts having higher economical strata than Jats, then, how does the same laws suddenly become wrong when it came to the case of reservation to Jats.
However, no one is ringing any alarm bell here, may be because they all desired this. Could it be that some leaders in the government are trying to achieve something through Supreme court which they couldn't have achieved otherwise?
In cases like this, judicial system is has proved that it has become a puppet in the hands of Governments.
When the same laws were used to grant reservation to other casts having higher economical strata than Jats, then, how does the same laws suddenly become wrong when it came to the case of reservation to Jats.
However, no one is ringing any alarm bell here, may be because they all desired this. Could it be that some leaders in the government are trying to achieve something through Supreme court which they couldn't have achieved otherwise?
In cases like this, judicial system is has proved that it has become a puppet in the hands of Governments.
drrajpalsingh
New member
The Supreme Court order of Tuesday quashing reservation for Jats in the central list will also have an implication on grant of reservation to the community in Haryana. Already, a petition challenging the inclusion of Jats in special backward classed (SBCc) is pending before the Punjab and Haryana high court.
For further details link:[h=3]Supreme Court order likely to have implications on Haryana Jat quota[/h]
For further details link:[h=3]Supreme Court order likely to have implications on Haryana Jat quota[/h]
drrajpalsingh
New member
The Supreme Court verdict asking the government to move away from caste-centric reservation for backwards deals a blow to politics of reservation often played in the most blatant manner just before polls.
For full report :[h=3]Supreme Court verdict on Jat quota a blow to politics of reservation[/h]
For full report :[h=3]Supreme Court verdict on Jat quota a blow to politics of reservation[/h]
drrajpalsingh
New member
The Supreme Court verdict asking the government to move away from caste-centric reservation for backwards deals a blow to politics of reservation often played in the most blatant manner just before polls.
The verdict is landmark for several important reasons. First, it forces the policy makers to think creatively beyond caste for identification of socially and educationally backward classes. For decades successive governments have found caste-based quota an easy way out to achieve the constitutional goal of equality to undo historic injustice to backward castes in Hindu society.
Second, the fact that the SC rejected old data to justify inclusion of Jats in the OBC category and emphasised that all citizens were advancing on every front - social, economic and education — should serve as a reminder to politicians and bureaucrats who are not in sync with the changed social realities and continue to have a 20th century mindset. The top court has given them a jolt.
The constitutional mandate under Article 16(4) and Article 15(5) that deal with reservation in jobs and education respectively is to ensure equality of opportunity in matters of public employment and prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
The government’s affirmative actions are based on positive discrimination.
But the manner in which reservation policy has been pursued by successive governments — irrespective of their political ideology — created social discord and deprived many deserving socially and educationally backward groups of its benefits.
Reservation policy, if not properly thought out, becomes even more discriminatory, rather than a means of achieving social justice.
Be it the 1990 decision of VP Singh’s government to introduce quota in jobs for OBCs or the 2008 decision of the UPA-I government to extend it to education — the decisions led to prolonged agitation and social unrest. In both the cases the SC verdicts had the calming effect as it enjoys public confidence more than that enjoyed by the legislature or the executive.
What made the 1992 Mandal verdict acceptable was the court’s decision to put a 50% ceiling on reservation and exclude the creamy layer among OBCs.
The top court has once again shown judicial statesmanship by displaying a progressive and realistic approach to reservation that would ensure that “only to the most distressed” benefit from it.
A similar approach is needed to rationalise reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by excluding the rich among these communities. This would ensure that only the most deserving SC and SC candidates get the benefit of reservation.
Left to politicians, such progressive decisions would never happen. If judges can innovate, why can’t politicians?
http://www.hindustantimes.com/analy...politics-of-reservation/article1-1327588.aspx
The verdict is landmark for several important reasons. First, it forces the policy makers to think creatively beyond caste for identification of socially and educationally backward classes. For decades successive governments have found caste-based quota an easy way out to achieve the constitutional goal of equality to undo historic injustice to backward castes in Hindu society.
