Understanding::--SC Proceedings on OBC Reservation & Legal Suggestion by JL members.

S

samarkadian

Active member
Understanding::--SC Proceedings on OBC Reservation & Legal Suggestion by JL members.

PS:- Do not Merge this thread with any other thread.

Following are the details of what happened yesterday in SC. There are two petitioners of this case against union of India : Ram Singh(Most likely backed by Samajwadi Party) and OBC Aarkashan Raksha Samiti (most likely backed by Rao Inderjit Singh of BJP).

Case number are 274(By Ram Singh) and 278( By OBC aarkshan raksha samiti) under Writ Petition ( Civil)

Copy of the proceeding is below:-

---

http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/casestatus_new/querycheck_page2.asp

ITEM NO.MM-1A COURT NO.1 SECTION X

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 274 OF 2014

RAM SINGH & ORS Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UOI Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for ex-Parte stay and office report)

WITH
W.P(C) NO. 278 of 2014
(With appln. for ex-parte stay and office report)
Date: 01/04/2014 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.K.Venugopal,Sr.Adv.
In WC 278/2014 Mr. Rohit Bhatt,Adv.
Mr. Anuj Saini,Adv.
Mr. Prabhat Kaushik,Adv.
Mr. Maneesh Arora,Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar,Adv.
In WC 274/2014 Mr. P.Vishwanath Shetty,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Raj Kuamr Yadav,Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar,Adv.
Mr. Naik H.K.Adv.
Mr. Prabhat Kaushik,Adv.
Mr. Dev Nandan Rajat,Adv.
Mr. Ombir Singh,Adv.
Mr. Maneesh Arora,Adv.

For Caveator(s) Mr. C.A. Sundaram,Sr.Adv.
Not a Party Mr. Nagendra Singh,Adv.
Mr. Surjeet Singh,Adv.
Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh,Adv.
...2/-
-2- Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma,Sr.Adv.
Ms. Shikha Beri,Adv.
Mr. Sanchit Garga,Adv.
Mr. Akshat Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Pahlad Singh Sharma ,Adv
Mr. Mahabir Singh,Sr.Adv.
Dr. Vijendra Mahndiyan,Adv.
Ms. Pallavi Awasthi,Adv.
Mr. Deepak Goel,Adv.
Mr. Anil Hooda,Adv.
Mr. Somvir Singh D.Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Taken on Board.
Issue notice returnable on 9th April, 2014.
Dasti in addition.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners is permitted to serve notice to the office of
the Attorney General.

Respondent-UOI is directed to place the entire
records relating to the impugned notification on the next
hearing date.

Persons interested are permitted to file
application for intervention/impleadment.

List the matters on 9th April, 2014 along with
application for intervention/impleadment.
[ Madhu Bala ] [ Savita Sainani ]
Court Master Assistant Registrar

------

What members and esp members who are lawyers or have understanding of such things are requested to make all of understand it and suggest what input can be referred for it.

PS1- Lets not make it political rivalry.
 
Copied from FB:

https://www.facebook.com/advyash.kumarchhoker/posts/653521854667675

PRESS RELEASE
ALL INDIA OBC RESERVATION RAKSHA SAMITI
(An umbrella organization of all OBC castes)
The samiti is opposing the constitution of group of ministers by U.P.A government which was constituted to include Jat in central OBC list.
The caste which are included in the OBC list in central or state list were identified by the Mandal commission after exhaustive survey and assessment of these caste on the basis of their educational, social, economical status and representation in government services, etc.
The Jats were not included by the commission in the list of OBC because they even not fulfilled single criteria of backwardness such as educational, social, economical and representation in services because Jat are inhabited in most fertile area in India i.e. Punjab, Haryana, western UP these areas are called grain bowel of India. The Land holding in these areas are maximum with the Jats as far as civil, military, police, forest, judicial, educational etc. services are concerned they are occupying almost 100 times more than their population in the country whereas the OBCs who are comprising 64% population of the country are hardly occupying 11% of government job that to in group four and third category of services and in group one and two they are hardly representing.
The Jats almost hold all important offices in India starting from P.M to C.M, secretary to Generals even without availing the benefit of reservation. The three or four states has also given them OBC status to Jats and in these states Jats eats UP more
than 90% of post reserved for OBCs in past decade, for example in year 2009 out of 10 ADJ post OBC quota 9 were availed by Jats in UP Higher Judicial Services, only one post was availed by other OBC.
Now the Jats has started demand violently to include them in central OBC list. Last years were witness of these violent protests in NCR. Even OBC National Commission has in principal rejected their unconstitutional unethically demand of inclusion in the central OBC list. Now the UPA government against the spirit of constitution even after rejection by commission appointed G.O.M only to encash the votes of Jats. In forthcoming loksabha elections. But the congress is not aware that they will lose greater amount of votes of OBC than they will get the Jat votes
The Jats are not more than 1.7% (aprox) of total population of India where as total population of other backward castes are more than 64%. Spread all corner of India. The present OBC include the castes which are extremely weaker section of society and they are hardly capable to even achieve their quota of OBC and if Jats are included in the present OBC list there will not be a comparative competition and consequently the Jats will avail the complete quota of all these OBCs.
Therefore in the interest of social justice to this 64% population Of OBCs this samiti opposes the inclusion of Jats in OBC central list and will agitate all over the India and any step towards inclusion of Jats in OBC by the UPA government will be a suicidal step in forthcoming loksabha election.
In this regard the samiti is organizing a MAHAPARAV (Dharna) at Jantar Mantar on 5/10/13 at 10:00 hrs, all the OBCs are requested to reach at Jantar Mantar Delhi in huge numbers to fight for their rights.
Convenor
Adv. Yash kumar chhoker
[ 09250517733 ]
Adv. Ombir singh Mandaar
(9811324595)
Adv. Rajkumar Yadav
(9818836222)
 
