vayuu1 Posted March 24 Posted March 24 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livelaw.in/amp/top-stories/conversion-to-religion-other-than-hinduism-buddhism-or-sikhism-results-in-loss-of-scheduled-caste-status-supreme-court-527585 mishra, bsriharsha, singhvivek141 and 3 others 3 3
singhvivek141 Posted March 24 Posted March 24 Good decision. Recognize and promote the indigenous religions.
Nikhil_cric Posted March 24 Posted March 24 Probably the wrong decision when looked at in isolation. It is , in some ways, a tacit admission that Abrahamic religions are socially more egalitarian than the Hindu religion in particular and that's probably true. But it also mimics Muslim majority states where part of the social contract is that the state is the custodian of Islam and it's the duty of the state prevent Muslims from going astray. But in India's recent historical context, this feels almost inevitable. This is the ultimate consequence of Indian secularism where the state funded it's own polarisation by subsiding religious instruction in madrassahs , paying salaries to Muslim preachers, Hajj subsidy and the Waqf board etc. while simultaneously neglecting their social and economic progress and formal, public school education. A secular state can never function when it funds and subsidises , either directly or indirectly, Muslim religious instruction instead of leaving it to private citizens. Forget our history, the history of modern Muslim states is very instructive. Seemingly secular states in the post colonial world saw Muslim revivalism and the shrinking of secular spaces because they funded religious education in their countries. The Diyanet in Turkey, al Azhar in Egypt were all supported by the state and secularism was weakened massively. The only countries which haven't seen revivalism were post Communist bloc countries. BacktoCricaddict, Vk1, Lord and 1 other 2 1 1
bsriharsha Posted March 24 Posted March 24 People who convert for equality etc can't be expected to then gain the benefits of their previous reservations. Right decision
Lone Wolf Posted March 24 Posted March 24 6 hours ago, Nikhil_cric said: Probably the wrong decision when looked at in isolation. It is , in some ways, a tacit admission that Abrahamic religions are socially more egalitarian than the Hindu religion in particular and that's probably true. But it also mimics Muslim majority states where part of the social contract is that the state is the custodian of Islam and it's the duty of the state prevent Muslims from going astray. But in India's recent historical context, this feels almost inevitable. This is the ultimate consequence of Indian secularism where the state funded it's own polarisation by subsiding religious instruction in madrassahs , paying salaries to Muslim preachers, Hajj subsidy and the Waqf board etc. while simultaneously neglecting their social and economic progress and formal, public school education. A secular state can never function when it funds and subsidises , either directly or indirectly, Muslim religious instruction instead of leaving it to private citizens. Forget our history, the history of modern Muslim states is very instructive. Seemingly secular states in the post colonial world saw Muslim revivalism and the shrinking of secular spaces because they funded religious education in their countries. The Diyanet in Turkey, al Azhar in Egypt were all supported by the state and secularism was weakened massively. The only countries which haven't seen revivalism were post Communist bloc countries. Nah a massive SC win.. with NE virtually already lost to Missionaries next threat was always the tribal central India where there is alarming rise of missionary activities. Not saying it would stop altogether but will give one less reason for conversion at least. Fully support this call from honourable SC of India. Bluntman, G_B_ and Vk1 2 1
coffee_rules Posted March 25 Posted March 25 The rule is only for SCs. It doesn’t apply to STs and OBCs . Also, if the person doesn’t change his name after conversion, how will they prove that he has converted? He might have still used the caste certificate while practicing another religion secretly. Lord 1
coffee_rules Posted March 25 Posted March 25 16 hours ago, Nikhil_cric said: Probably the wrong decision when looked at in isolation. It is , in some ways, a tacit admission that Abrahamic religions are socially more egalitarian than the Hindu religion in particular and that's probably true. But it also mimics Muslim majority states where part of the social contract is that the state is the custodian of Islam and it's the duty of the state prevent Muslims from going astray. But in India's recent historical context, this feels almost inevitable. This is the ultimate consequence of Indian secularism where the state funded it's own polarisation by subsiding religious instruction in madrassahs , paying salaries to Muslim preachers, Hajj subsidy and the Waqf board etc. while simultaneously neglecting their social and economic progress and formal, public school education. A secular state can never function when it funds and subsidises , either directly or indirectly, Muslim religious instruction instead of leaving it to private citizens. Forget our history, the history of modern Muslim states is very instructive. Seemingly secular states in the post colonial world saw Muslim revivalism and the shrinking of secular spaces because they funded religious education in their countries. The Diyanet in Turkey, al Azhar in Egypt were all supported by the state and secularism was weakened massively. The only countries which haven't seen revivalism were post Communist bloc countries. I don’t know why you’re bringing this up in this argument. The special status given to minorities in a secular government is by our constitution. And it’s amendments written by secularist politicians. There is nothing that the courts can do if it’s written in the constitution. I’m pretty sure the southern states like TN, Keralam will bring out a bill that notifies this judgment and pretty soon BJP will also follow suit because of some elections in some state that affects their cast equations in elections.