Second, the fact that the SC rejected old data to justify inclusion of Jats in the OBC category and emphasised that all citizens were advancing on every front - social, economic and education — should serve as a reminder to politicians and bureaucrats who are not in sync with the changed social realities and continue to have a 20th century mindset. The top court has given them a jolt.
The constitutional mandate under Article 16(4) and Article 15(5) that deal with reservation in jobs and education respectively is to ensure equality of opportunity in matters of public employment and prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
The government’s affirmative actions are based on positive discrimination.
But the manner in which reservation policy has been pursued by successive governments — irrespective of their political ideology — created social discord and deprived many deserving socially and educationally backward groups of its benefits.
Reservation policy, if not properly thought out, becomes even more discriminatory, rather than a means of achieving social justice.
Be it the 1990 decision of VP Singh’s government to introduce quota in jobs for OBCs or the 2008 decision of the UPA-I government to extend it to education — the decisions led to prolonged agitation and social unrest. In both the cases the SC verdicts had the calming effect as it enjoys public confidence more than that enjoyed by the legislature or the executive.
What made the 1992 Mandal verdict acceptable was the court’s decision to put a 50% ceiling on reservation and exclude the creamy layer among OBCs.
The top court has once again shown judicial statesmanship by displaying a progressive and realistic approach to reservation that would ensure that “only to the most distressed” benefit from it.
A similar approach is needed to rationalise reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by excluding the rich among these communities. This would ensure that only the most deserving SC and SC candidates get the benefit of reservation.
Left to politicians, such progressive decisions would never happen. If judges can innovate, why can’t politicians?
http://www.hindustantimes.com/analy...politics-of-reservation/article1-1327588.aspx
drrajpalsingh
New member
The Supreme Court order of Tuesday quashing reservation for Jats in the central list will also have an implication on grant of reservation to the community in Haryana. Already, a petition challenging the inclusion of Jats in special backward classed (SBCc) is pending before the Punjab and Haryana high court. While rejecting the request for inclusion of Jats in the central list of other backward classes (OBCs), the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) trashed the report of Haryana Backward Classes Commission (HBCC) which recommended 10% special backward class (SBC) quota for Jats, Jat Sikhs, Bishnois, Rors and Tyagis.
The report of the HBCC, headed by retired Justice KC Gupta, was thoroughly examined and studied by the NCBC and Indian Council of Social Science and Research (ICSSR).
The Haryana government in 2013 had implemented the controversial recommendations of the HBCC in a bid to appease the Jats, thereby taking the reservation in the state beyond 50%, a decision unlikely to stand legal scrutiny as the Supreme Court in its 1992 judgment in Indira Sawhney and others versus Union of India and others has held that the reservations contemplated in clause (4) of Article 16 should not exceed 50%.
Flaws
In its advice to the central government, the NCBC said the biggest flaw in the HBCC report was that the study conducted by the Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak, on which the HBCC report was primarily based, was selective in nature.
The NCBC also said that the HBCC did not follow one of the cardinal principles of natural justice as two of its members -- Jai Singh Bishnoi and Som Dutt, a Ror -- had interests in the outcome of the case since both the castes were under consideration. “A man shall not be judge in his case,” the NCBC said.
The NCBC said that while highlighting the fact that Jats were not proportionately represented in government jobs, the MDU survey forgot to study the representation of Jats in armed forces. “What has been studied only is their representation in direct civil and allied services and classes 1 to 4 government services,” the NCBC said.
“It is well known that Jats -- both Sikhs and Hindus -- were among the communities well represented in the armed forces, including the officer category. One would have expected the HBCC, which has given 37 tables besides the annexures, also to give statistics of representation of different communities in the armed forces, particularly in the officer category. Its omission cannot be rationally explained and it can be presumed that had those statistics been provided, the case of Jats of Haryana for inclusion in the list of backward classes would have completely fallen flat,” the NCBC said.
Elaborating on the MDU survey, the commission said the university collected data on 27 social, 12 educational and 10 economic indicators. These were compared across 16 castes and rankings were given to each caste based on their performance on each of the indicators. Of the 16 castes studied in the MDU survey, five were those which were under present consideration. Of the remaining 11 castes examined, there were no castes which are comparable to Jats.