Jat Samaj ke dushman :-

Ram Singh
J Yadav
Adv. Yash kumar chhoker
[ 09250517733 ]
Adv. Ombir singh Mandaar
(9811324595)
Adv. Rajkumar Yadav
(9818836222)
 
Friends,

Justified anger prevails in the minds of the members and they want to vent their sentiments through posts; so, comments related with facts of the case are welcome.

While posting reactions, kindly apply restrain and avoid use of inappropriate words/ language, please, please !

Thanks and regards
 
As usual a nice and timely thread by Samar ...

Worthy members should post their views suggesting How can we counter nefarious designs of these anti Jat groups who want to scuttle the efforts and long drawn struggle of Jats for justifiable rights.


We can concentrate on

Rationale for non inclusion of Jats in Mandal commission despite a reported equal status with other OBC ...

Ground for rejection of OBC status to Jats by NCBC ..Wether it is justified or not ???
Members can read mandal commission recommendation and NCBC reports to understand their logic .

Or any other suggestion that can help our legal team.

Even if a stay order is passed we can at least plead our case for which we need solid arguments ....

So let us contribute our efforts for a cause that is so important to Jat community in present circumstances.
 
I am no expert but even i understand that things have changed so much since Mandal commission.

Generations have changed
Income disparity have increased
Lands are fragmanted
Koi koi milega jiske 10 bighe te jyada jameen aati ho ar usme bhi pet ke jalle nahi jhadte- there is no money for poor farmers to educate kids to compete them for general category.
 
narenderkharb said:
As usual a nice and timely thread by Samar ...

Worthy members should post their views suggesting How can we counter nefarious designs of these anti Jat groups who want to scuttle the efforts and long drawn struggle of Jats for justifiable rights.


We can concentrate on

Rationale for non inclusion of Jats in Mandal commission despite a reported equal status with other OBC ...

Ground for rejection of OBC status to Jats by NCBC ..Wether it is justified or not ???
Members can read mandal commission recommendation and NCBC reports to understand their logic .

Or any other suggestion that can help our legal team.

Even if a stay order is passed we can at least plead our case for which we need solid arguments ....

So let us contribute our efforts for a cause that is so important to Jat community in present circumstances.
Click to expand...

The data used by BP Mandal Commission was based on the Population data collected in 1931 and so was almost obsolete.

As regards current social, economic and cultural status of every caste of Indian society, Caste data has been collected very recently. This data collected by Census Department can be used as the basis of the current position of the castes/communities to be listed/not listed as OBCs.

Moreover, if need arises, the data presented at various state level Commissions could be analysed and presented before NCBC to reconsider their recommendation.
 
It is quite interesting to understand the case of Rajasthan Jats in Central OBC. State Govt ( BJP Led by BS Sheikhawat) vehemently opposed the inclusion of Jats in central list and went to court challenging the decision. Where as Vajpayi govt. accepted the NCBC's recommendations of inclusion of Jats in central list. It is more important to note that State Backward commission survey and report did not found Jats as deserving and eligible to the state list. Gehlot Govt in 99 implemented the state reservation in state as well. During that hearing of NCBC Haryana representation was so weak that they were not able to complete the questionnaire by NCBC. There was only one party which was Hisar Jat Sabha.

In present case it is opposite State Backward Commission in Haryana found Jats to be eligible for OBC/SBC where as NCBC doesnt not. It is baffling.

Below is one article from The Hindu.
-----
THE root cause of the recent outburst of Gujjar fury in Rajasthan is traced to the inclusion of Jats in the list of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) for reservation in Central services in October 1999. Gujjars, who had already been listed under OBCs in the State, then began to assert their demand for Scheduled Tribe status as they feared Jats would deprive them of their existing share in the OBC quota.

The Centre’s inclusion of the Jats of Rajasthan in the OBC list was assailed as a political decision taken with an eye on their votes. The issue, however, needs to be examined objectively as the decision followed a reasoned advice to the Centre by the National Commission on Backward Classes (NCBC), a statutory body. (Frontline obtained a copy of the advice under the Right to Information Act.)

The Jats were listed as an OBC through a notification on October 27, 1999, by the Atal Behari Vajpayee government. The NCBC had recommended their inclusion in the OBC list in November 1997. The NCBC’s advice is ordinarily binding on the Central government as per Section 9(2) of the NCBC Act, 1993. The Central government is bound to specify the reasons if it chooses to reject the NCBC’s advice, according to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Indra Sawhney case (1992). So far, the Central government has not rejected any advice of the NCBC’s.

The NCBC advice to the Centre with respect to Rajasthan’s Jats came when the I.K. Gujral-led United Front government was in power. The Gujral government did not take a decision as it found itself in a caretaker role in the run-up to the midterm elections of 1998. The Vajpayee government that succeeded it also delayed a decision in view of the political developments resulting in another round of Lok Sabha elections. Soon after returning to power in October 1999, the Vajpayee government accepted the NCBC’s advice.

