Then there is another point that is also very relevant so far as this question is concerned. Supposing for the sake of argument we grant that the Sikh representatives agreed to forego every safeguard, is it to be understood that they did so because they were very keen to have their backward classes included in the Scheduled Castes? Is then their anxiety for that to be exploited and the opportunity utilised to get them to give up all other safeguards? I do not believe it. But suppose that was also true, I do realise this also that there was much opposition from the Scheduled Castes against such inclusion and Sardar Patel had to secure this to the Sikhs with great difficulty. The Sikhs are thankful to him. But what has happened to that concession secured at the sacrifice of all other demands, as is alleged? In the first places restriction was placed that this concession was confined to East Punjab only. It was not extended to the Patiala Union. How strange! Was there any justification for this discrimination on the basis of religion? If reservation was denied to religious minorities, and the Scheduled Castes were to get it for their backwardness then is there any jurisdiction to deny this concession to similar backward sections suffering from identical disabilities simply because they profess the Sikh religion? Would this be secularism? This much-coveted demand secured at such a heavy price and given so grudgingly and reservedly has become uncertain. Schedule X which was to enumerate the Scheduled Castes is deleted and article 300A empowers the President after consultation with the Governor or the Ruler to specify the castes or races to be Scheduled Castes. Sir, it will be realised that again the Sikhs shall have to strive and strive hard to persuade the Governor to advise the President to include these castes in the list of Scheduled Castes. My anxiety is that the Sikhs are left with nothing now. They have no further safeguards. What shall they offer to the Governor to advise the President to secure these safeguards? So, my submission is that even if there was any undertaking, that should be no consideration because what was secured in lieu of that has already gone.