The comparable figures of Ahirs, Yadavs, Kurmis and Gujjars, which are said to be comparable to OBCs and predominantly land-owning communities, have not been studied at all for any social, educational or economic parameters either in the MDU report or HBCC report.
Jats have been compared mostly with Rajputs, Brahmins, Maithilis, Goswamis, Gaurs, Punjabi Vaish, which are traditionally considered as forward castes. Their comparison with other OBCs like Gujjars, Ahirs, Yadavs and Kurmis is sorely lacking, thus leaving a big question mark on the selective collection of data by the surveying agency.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/haryana/supreme-court-order-likely-to-have-implications-on-haryana-jat-quota/article1-1327555.aspx
The report of the HBCC, headed by retired Justice KC Gupta, was thoroughly examined and studied by the NCBC and Indian Council of Social Science and Research (ICSSR).
The Haryana government in 2013 had implemented the controversial recommendations of the HBCC in a bid to appease the Jats, thereby taking the reservation in the state beyond 50%, a decision unlikely to stand legal scrutiny as the Supreme Court in its 1992 judgment in Indira Sawhney and others versus Union of India and others has held that the reservations contemplated in clause (4) of Article 16 should not exceed 50%.
Flaws
In its advice to the central government, the NCBC said the biggest flaw in the HBCC report was that the study conducted by the Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak, on which the HBCC report was primarily based, was selective in nature.
The NCBC also said that the HBCC did not follow one of the cardinal principles of natural justice as two of its members -- Jai Singh Bishnoi and Som Dutt, a Ror -- had interests in the outcome of the case since both the castes were under consideration. “A man shall not be judge in his case,” the NCBC said.
The NCBC said that while highlighting the fact that Jats were not proportionately represented in government jobs, the MDU survey forgot to study the representation of Jats in armed forces. “What has been studied only is their representation in direct civil and allied services and classes 1 to 4 government services,” the NCBC said.
“It is well known that Jats -- both Sikhs and Hindus -- were among the communities well represented in the armed forces, including the officer category. One would have expected the HBCC, which has given 37 tables besides the annexures, also to give statistics of representation of different communities in the armed forces, particularly in the officer category. Its omission cannot be rationally explained and it can be presumed that had those statistics been provided, the case of Jats of Haryana for inclusion in the list of backward classes would have completely fallen flat,” the NCBC said.
Elaborating on the MDU survey, the commission said the university collected data on 27 social, 12 educational and 10 economic indicators. These were compared across 16 castes and rankings were given to each caste based on their performance on each of the indicators. Of the 16 castes studied in the MDU survey, five were those which were under present consideration. Of the remaining 11 castes examined, there were no castes which are comparable to Jats.
The comparable figures of Ahirs, Yadavs, Kurmis and Gujjars, which are said to be comparable to OBCs and predominantly land-owning communities, have not been studied at all for any social, educational or economic parameters either in the MDU report or HBCC report.
Jats have been compared mostly with Rajputs, Brahmins, Maithilis, Goswamis, Gaurs, Punjabi Vaish, which are traditionally considered as forward castes. Their comparison with other OBCs like Gujjars, Ahirs, Yadavs and Kurmis is sorely lacking, thus leaving a big question mark on the selective collection of data by the surveying agency.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/haryana/supreme-court-order-likely-to-have-implications-on-haryana-jat-quota/article1-1327555.aspx
Last edited:
Supreme Court scraps decision to include Jats in OBC category
The Supreme Court has scrapped a year-old notification granting the status of a backward class to the Jat community.
At stake are reservations for central government jobs, admission to central government-run educational institutions, and other benefits. Jats form an assertive political bloc in the states of Haryana, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi and have been the focus of poll promises and government policies in these states.
Last year, the BJP, which gained support from the Jat community, swept the Lok Sabha elections in all the four states in May en route to its march to power in New Delhi. It also formed its first government in Haryana in October. In 2013, the party was voted back to power in Rajasthan.
The move could have social and political consequences, analysts said, and the current Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government could file a review petition.
