Congress SC Department President Pradeep Ahirwar claims “the Rajput Bagri community received Scheduled Caste benefits unfairly,” prompting action after High Court rebuke
Bhopal. The controversy surrounding the caste certificate of Madhya Pradesh Minister of State Pratima Bagri appears to be reaching a decisive turning point. On Wednesday, State President of the Scheduled Castes Congress Department Pradeep Ahirwar appeared before the state-level inquiry committee investigating the validity of the caste certificate with evidence and documents, calling Minister Pratima Bagri’s Scheduled Caste certificate “fake,” and demanding its immediate cancellation. Following the High Court’s intervention in the matter and directing a decision within 60 days, administrative activity has intensified.
The Mooknayak investigation has revealed that this controversy isn’t limited to a single individual’s caste certificate, but rather is linked to a long-standing dispute over the use of the surname “Bagri” and Scheduled Caste eligibility in the Bundelkhand, Vindhya, and Mahakaushal regions of Madhya Pradesh.
Congress leader Ahirwar claims that caste certificates were issued for years without distinguishing between the actual Scheduled Caste Bagri community and the Rajput-Thakur communities using the surname Bagri, impacting the reservation system. The Bagris of the Bundelkhand and Vindhya regions are Rajput (General).
Documents submitted to the committee
During the hearing held at Vallabh Bhavan in the ministry on Wednesday, Pradeep Ahirwar presented detailed documents to Principal Secretary E. Ramesh Kumar and other committee officials. He stated that when the list of Scheduled Castes was first compiled in 1950 and after the country’s independence, only those castes associated with social untouchability, untouchability, and lower social functions were included in it. According to him, the Bagri community living in the Central India region was classified as a Scheduled Caste under special circumstances, but the Rajput Bagri community living in the Vindhya and Bundelkhand regions was never recognized as a Scheduled Caste.
In a conversation with The Mooknayak, Pradeep Ahirwar stated that the Bagri community living in Satna and Panna districts was not listed as a Scheduled Caste in the 1961 caste census. He also stated that after the formation of Madhya Pradesh in 1956, the districts where the Bagri community was granted Scheduled Caste status were primarily those in the Central India region, including Bhind, Morena, Shivpuri, Guna, Ujjain, Ratlam, Mandsaur, Indore, Dewas, Dhar, Jhabua, and Neemuch. After the regional restrictions were lifted in 1976, members of the Rajput-Thakur Bagri community in the Vindhya and Bundelkhand regions began obtaining Scheduled Caste certificates.
Pradeep Ahirwar also argued before the committee that the Regaon Assembly seat in Satna district is reserved for the Scheduled Caste category, and that Pratima Bagri contested the election based on this certificate, became an MLA, and later rose to the position of minister. He alleged that if the certificate was issued contrary to the rules, it is not merely a personal matter but a serious question concerning the reservation system and constitutional rights.
The Government of India amended the 2007 amendment.
The complainant also cited orders issued by the state government in 2003. According to him, anthropological studies conducted by the state government and the Madhya Pradesh Tribal Research Institute (TRI) clarified that families with the surname “Bagri” living in Bundelkhand, Mahakaushal, and the Vindhya region actually belong to the Rajput-Thakur community and should not be issued Scheduled Caste certificates.
According to the TRI report, these Bagri Rajputs are landlords of the Vindhya region. Based on the similarity in their caste names, they began obtaining SC caste certificates and began taking advantage of them.
The Scrutiny Committee Did Not Issue Instructions
Instructions in this regard were issued to all collectors on February 25, 2003, and July 14, 2003. A high-level scrutiny committee later upheld the government’s decision.
An important point in this matter is the 2007 amendment. The central government had clarified at that time that the “Bagri/Bagri” community would be classified as a Scheduled Caste, but those from the Rajput and Thakur sub-castes who use only the surname “Bagri” would not receive this benefit. Ahirwar says that despite this, caste certificates continued to be issued at the local level without adequate scrutiny.
Speaking to The Mooknayak, State President of the Scheduled Caste Congress, Pradeep Ahirwar, alleged that Minister Pratima Bagri and her family have been creating confusion about their caste identity for years. He said that Pratima Bagri’s side can submit land records and revenue documents dating back to 1950, which show her family’s surname as “Bagri.” But merely having the surname “Baghari” does not make a person eligible for the Scheduled Caste category.
According to Ahirwar, the Rajput Bagri community of the Vindhya and Bundelkhand regions did not receive Scheduled Caste status in the constitutional Scheduled Caste list implemented in 1950. He claimed that the family did not register itself as a Scheduled Caste in the 1956 and 1961 documents and caste records because they belong to the Rajput (General) category. He stated that the Bagri surname in revenue records cannot be considered evidence of their Scheduled Caste status.
Pradeep Ahirwar further stated that the Bagri caste is recognized as a Scheduled Caste only in the Central India region. And Minister Pratima’s family succeeded in obtaining the certificate by taking advantage of the similarity of the caste name with the same “Bagri” community. He expressed apprehension that attempts may be made to create confusion before the scrutiny committee based on old documents.
Ahirwar claims that the documents in which the family’s surname “Bagri” is recorded actually belong to the Rajput Bagri community, not the Scheduled Caste category.
The Bagri caste has not faced untouchability.
The complaint also states that the Bagri families of the Vindhya and Bundelkhand regions have been known as an economically and socially influential farming community. The documents claim that these families have owned large tracts of agricultural land since before independence and have never faced social discrimination. Citing gazetteers and old administrative documents from the British era, the complainant states that the Rajput Bagri community of Seoni district is mentioned as a major farming community and has had marital relations with the Bagri families of the Satna-Panna region.
The entire issue has also created a stir in the state’s politics. The opposition is raising the issue of “intrusion into the reservation system,” while the ruling party has yet to issue a detailed public response. However, the matter is now considered sensitive at the legal and administrative levels, as if the inquiry committee finds the complainant’s claims to be true, it could have far-reaching political and constitutional consequences.
A decision may be made before June 20th.
The State-Level Caste Scrutiny Committee may deliver its decision in this matter before June 20th. During the hearing, a double bench of the Jabalpur High Court directed the state government and the scrutiny committee to reach a decision within 60 days on the issue of Minister Pratima Bagri’s caste certificate. Following the court’s strict comments, the investigation process accelerated, and now the complainant has submitted documents and evidence to the committee. It is believed that a major decision on this high-profile case may be reached in the coming days.
What if the Caste Certificate is Revoked?
If the State-Level Caste Scrutiny Committee revokes Minister Pratima Bagri’s caste certificate, the legal and political implications could be severe. She contested the Regaon Assembly seat in Satna district, which is reserved for the Scheduled Castes. If her caste certificate is found invalid, her membership in the Legislative Assembly could be jeopardized, and the matter could reach the election petition and the court. Furthermore, constitutional questions could arise regarding her continued tenure as a minister.
According to legal experts, if it is proven that the certificate issued for a reserved category was obtained on the basis of false facts, action against the person concerned may also be possible under provisions related to forging documents and taking undue advantage of reservation.
Ankit Pachauri
Courtesy: Hindi News