The Vajpayee government made a virtue of the necessity to accept the advice and sought to take credit for it with a view to securing Jats’ support in the elections, even though the BJP government in Rajasthan headed by Bhairon Singh Shekhawat had opposed, before the NCBC, the inclusion of Jats in the OBC list.

The NCBC, in its advice, considered in detail the requests for inclusion of Jats in the Central List of Backward Classes for the States of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. The advice explained how the Indian peasant castes wallowed in the abyss of social and educational backwardness and were economically exploited by a combination of feudalism and the caste system. That was why, the NCBC suggested, different Commissions and provincial/princely states/State governments, both before and after Independence, had included the peasant castes in their respective lists of backward classes.

At the same time, those Commissions and governments were also generally able to reflect in their lists the reality of the changing socio-economic environment shortly before and during British rule whereby certain peasant castes became exceptions to the general phenomenon of peasant castes remaining socially backward, the advice said. “The Jats are one such exception,” it noted. Fortunately, for Jats, they have been in occupation as the principal peasant caste, mainly of that part of India where the beneficial effects of British rule for the peasantry were maximally felt – namely, Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh. The Jats in these areas have all or most of the advantages that derived out of them. They are

*Non-subjection to intermediary tenures such as jagirdari and zamindari, which were both socially and economically debilitating for the peasants;

*Residence in areas not under princely rulers or chieftains belonging to other castes, as most of these areas came under direct British rule;

*Availability of dependable irrigation; and

*Accession of political power during the late medieval and modern period.

Most of the princely rulers of the princely states in the area, which outlived the introduction of direct British rule, belonged to the Jat caste, and this reinforced the social as well as economic position of the Jat peasantry of such princely states.

The NCBC’s advice notes that the Arya Samaj movement, which was against caste-based inequalities and the varna-based hierarchical order, a big following in Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh. Among the peasant castes, the Jats, in particular, were strong adherents of this movement. “This too gave a positive turn to their attitude and self-esteem and has contributed to a situation in which they are not socially backward in this belt over and above the other socio-historical factors mentioned earlier,” the advice explained.

The NCBC’s advice said:

“Unlike the Jats of U.P., Haryana and Madhya Pradesh, the representatives of Jats of Rajasthan produced a wealth of materials to support their case, both in their response to the NCBC’s questionnaire and through other documents. The NCBC found that the Jats of Rajasthan (except in Bharatpur and Dholpur) had been subjected to the intermediary tenures of jagirdari and zamindari held by non-Jat people of the upper castes till some time after Independence when at last these intermediary tenures were abolished.

“Again, except in Bharatpur and Dholpur, their areas were under native princely rulers or chieftains belonging to other castes, almost all of them were Rajputs, who according to historian Irfan Habib, had emerged by a process of evolution, as a superior landed caste of rural North India. In Rajasthan, the position of the peasant castes as virtually tenants-at-will continued right up to Independence and till some time after Independence, that is, till after the abolition of jagirdari and zamindari rights, unlike the position of Jats in other parts, especially their main territory of western U.P., Haryana and Punjab. In this they are comparable to Yadavas and Kurmis of eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, which were under oppressive tenurial systems.”

The NCBC further reasoned in its advice: “No doubt, after the effective abolition of jagirdari and zamindari systems, the condition of Jats in Rajasthan have begun to improve, but considering the time-span required for advancement of a community as a whole from a position of backwardness, the time that was available for Jats in Rajasthan (excluding Bharatpur and Dholpur) to move up from a position of social backwardness to that of social advancement, cannot be reasonably considered as adequate. The exceptional circumstances dating at least from the late medieval age through the modern period, which were available for communities like Kamma and Reddy of Andhra Pradesh and the Jats of Punjab, etc., have not been available for Jats of Rajasthan (excluding Bharatpur and Dholpur). The justification that Jats were not included in the Mandal Commission’s list for backward classes for Rajasthan may not be adequate to explain its non-inclusion in the State’s backward classes list.”

Rajasthan is one of the States that did not have an all-purpose list of backward classes. The State simply adopted the Mandal Commission’s list after the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Indra Sawhney case.

The NCBC’s advice had come in for criticism especially because it was contrary to the stand taken before the Commission by the State government and the Rajasthan Backward Classes Commission (RBCC). The State government wanted the NCBC to await the results of a detailed survey of all peasant communities, including Jats, which it had intended to carry out. The NCBC’s answer to this was that it was not fair to keep any community waiting for a decision for such an indefinitely long period in the name of a survey, and that it was difficult to brush aside the feeling of Jats that the survey was being used as a means to deny, or at least to delay, a decision in their case. The NCBC found the State government’s failure to carry out such a survey earlier inexplicable.

cont...
 
Did the NCBC fast-track a decision in the case of Jats, as alleged by Satyanarain Singh, former Member-Secretary, RBCC? Satyanarain Singh quit the State Commission following pressure to include Jats in the State OBC list. Later, he filed a writ petition in the Rajasthan High Court challenging the NCBC’s decision. According to him, a sample survey carried out by the State Commission before 1999 had revealed that Jats were not socially and educationally backward. However, as the results of this survey were not made public, its usefulness in determining the social backwardness of Jats remains a mystery.