Read more at: http://www.livemint.com/Politics/9f...vation-for-Jat-community.html?utm_source=copy
The Supreme Court has scrapped a year-old notification granting the status of a backward class to the Jat community.
At stake are reservations for central government jobs, admission to central government-run educational institutions, and other benefits. Jats form an assertive political bloc in the states of Haryana, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi and have been the focus of poll promises and government policies in these states.
Last year, the BJP, which gained support from the Jat community, swept the Lok Sabha elections in all the four states in May en route to its march to power in New Delhi. It also formed its first government in Haryana in October. In 2013, the party was voted back to power in Rajasthan.
The move could have social and political consequences, analysts said, and the current Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government could file a review petition.
Read more at: http://www.livemint.com/Politics/9f...vation-for-Jat-community.html?utm_source=copy
piush_tomar
New member
Formula to win this war
I have a very simple formula to win this war
For Jat reservation , please forget Haryana Jat, UP Jat , RJ Jat MP Jat Punjab Jat , delhi Jat yeh Jat woh Jat BJP ka Jat Congress ka Jat etc .
Unite them as Jat take one leader , do voting , that this particular jat leader will lead the agitation.
Otherwise I dont think we can win it.
Regards
I have a very simple formula to win this war
For Jat reservation , please forget Haryana Jat, UP Jat , RJ Jat MP Jat Punjab Jat , delhi Jat yeh Jat woh Jat BJP ka Jat Congress ka Jat etc .
Unite them as Jat take one leader , do voting , that this particular jat leader will lead the agitation.
Otherwise I dont think we can win it.
Regards
sansindhu7794
New member
Akhil Bhartiya Jat Aarakshan Sangharsh samiti (ABJASS) doing good work, we should struggle continue[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif] with very fast action and get [/FONT]Unite all jats through all social networking, personal links, by Jan Sabha, etc like these foolish politician doing, If Mr.Modi become PM so why not we couldn't with to get our right. Wo bhi hm hi the....
We should promote and help to Jat Aarakshan Sangharsh samiti (ABJASS) in every aspects[FONT=arial, sans-serif].[/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
We should promote and help to Jat Aarakshan Sangharsh samiti (ABJASS) in every aspects[FONT=arial, sans-serif].[/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
drrajpalsingh
New member
Such a shame this thread, probably the most critical one on the forum is becoming a PR Propaganda tool for a few Jats who want to ride their political band wagon playing with interests of kaum. Spare politics here please.
Here is an editorial from the Tribune, Chandigarh dated 19th March on the issue which is totally free expression of opinion of the reputed journal, kindly read and comment :
[h=2]SC on quota norms[/h][h=3]Jats out of OBC list pointer to new approach to reservation[/h]
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/opinion/
drrajpalsingh
New member
Until UNITY in JATs itself, no one is going to take care of them.
We may be united at land level, but our MLA and MPs and so called Leader are not aligned for community benefits.
Would the political leaders from the community rise to the occasion to raise a united voice to redeem the Reservation Quota for their caste people as was notified by the central government a few months ago and since has been annulled by the hon'ble SC?
Past experience shows that perhaps, they are not going to come together to save the just rights of the people who have raised them to higher pedestals of power.
But, even now, people expect them to unite for the attainment of common community cause otherwise it would be clear that their political affiliations over-weigh in their minds than protecting the interests of their Jat Community in which they were born.
Would they or wouldn't they, this is the question which waits for a reply.
sehrawatashish0
New member
Have anyone considered the judge ruling against quita has been done by ranjan gongi. keshab chandra gongi is his father former chief minister from congress from assam.
Now, if jats wnt vote to those who helped them with quota then how does anyone expect a congress family person would not have deeper sentiments against jats.
I think its because jats are not united, and that thing cant change in a day. So, its unnecessary to think that it will come in effect anyday whatever the plight of jats may be.
Now, if jats wnt vote to those who helped them with quota then how does anyone expect a congress family person would not have deeper sentiments against jats.
I think its because jats are not united, and that thing cant change in a day. So, its unnecessary to think that it will come in effect anyday whatever the plight of jats may be.