Bodhi Ramteke
The Maharashtra Government’s recent approval of the ‘Chief Minister Tirth Darshan (Pilgrimages) Scheme’ has sparked significant controversy. This initiative provides free pilgrimage services to elderly citizens aged 60 and above. The first batch of pilgrims from Nagpur and Pune departed for Ayodhya on October 10 and 11, 2024, marking the scheme’s official launch.
The rationale provided by the government for this scheme is that many elderly individuals have long-held aspirations to undertake at least one pilgrimage to sacred sites, viewing these journeys as acts of religious merit. For those from underprivileged or middle-class backgrounds, financial constraints or lack of family support often prevent them from fulfilling this spiritual desire. In response to this challenge, the government aims to offer free pilgrimage services for senior citizens, helping them achieve spiritual peace and fulfilment.
The core of the controversy lies in the funding for the scheme, which is financed by the Social Justice and Special Assistance Department. Utilising the funds meant for the advancement of historically marginalised communities to subsidise religious or non- social justice related activities undermines the essential principles of social justice. This raises serious legal and constitutional questions about the appropriateness of such allocations, igniting a broader debate on the ethical use of social welfare funds and State’ s reluctance towards the issues of the marginalised.
Missing the Vision of Social Justice in ‘Tirth Darshan’
The idea of social justice necessitates the recognition that historically oppressed and weaker sections of the society need actions and programs for structural reforms to address the deep-rooted injustices of the past. This form of “positive discrimination” is essential to undo the centuries of discrimination faced by these groups and provide them with a fair opportunity to participate in society. The Constitution of India recognizes this responsibility, mandating the state to ensure the social and economic development of these deprived communities. This responsibility led to the establishment of institutions like the Social Justice Department, however despite the creation of such institutions with a direct mission of safeguarding these groups from social injustice and all forms of exploitation, the state’s actions reflect a reluctance to fully commit to the ideals of Indian Constitution.
The scheme in question started by misallocating funds of the Social Justice Department is a glaring example of State’s reluctance towards prioritising the work to tackle the injustices being faced by the targeted communities. This is not an isolated incident but part of a disturbing pattern. In 2017, the funds under Scheduled Castes Sub-Plan (SCSP) and Tribal Sub-Plan (TSP) were released for farmer’s loan waiver. Furthermore, the resources meant for research and education under BARTI (Babasaheb Ambedkar Research and Training Institute), an institution under the Social Justice Department, have been misallocated to unnecessary purposes like providing food for visitors at Bhima Koregaon on Shaurya Diwas (Bravery Day). To make matters worse, the funds of this department were also used for a campaign on de-addiction.
Multiple schemes have been implemented or the funds been utilised for such activities that have nothing to do with social justice or the upliftment of marginalised communities. Upon reviewing the current schemes listed on the Social Justice Department’s website, many appear deeply disturbing and casteist in nature. However, as the Schemes have not been updated, it is unclear whether they are still being implemented. Regardless, it is crucial to examine the approach these schemes reflect towards the upliftment of historically marginalised communities, as they reveal important insights into past policies and intentions.
The Gattai and Training Schemes, while designed for the economic upliftment of SC communities, end up reinforcing caste-based identities by confining individuals to traditional, caste-linked occupations. Instead of promoting broader opportunities for upward mobility and diverse skill development, these schemes perpetuate the notion that certain jobs should remain within specific castes, limiting people to historically low-status roles. This not only hinders their social and economic advancement but also reinforces the existing caste hierarchy. Furthermore, the Shahu Phule Ambedkar Dalit Vasti Development Scheme perpetuates the stereotype that Dalit communities are inherently unclean. Instead of addressing systemic discrimination and caste-based oppression, the burden is placed on Dalits to eradicate untouchability solely. Moreover, offering awards to panchayats for such work incentivizes superficial efforts rather than tackling deep-rooted social issues. The focus on sanitation and village cleanliness is an attempt to avoid larger discussions about structural changes needed to dismantle caste hierarchies, such as land redistribution or access to education and jobs beyond caste-based roles. Additionally, efforts on organising workshops for eradication of untouchability are rarely seen at government institutions or schools. Even when these camps occur, they are likely confined to Dalit neighbourhoods, failing to address the root causes of caste discrimination in wider society.
Though the Social Justice Department is tasked with overseeing the welfare of various weaker sections, including disabled and elderly people, the allocation of funds must not contradict the department’s primary mission. The current misallocation of funds not only exposes the state’s profound misunderstanding of what social justice truly entails but also demonstrates a deliberate ignorance toward the urgent and pressing issues faced by marginalised communities.