The NCBC advice noted that nearly six months had passed after the public hearing in the case. Besides, there were fundamental differences in basic premises and perceptions between the NCBC and the RBCC. “The State Commissions and the NCBC are quasi-judicial bodies which operate independently in their respective spheres under their own procedures and any delay on the part of one or a strong prior perception on the part of one cannot be an obstacle in the way of inclusion of any community in the list of backward classes, based on adequate data/information available, by the other,” the NCBC observed.

P.S. Krishnan, former NCBC Member-Secretary and a member of the NCBC Bench that heard the case in 1997, explained that a survey would be required only when socio-historical evidence was found to be inadequate to decide the matter.

In the case of the Jats of Rajasthan, the evidence was overwhelmingly in their favour, he observed.

Answering the criticism that the NCBC did not find evidence of Jats’ educational backwardness or their inadequate representation in the services as required by the relevant constitutional provisions, he said: “Once social backwardness is established, educational backwardness and inadequate representation in the services could be justifiably presumed.”

It is significant that the same NCBC had rejected requests for conferring OBC status on the Jats of Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh. In the case of Haryana, the request-making body, the Haryana Jat Sabha of Hissar, did not even fill up the NCBC’s questionnaire, and this went against them. The NCBC rejected the findings of the Gurnam Singh Commission in Haryana suggesting that Jats were socially more backward than many of the Scheduled Castes, including those who were traditionally associated with scavenging. The NCBC opined that the Jats of Delhi had the advantage of urban and metropolitan residences and of the sharp rise in the value of property and, therefore, were not socially backward.

The NCBC observed that in western Uttar Pradesh large areas were under the “Bhaichara” dispensation, where land was allotted on the principle of equality. After considering a few scholarly works, it concluded that the Jats of Uttar Pradesh were socially advanced. Similarly, it rejected the claim of the Jats of Madhya Pradesh for OBC status, on the grounds that they were of Bharatpur origin and that the Jats of Bharatpur in Rajasthan were found to be advanced like the Jats of western Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Punjab.

After the Centre’s notification in 1999, the RBCC changed its stance and recommended inclusion of Jats in the State OBC list. The State’s Congress(I) government under Ashok Gehlot amended the OBC list for State services to include Jats of all districts (including Bharatpur and Dholpur), disagreeing with the NCBC’s reasoned advice to the Centre to keep the Jats of these two districts out of the list.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=20070810510109100.htm&date=fl2415/&prd=fline&
 
From out of the above cited two posts by Shri Kadian, to me the following part of the quotes seems more relevant in the present case before the Supreme Court:

"The Jats were listed as an OBC through a notification on October 27, 1999, by the Atal Behari Vajpayee government. The NCBC had recommended their inclusion in the OBC list in November 1997. The NCBC’s advice is ordinarily binding on the Central government as per Section 9(2) of the NCBC Act, 1993. The Central government is bound to specify the reasons if it chooses to reject the NCBC’s advice, according to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Indra Sawhney case (1992). So far, the Central government has not rejected any advice of the NCBC’s."

The future of the Jats Reservation as OBC at Central level solely depends on the recording of the causes for rejecting NCBCs recommendations and issuance of the notification as available on the files asked for by the Supreme Court to be submitted by the Union Government of India.
 
vicky84 said:
Copied from FB:

https://www.facebook.com/advyash.kumarchhoker/posts/653521854667675

PRESS RELEASE
1) The Land holding in these areas are maximum with the Jats
2) as far as civil, military, police, forest, judicial, educational etc. services are concerned they are occupying almost 100 times more than their population in the country whereas the OBCs who are comprising 64% population of the country are hardly occupying 11% of government job that to in group four and third category of services and in group one and two they are hardly representing.
3)The Jats almost hold all important offices in India starting from P.M to C.M,
4) secretary to Generals even without availing the benefit of reservation.
5)The three or four states has also given them OBC status to Jats and in these states Jats eats UP more
than 90% of post reserved for OBCs in past decade, for example in year 2009 out of 10 ADJ post OBC quota 9 were availed by Jats in UP Higher Judicial Services, only one post was availed by other OBC.

6) The Jats are not more than 1.7% (aprox) of total population of India where as total population of other backward castes are more than 64%. Spread all corner of India. The present OBC include the castes which are extremely weaker section of society and they are hardly capable to even achieve their quota of OBC and if Jats are included in the present OBC list there will not be a comparative competition and consequently the Jats will avail the complete quota of all these OBCs.
Therefore in the interest of social justice to this 64% population Of OBCs this samiti opposes the inclusion of Jats in OBC central list and will agitate all over the India and any step towards inclusion of Jats in OBC by the UPA government will be a suicidal step in forthcoming loksabha election.
]
Click to expand...


1) So are with other backward communities that shoulder with jats.
2) Only true for Military & Police, if other communities don't join forces for whatever reason this aint' our fault.
3,4) So have others. What's so different.
5) This is bound to happen when new caste are added to OBC.Better race up, you want to race with motorcycles (reservation) competing with cycles (generals) and yet you cry your motorcycle is loosing the race.So there should be no more additions.
Here, we should float a series of RTI applications to find demographics across all govt jobs. If jealousy is a factor, can there be no extension of list.
6) Why are you afraid of 64% becoming 65.7%. just a marginal increase.
 
I read most of 139 paged NCBC report ... I will try to describe the major portion of report .. I may miss some points too .

