Hindu Vivek Kendra
A RESOURCE CENTER FOR THE PROMOTION OF HINDUTVA
   
 
 
«« Back
HVK Archives: Sikhs and Buddhists are not Hindus

Sikhs and Buddhists are not Hindus - Organiser

Posted By ashok (ashokvc@giasbm01.vsnl.net.in)
8 September 1996

Title : Sikhs and Buddhists are not Hindus
Author :
Publication : Organiser
Date : September 8, 1996

Excerpts : Interview of Mr B P Maurya by Organiser
representative Pramod Kumar

What is your opinion regarding the proposed Bill to be
introduced in Parliament for extending reservation
facilities to the so-called datit Christians?

Although very late, it is a very good step contemplated
by the Government. The problems of the Scheduled Castes
(SCs) belonging to any faith, are definitely very
serious. These people have always been victims of
untouchability, disparity and social discrimination.

But there is no caste system or untouchability among
Christian?

Since they are not plagued by this system they are
thousand times better than Hindus. The Buddhists also do
not recognise caste and untouchability. Then, how come
they enjoy the facilities of reservation?

According to Article 25 of the Constitution which was
later explained by the Supreme Court, Hinduism includes
Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs.

If that is true why were neo-Buddhists not allowed to
enjoy the benefits of reservation till a few years back?
As a matter of fact, I do not believe in reservation, I
have neither contested from any reserved constituency nor
availed any other benefit of reservation. The question
which You raise is totally wrong. There is no
discrimination among Sikhs also. Why then are they
allowed the benefits of reservation?

The Sikhs are also Hindu.

You say so, but the Sikhs do not accept it.

But the Indian Constitution and the Supreme Court
categorically say it.

You labour under a misconception. They are not Hindu.
If you have no knowledge of the Constitution listen to
me. In the beginning, the original passage in the
Constitution read, "SCs who do not Profess other than
Hindu religion". Later, an amendment, which was brought
by Master Tara Singh, was made in the Constitution and
the expression "Sikh religion" was added. It was added
in the SCs Order, 1951 also. Then it became, "SCs who do
not profess other than Hindu or Sikh religion". Later,
the term "Buddhist" was also added so nosy it reads "SCs
who do not profess other than Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist
religion".

Do you think there is any vote-bank politics behind this
Bill?

It is no use going into all that. Earlier when the
Congress was trying to introduce this Bill then also it
was alleged that there was vote-bank politics behind the

move. I want two amendments to this Bill. First, the
Tomang Buddhists who number about 18 lakh and live in the
Himalayan valley, all along from the northeast to
Laddakh, should also be brought under the category of
scheduled tribes and be provided all facilities of
reservation. Secondly, reservation for Christians should
riot be extended from the existing dalit quota as SCs and
STs population has since grown. All the reservation that
may be given to the Christians should be from outside the
dalit quota.

How much should it be?

It should be proportionate according to their population.
It could be one or two per cent as much as the Government
decides.

Does the Congress party support this Bill?

Yes, we support it.

It is feared that if Christians are provided reservation
it would lead to mass conversion of dalits to
Christianity.

If they embrace Christianity, it world be their good
decision. Who would like to live in a religion in which
there is no equality? I will be happy if they adopted a
in which everybody is considered equal.

Would you also adopt Christianity?

I am not a Hindu. I am a Buddhist. I deny being a Hindu.

What in your opinion is the meaning of Hindu?

Hindu means caste, Hindu means some-thing inferior, Hindu
means varnavyavastha.

If in Christianity all are regarded as equal, on what
grounds do they demand reservation claiming to be
"dalit"?

Are, ap ki jeb se thore hi ja raha hai?
(It is not being picked from your pocket.)

Is this type of attitude on the part of a national leader
in national interest?

You are talking about national interest! If you really
had bothered about national interest you would not have
asked this question. You know, in all the border areas
only Christians care to live. There is no Hindu there but
tribals and Christians.

But all tribals are essentially Hindu.

Who says? A tribal is a tribal. He is not a Hindu. Kisi
tribal ko kabhi Hindu mat keh dena, nahin to veh tumhara
sir phor dega (don't tell any tribal that he is Hindu; he
will break your head.) Tribals eat beef and pork. A
tribal has nothing to do with the Hindu religion.

Today, when almost all social groups are demanding
reservation, why can't a system of reservation based on
economic criteria he introduced for the poor belonging to

all communities?

I don't believe in economic criteria. I have different
views on this subject. I am of the opinion that people of
SCs and STs who have grown well-to-do, should not get
reservation benefits. No reservation facility should be
given to the offspring of an IAS or an IPS officer
belonging to SC or St.


Back                          Top

«« Back
 
 
 
  Search Articles
 
  Special Annoucements