Nikhil_cric Posted March 25 Posted March 25 4 hours ago, coffee_rules said: I don’t know why you’re bringing this up in this argument. The special status given to minorities in a secular government is by our constitution. And it’s amendments written by secularist politicians. There is nothing that the courts can do if it’s written in the constitution. I’m pretty sure the southern states like TN, Keralam will bring out a bill that notifies this judgment and pretty soon BJP will also follow suit because of some elections in some state that affects their cast equations in elections. There is nothing in the Indian Constitution that forces the state to fund religious education or even mosques and pay salaries to imams. Even the BJP took until 2024 to completely stop funding madrassahs in Assam and Uttar Pradesh. Not to mention all the foreign funding of Salafi mosques until before MBS came to power. Bluntman 1
rkt.india Posted March 25 Posted March 25 Vo to theek hai par conversion saabit kaise hoga. Court ne already bola hua hai ke ghar me jesus ki photo rakhna conversion ka proof nahi hai. Lord 1
Mariyam Posted March 25 Posted March 25 On 3/24/2026 at 7:17 PM, bsriharsha said: People who convert for equality etc can't be expected to then gain the benefits of their previous reservations. Right decision Reservations are, at the end of the day, given to people who have been disadvantaged in rat race that is life. They don't stand with the same resources or social capital to compete with others who have been born in more privileged settings. Changing of religion *may* alleviate the feeling of being backward or of a low social class for that person but does not change the fact that the person was still born disadvantaged. Those inherited social economic and status pertaining disadvantages are still there. If one believes in the idea of reservations ( and I'm not convinced I do) then change of religion should not matter. BacktoCricaddict and Lord 1 1
mishra Posted March 26 Posted March 26 (edited) 11 hours ago, Mariyam said: Reservations are, at the end of the day, given to people who have been disadvantaged in rat race that is life. They don't stand with the same resources or social capital to compete with others who have been born in more privileged settings. Changing of religion *may* alleviate the feeling of being backward or of a low social class for that person but does not change the fact that the person was still born disadvantaged. Those inherited social economic and status pertaining disadvantages are still there. If one believes in the idea of reservations ( and I'm not convinced I do) then change of religion should not matter. Ambedkarji was clear that Dalit community was NOT getting equal treatment from rest of Hindu community and needed help. Once you leave Dalit community, and say become a Christian, Hindu community doesn’t sees you as Dalit. Reservation was never about affordablity or equality. PS: At his time, Muslims git Pakistan. Dalits got reservation in India. So reservation for Dalits is Pakistan for Muslims in 1947 Edited March 26 by mishra
kepler37b Posted March 26 Posted March 26 Ghamtaa Farak padegaa.. Unless Hindoos leave the centuries of stagnation and inhibition and become a active proseletyzing faith, nothing is going to happen. We should all spend 30% of our efforts and monies to get the abrahamics to their roots. Jai Shri Ram!!!
Nikhil_cric Posted March 26 Posted March 26 (edited) 11 hours ago, Mariyam said: Reservations are, at the end of the day, given to people who have been disadvantaged in rat race that is life. They don't stand with the same resources or social capital to compete with others who have been born in more privileged settings. Changing of religion *may* alleviate the feeling of being backward or of a low social class for that person but does not change the fact that the person was still born disadvantaged. Those inherited social economic and status pertaining disadvantages are still there. If one believes in the idea of reservations ( and I'm not convinced I do) then change of religion should not matter. Agree with this in principal but the reality of India is that prosletysing to economically and socially disadvantaged groups is especially targeted by Muslim/Christian groups on the basis that their faiths are more egalitarian . If substantive equality is the real concern, then it shouldn't matter whether they are allowed to convert or not. India is not even pretending to be a secular state ever since the Modi government came into power. It's more of a Hindu/Dharmic version of an Islamic state. I'm not gonna be an apologist like many on ICF but in practical terms , Christians and Muslims will, in the near future, become protected minorities in this country in a clearly majoritarian country where they will be allowed to practice their faith but not allowed to prosletyse to others and with their religious institutions allowed to continue but with zero state funding. Edited March 26 by Nikhil_cric mishra, Mariyam and BacktoCricaddict 3
BacktoCricaddict Posted March 26 Posted March 26 4 hours ago, Nikhil_cric said: religious institutions allowed to continue but with zero state funding. In any case, the state has no business funding religious institutions of any kind. Mariyam 1
Nikhil_cric Posted March 26 Posted March 26 4 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said: In any case, the state has no business funding religious institutions of any kind. Yes but many states in India did it from 1947 till 2024 . It's only recently they have stopped it in UP and Assam. Even now states are doing it. The exception is actually Kerala from what I know of. The state government may have reservations for Muslims in colleges and government jobs but does not pay salaries to the ulama or fund madrassahs - those are done by the communities themselves. BacktoCricaddict 1
BacktoCricaddict Posted March 26 Posted March 26 21 minutes ago, Nikhil_cric said: Yes but many states in India did it from 1947 till 2024 . It's only recently they have stopped it in UP and Assam. Even now states are doing it. The exception is actually Kerala from what I know of. The state government may have reservations for Muslims in colleges and government jobs but does not pay salaries to the ulama or fund madrassahs - those are done by the communities themselves. Ideally, no government entity should be funding any religious institution. Nikhil_cric 1
Recommended Posts