First thing that I found that there were many people against Jat inclusion in public hearing of NCBC. Yadav Mahasabha,Gujjar Mahsabha,Sain Samaj,Kumhar Samaj and even Brahmins attended public hearing against inclusion of Jats..
NCBC gave different reasons for different states .. First of all they wrote that NCBC always rejected requests of Jats for inclusion in OBC .In 1997,only Rajsthan's plea except Bharatpur and Dholpur districts was accepted and plea of Haryana,Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh was rejected . Delhi's plea was rejected in 2010.
It was under the pressure of Union Cabinet that they reconsidered the request of Jat community.

Since NCBC did not have enough data for considering Jats as backward,on 19th July,2011 Indian Council for Social Science and Research(ICSSR) was given duty to conduct survey in the Jat households of six states i.e UP,Haryana,MP,Rajasthan,Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh with 100% coverage.
But in September 2012,it was felt by NCBC to consider ongoing Socio-Economic Caste Census(SECC) 2011 conducted by RGI in order to reduce survey time taken by ICSSR and utilize SECC data to maximum level.
Instead of 100% sample survey by ICSSR,it was decided only 2% of sample survey of Jat community be considered.
NCBC wanted State Governments to send filled in questionaire regarding Social,Economic and Educational statue of Jats in their respective states but Since most of the states were pressing for reconsider and review earlier advice of NCBC for inclusion of Jats in OBC therefore a GoM was constituted under P.Chidambaram on 20th August,2013 to engage with representatives of Jat community and apprise itself of progress of survey conducted by ICSSR.
Since survey process by ICSSR was taking long time,GoM gave advice to Union cabinet vide 2 options given below:
Option 1: Jats are already included in state lists of various states.Use the data and reports available with respective states to find backwardness status of Jats.
Option 2: Since survey work was already in progress in various states and there was no issue of Gotra based survey in Gujarat,NCBC along with ICSSR can distribute samples in various states and find backwardness of Jats.

After the cabinet meeting held on 19 Dec.,2013 ,NCBC was asked to give its fresh recommendations/advice based on materials and reports already available i.e. through option 1.

Since ICSSR survey was incomplete,on 2nd January 2014 NCBC decided to consider Jat literature(various books,documents and reports available with ICSSR) to find Economic and Social status of Jats.
After meetings on 16,22 and 28 January,2014,NCBC initially wanted Chief Secretaries of 9 states to conduct public hearings "for" and "against" inclusion of Jats in capitals of their states but State Governments did not show interest in urgency of Jat Reservation.
Then by public notice dated 3rd Feb,2014 NCBC decide to conduct public hearing "for" and "against" Jat reservation at Siri Fort Auditorium,Delhi from 10th Feb to 13th Feb,2014.(10th & 11th Feb for in favour of Jat reservation and 12th & 13th for against Jat reservation).
Any individual,party,organisation or legal body could attend the public hearing on respective dates and give their arguments.

State wise Public hearings were conducted and were attended by various representatives and organisations.
"Those in favour" were very less and "those against" were in large number.

Non-sense pleas were given by non-Jats to prove Jats are economically,socially and educationally forward.

It would be difficult for me to explain in detail for each and every state.

Let me take example of Haryana .
Plea no. 1:
Jats in Haryana were given reservation in 2012 on the basis of KC Gupta Commission Report.
KC Gupta did not conduct fresh survey rather used KS Sangwan (who was HoD of Sociology Department in MDU) findings to prove social backwardness of Jats and other communities.
What non-Jats gave plea was K.S. Sangwan is a Jat,Vice Chancellor of MDU i.e R.P. Hooda is again a Jat . These 2 Jats deliberately presented a biased report in favour of Jats.
Out of 5 members along KC Gupta,2 more members i.e. Shri Jai Singh Bishnoi and Som Dutt were from Bishnoi and Ror community respectively. Therefore,report was deliberately made in favour of Jats and 4 other communities. They were granted 10% Special Quota which was illegal.
Previously Jats were given reservation by Master Hukam Singh who was again a Jat based on Gurnam Singh Commission report.
As per NCBC,Gurnam Singh considered Jats more backward than other backward and scheduled castes but since Jats were adequately represented in Armed Forces,there request was rejected in 1997.
Mandal Commission though agreed that Jat is an agricultural community but considered it a forward caste.

Plea no. 2:
Jats were/are politically most dominant caste in Haryana.At present,they have 27 MLAs,3 Lok Sabha MPs and 1 Rajya Sabha MP. Since the creation of Haryana,it has mostly been ruled by a Jat Chief Minister.
Plea no. 3:
Jats have always been socially dominant,respectable and salutary in Haryana.They have always oppressed Dalits and backward classes. They are called Dabanggs and Choudharies in Haryana.In Jind and Rohtak,they did not let Dalits perform Ghurchari. They called backward classes as “Oe Kumhar ke”,”Oe Khati ke”,etc. They have full fledged Jat Regiment in their name.
Plea no. 4:
Jats are educationally forward too.Jat Educational Society was estableshed in 1913. It ran various schools,colleges,polytechnic institutes,ect under Jat nomenclature like Jat College,Rohtak;Jat College,Hisar. About 25 Gurukuls were run by Jat community under Kanya Gurukul,Khanpur Kalan(Sonipat).
As per latest records,Literacy rate among male Jats of Haryana is about 92% and female Jats is about 78%.
There are many Jat academicians from Jat community.
Plea no. 5:
Jats have been owner of large land holdings.They have been kings also.They are rich and affluent.They have predominance in profession of doctors,engineers,lawyers,teachers,etcin comparison with their caste. They have captured about 21% of Class I and Class II posts in Haryana which is almost at par with their 25% poulation. In 2012,around 22 Jats from Haryana were selected in Civil Services. Even in Armed Forces,they have large representations.
Plea no. 6:
Jats have always been physically fit.There are many sportspersons from Jat community. Even landless Jats never did odd jobs like rickshaw pulling,daily wage workers,etc.
Beside these,names of famous personalities were listed.
Moreover,they gave example of Rajasthan where Jats,after getting OBC quota,captured most of Government jobs alone in last 12-13 years and substantially increased their representations.

As per NCBC report,These were most of pleas that non-Jats presented against inclusion of Jats in OBC category.
 
I am explaining the major flaws of NCBC report below though I am not a legal advisor or an advocate .. It is just my general opinion that I have made after reading the NCBC report.

First of all I want to clarify to all my Jat friends that there is concept of Creamy and Non-Creamy layer in OBC quota .. So economically forward won’t be able to avail the benefits of OBC quota..
Following people fall under Creamy layer:
1. Whose either/both mother or father is Class I/Class II officer or has been promoted to Class I/Class II officer before the age of 40 years whatever their income may be.
2.In case,parents of a child are Class III or Class IV employee,they will be considered non-creamy irrespective of the fact that their gross income exceeds ceiling of 6 lakhs.
3.Ceiling of 6 lakh per annum is meant for the people working in private sector or having income from business.
4.Whose parents are presently at Constitutional Posts too will be considered Creamy.

I have not made these rules.Infact these rules were made by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and NCBC. Concept of Creamy layer is not in case of SC/ST quota.

Therfore,it is clear that wards/children of those Jats cannot avail the benefits of OBC quota who are IAS/IPS officers or Army Officers or Landlords(Zameendars) or at any other higher Government/Constitutional posts.

I very well know that most of my fellow brothers on Jatland are from good families who have good economic status and may be Jat Quota will be no use for them still I want my fellow brothers to morally support the Jat Reservation for other brothers of our community who are poor,have limited resources and cannot afford quality education for them.


Now let me start my observations about NCBC report.
Friends,NCBC was asked to examine the social,economical and educational backwardness of Jat community and give its recommendations.
But I was shocked to see that instead of examiming backwardness of Jats,NCBC was more interested in showing forwardness of Jats through various examples.

First of all,the major fault was of ICSSR who could not complete the survey in time and submit the report at appropriate time.
When Census of India,2011 can be completed within 1.5 years and that too not continuously and within 2 phases then why ICSSR could not complete the survey of Jat households of 9 states ?
Deliberately different hurdles and technical glitches were put against the proceedings of ICSSR by Ministry of Social Justice & Empowernment to delay the Jat Reservation issue.
There was Caste based census in 2011,Government,NCBC and ICSSR could have made use of Socio-Economic Caste Census to find backwardness of Jats and complete survey process in stipulated time but it did not do.

After that the procedure adopted by NCBC was very strange and abnormal i.e. The method of Public Hearing in “Favour” and “Against” of Jat Reservation.It was more of a kind of referendum rather than public hearing.Those in favour were very less and those against were I large number.Consequently,the major portion of NCBC report was filled with arguments and points against Jats. I think in the past never has been such a procedure adopted.
The most of conclusion made by NCBC was based on past conditions of Jat families not present conditions.Most of non-Jat representatives laid the stress on Socio-Economic status of Jats in the past.They did not mention today’s condition of Jats.

Through an arbitrary example,I will try to explain how NCBC and Non-Jats proved non-backwardness of Jats.

Statement 1:Government of India considers a community as backward whose average annual income is below Rs. 2.5 lakh.
Statement 2:Average annual income of Jat community is Rs. 2.3 lakh.
Statement 3:Average income of bacward agricultural communities like Ahir,Gujjar,etc is Rs. 2.2 lakh.

From the above 3 statements a normal man would be able to conclude that According to Government of India,Jat is a backward community.
I was surprised to see that what logic NCBC and non-Jats applied. Since average income of Jats is more than that of average income of backward agricultural communities like Ahirs,Gujjars,etc ,therefore Jat is a forward community with respect to other agricultural communities.Hence,it is not backward.

Similar logic was applied to prove Social and Educational Forwardness of Jats.

So,it would be clear to all of my friends that NCBC was trying to prove non-backwardness of Jats through relative parameters. It was not adopting standard and absolute parameters.

NCBC was doing relative comparisons between various communities. It was using terms like “less backward”,”more backward”,”less poor”,”more poor”,etc.
Poor means poor only,backward means backward only,I am unable to understand from where the terminology of more poor/less poor has arrived.

There are already some set procedures to declare a community backward based on a threshold income then why NCBC was making relative comparisons?
It was more of a biased report under the political pressure of non-Jats.
 
Now I will give some strong arguments against the pleas of non-Jats(mentioned above) which NCBC considered valid for proving non-backwardness of Jats.

Before starting,first of let me tell you that earlier Caste used to be an occupational status i.e People used to work as per their castes means that Chamar used to do work of leather,barber used to cut hair and so on. Today also same trend is followed but a relatively smaller level.
Jats basically were engaged with 2 kinds of professions: First is Agriculture and second is Armed Forces,,though former profession was more common than latter profession.
Therefore,by normal profession a Jat is either “Kisan’ or “Jawan”.

Today Jats are engaged in different types of professions and activities ranging from teaching to engineering,from medical to law,from civil services to public services,etc.

Jats were able to switch from their basic professions to new professions due to their hard-work and ability to adapt with time and circumstances.
Political,social,economic and educational dominance of Jats has no role in this regard.We may agree to some extent that Jats were politically and socially aware of their rights and duties.So they were able to grasp jobs easily.
Again if I find the percentage of Jats engaged in new professions,it won’t be more than 10% of total population.
Today also majority of Jats are engaged in their basic professions only.

The main reason why Jats are demanding reservation today is that Jats are unable to sustain their basic professions.
Due to poor land acquisition policies,lack of irrigation facilities,fertilisers,farm equipments,etc a Jat farmer has been marginalised to low-income group.Today the average land available with the main member of a nuclear Jat family is even less than 2 acres.

e.g. A Jat farmer has 20 acres of land.He has 4 sons.Again each son has 2 sons.So the land available with each grandson of farmer is 2.5 acres. Based on my experience,the average Wheat that grows in 1 acre of land is 10 quintals. The market price that a farmer gets for his wheat crop is Rs. 1200 per quintal.So the total income of grandson of Jat from growing and selling his wheat crop is Rs. 1200*2.5*10=Rs. 30000 only. The six months income of grandson is Rs. 30,000. So annual income becomes Rs. 60,000.

This is the real situation of most of Jat land holdings today.Most of Jat families are earning just 1 lakh annually.They are able to sustain because of some part time jobs along agriculture. Like they tame cattles like cows,buffaloes,so they don’t purchase milk,ghee,lassi,etc. Rather do some kind of income through selling milk in the neighbouring cities/towns.They don’t purchase crops.They utilize their own crops.
In this way,majority of Jats are doing side business along agriculture.

In the Armed Forces too,representation of Jats have decreased at large pace.If we find the proportion of Jats in Armed Forces today with earlier times,it is very less.
There is reservation in Para-military forces,so Jats could not avail that facility to increase represenation in Para-military forces.

Since Jat community is unable to sustain their basic professions today,it deserves to be included in OBC quota.
 
Now arguments against pleas of non-Jats given in NCBC report.

Plea no. 1:
Non-Jats are alleging that KC Gupta Commission report is forged.
Let me clarify there were 5 other members along with Justice KC Gupta viz. Shri Jai Singh Bishnoi,Shri Som Dev Dutt,Shri Arjun Dev Gulati,Shri Rao Ranpal Singh and Shri Telu Ram Jangra.
If first 2 members were from benefitting community(Bishnoi and Ror),then what were other 4 members doing?
Apart from above 2 members,Two members were from General Category and other two were from BCA and BCB class.
If they had any objection,they would have raised their concern and mentioned the note of dissent in the report but there is no note of dissent in KC Gupta Commission report against consideration of Jats as bacward community.
As far as KS Sangwan and RP Hooda being Jat,nowhere in the constitution of India written that a commission can’t consider findings of Jat community.
These non-jats are putting allegations as if KS Sangwan and RP Hooda were appointed as HoD,Sociology and Vice-Chancellor,MDU only after setting of KC Gupta Commission.These were already at their posts.
A person becomes HoD or Vice-Chancellor only after rendering service for long period of time. Whole of his previous track record and confedential report are considered before appointing him Vice-Chancellor/HoD.It is not as if today a person gets job and tomorrow Chief Minister gives him appointment of Vice-Chancellor.
Moreover,these non-Jats are alleging that findings of KS Sangwan were incomplete and not appropriate. I want to know from non-jats whether their findings during their inclusion in OBC category were correct?
As far as Gurnam Singh Commission report was considered,it was in favour of Jats.I don’t know why NCBC used the criteria of adequate representation of Jats in Armed Forces to consider them forward community.
Mandal Commission recognised Jats as agricultural community but it failed to include Jats in backward category due to some political reasons,not because Jats were forward.

The most frank reason during Mandal Commission and Gurnam Singh Commission is that our Jat leaders were not interested in inclusion of Jats in OBC due to their vote-bank politics and moreover our community too was silent on this issue during period of 1990-2000 probably due to the reason that our community was not so backward at that time in comparison to today.

Plea no. 2:
What an absurd plea by non-Jats? Political dominance of Jats.. Due to large population of Jats,many Jat MLAs and MPs are elected by the public.Every caste is included in public. Value of vote of every person is equal .It is not as if value of Jat vote is double/triple than that of any other non-Jat. Voting is voluntary activity.Jat avail their power to send their represntatives to Vidhan Sabha/Lok Sabha.
Jat MLAs/MPs get votes of every community beside their own community.
If there are more Jat MLAs/MPs it does not mean Jats are economically and socially forward.
27 MLAs and 4 MPs out of 60-70 lakh population of Jats don’t describe good socio-economic conditions of Jats.

Plea no. 3:
Social dominance of Jats.. Non-Jats allege that Jats call backward and dalits by their caste names.
Let me clarify that it is not due to social dominance of Jat but due to Haryanvi dialect they speak.Haryanavi is a “khadi” boli. We can consider Haryanvi as Hindi minus politeness.
The most prominent reason why Jats use casteist words is lack of education among Jat youth. I think an educated person will always be polite and never use casteist words.
As said in Sanskrit, विद्या ददाति विनयं । means विद्या विनम्रता प्रदान करती है |
So lack of knowledge among Jat youth is responsible for their rude behaviour.
My friend once said,, खाती को खाती,नाई को नाई,सुनार को सुनार और कुम्हार को कुम्हार नहीं कहेंगे तो क्या ठाकर या बाह्मण कहेंगे ?
As far as Dalits are concerned,today SC/ST act is enforced. Dalit brothers can complain if they want but fact is that most of Dalit brothers misuse/overuse SC/ST act and take unfair advantage of it. Dalits have become so socially dominant and rich that Dalit boys are now marrying Jat girls. Parents of Jats can’t do anything because Dalits would complain in police stations/courts.

Plea no. 4:
If some Jats are heads of Jat educational institutes then it does not mean whole community is educationally forward. There is no special quota for Jats in Jat Schools/Colleges.They are open to all. Anyone can seek admission and take education from Jat educational institutes.There is no barrier for dalits and backwards.
Books are same,teachers are same and environment in school in same,then I can’t understand why these non-Jats are alleging that only Jats become academicians. It’s totally upon the hard-work and practice,that a person progresses and become successful.
There is difference in between “being literate” and “being educated”.
Non-Jats allege 92% literacy rate among Jat males and 78% literacy rate among Jat females . Literacy rate is not correct parameter to judge educational status of Jats.
Educational status of Jats must be found out on the basis of the class upto which a Jat has studied and type of school/college from which he has acquired knowledge.

Plea no. 5:
It is true that Jats were owners of large land-holdings but today it is not so. Most of Jat farmers have very less lands.NCBC can conduct survey and find the accurate figures of land-holdings of individual Jat families.
There was even saying in Haryana : दो बीघे माली के ,नौ बीघे अहीर के और सौ बीघे जाट के बराबर है ।
This statement shows that Jat farmers have been engaged in cultivation of those crops which are not economically feasible. Despite having more land in comparison of other agricultural communities,they have not got large benefits in farmings.
As far as Kushan Pal Singh of DLF is concerned,he is an exception of rich Jat. His company DLF does not provide flats/villas to Jats at subsidized price. Price for Jats and non-Jats is same. Moreover there is no extra number of Jat employees in DLF.
Proportion of Jats in Class I and Class II jobs is less in comparison to their total population. Eligibility condition for appearing in Civil Services is already very relaxed. It is “Graduate in any field with 40% marks”.For SC/ST categories,it is even more relaxed. Examination fee is also very nominal. Jats get selected in Civil Services due to their hard-work not due to their educational status. Non-Jats should study hard rather than blaming Jats.
As far as Armed Force is concerned,there is no reservation in Armed Forces.
For non-commissioned and junior commissioned entries,eligibility condition is just Matriculation and Intermediate/Graduate respectively. Just clear physical and medical test and get selected in Armed Forces. There are no special favours for Jat community.
As far as Officers entry is concerned,every candidate has to appear for 5 days SSB interview. The selection is based on possession of Officer Like Qualities(OLQ).There are no caste based benefits. Just clear SSB interview and get selected.
Again on selection,promotion from Lieutenant upto Colonel level is time based (i.e. after a fixed period of time an officer is promoted to higher rank) and from Colonel to General it is capabilities based(i.e previous track record and Confidential reports are taken into consideration while promotion to higher rank).
Jats have never got their own General till now while they reached upto Lt. Gen ranks due to their qualities and abilities.

Plea no. 6:
Jats are physically fit not due to their economic status but due to their healthy diet. It is a matter of pride for our nation that there are many sportsperson from Jat community.
Again it is a matter of physical fitness to play a particular game/sport. Again there is no caste based favours in Games/Sports. Anyone can play any sport and win medal for their nation.
Jat sportspersons gets Government posts due to policies of State and Central Government.
There is policy of “Padak lao aur Pad Pao”. Jats have not got any special favours.
As far as the work done by landless Jats is concerned,they might not do odd jobs like rickshaw pulling,daily wage workers,etc but today they are forced to do jobs of security guards.labourers/workers in private factories and auto rickshaw/cab drivers.
Don’t expect a Jat farmer to do jobs of other castes.
 
if Jats are kings like in Bharatpur.Dhaulpur,JIND etc . similarly yadavs are also also kings in Rewari . Rao birender singh was from royal family . so how come yadavs are backward .

Gujjar is the richest community in Faridabad,Noida,greater Noida spending lavishly on marriages . so how they are backwards .
 
Friend,

Could you inform if the National Commission for Backward Classes has objected to inclusion of all the Jats of 9 states or has objected to inclusion of any one specific State.

Thanks
 
Brilliant analysis and input Avinash. It will be very helpful for the our advocates who are also a party along with central government.

Thank you.
 
DrRajpalSingh said:
Friend,

Could you inform if the National Commission for Backward Classes has objected to inclusion of all the Jats of 9 states or has objected to inclusion of any one specific State.

Thanks
Click to expand...
Sir,NCBC has objected to inclusion of Jats of all the 9 states ..
Though I have specified the reasons of Haryana,the reaons for other states were almost similar to that of Haryana.

The maximum objection was for the Jats of Haryana and Delhi.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top