These communities continue to deal with severe social and educational challenges. Students from Scheduled Castes and other marginalised communities frequently report delays in receiving their scholarships, many struggle with poor conditions in government hostels, and in some cases, individuals are denied benefits from crucial schemes like Swadhar from where students get money for lodging facilities. PhD students are left in limbo, waiting endlessly for their research stipends. In the face of these pressing issues, for the state to prioritise the spiritual desires of the elderly over the very real and immediate needs of these communities is not only absurd—it’s an insult. It directly contradicts the department’s core mission, violating the constitutional principle of separating religion from state affairs, all while marginalising the very groups the department is mandated to serve.
Such actions stem from a careless and pretentiously caste-blind mindset that has no genuine concern for the struggles of the oppressed. Instead, it serves to benefit the caste-class networks that profit from the tenders issued to implement these schemes. As, it is always asserted by the activists that the agencies to whom the tenders are provided are from privileged castes and are in the strong networking of the ruling class. This is not just incompetence; it’s an intentional act of disregard and exploitation, designed to maintain the ‘status quo’ while denying marginalised communities their rightful share of support and resources.
Diversion of Social Justice Funds Amounts to Injustice on Marginalised
The diversion of social justice funds, constitutes a severe injustice against the marginalised communities. These funds are not merely financial resources but are essential instruments for addressing historical oppression and systemic inequalities faced by these communities. The Supreme Court, in Common Cause v. Union of India (2015), set forth clear guidelines to prevent the misuse of public funds, emphasising that use of public resources must meet the criteria of reasonableness and serving the public interest. Similarly, in Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy vs. State of J&K (1980), the Supreme Court reinforced the idea that government actions must meet the standards of reasonableness and public interest. If a government’s action deviates from these standards, such actions can be declared invalid. When we apply this reasoning to the case of diverting funds earmarked for historically marginalised communities towards non-social justice activities—such as religious activities or other unrelated schemes—it becomes evident that these actions fail to meet the tests of reasonableness and public interest.
Maharashtra is not the only state guilty of this misallocation of resources. A disturbing pattern of such diversions is visible across multiple states. For example, the Madhya Pradesh government recently reallocated SC/ST funds for the development of cow welfare projects and religious sites. Karnataka also misused SC/ST welfare funds for five unrelated schemes, while Bihar, in 2018-19, used scholarship funds meant for SC/ST students to construct roads and embankments. Such acts reveal a troubling and widespread failure of state governments to prioritise the genuine needs of oppressed communities, further deepening the inequalities that these funds are intended to resolve.
What is especially disconcerting is the reasoning offered to justify these diversions. For instance, the Madhya Pradesh government argued that developing religious sites from SC/ST funds would indirectly benefit these communities by providing employment opportunities in shops at these sites. This rationale highlights a deeply entrenched casteist mentality, where the empowerment of marginalised communities is reduced to low-wage labour opportunities in spaces of religious or cultural significance, rather than addressing the systemic issues of access to education, healthcare, and equal opportunities that these funds were intended to solve. While talking to BBC Marathi, the spokesperson of CM Eknath Shinde’s Shiv Sena said, “taking people on pilgrimages, who otherwise cannot afford to go on their own, is also a social responsibility. We have seen tears in the eyes of elderly people, whose children are not in a position to support them, as they sit in the vehicles for the pilgrimage. It is unfortunate that I have to explain this to people who work in the social sector.” Such logic of defending the misuse of funds trivialises the broader goals of social justice.
In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. The Union of India (1997) Supreme Court stated that, “……conditions of freedom and dignity, educational facilities…… are the minimum requirements which must exist in order to enable a person to live with human dignity and no State — neither the Central Government nor any State Government — has the right to take any action which will deprive a person of the enjoyment of these basic essentials.” SCs and STs in India continue to struggle for dignity and access to socio-economic and educational opportunities. The action of diverting funds that are specifically meant to support them is not just an administrative failure; it is a form of institutionalised deprivation, stripping these communities of their basic rights and entitlements.
Furthermore, the diversion is also an attempt to neutralise the oppression these communities face. By shifting focus away from critical social justice initiatives, such actions undermine the efforts to address historical injustices and perpetuate a cycle of neglect. Instead of tackling the root causes of inequality and providing genuine avenues for upliftment, such diversions reinforce the structural barriers that keep them marginalised. This is not just financial mismanagement; it is a perpetuation of the same social and economic exclusion that the funds were designed to eliminate.
Legal Status to SC/ST Sub-Plan: An Effective Intervention
The Government of India introduced the Tribal Sub-Plan (TSP) in 1975 to promote the development of Scheduled Tribes (STs), followed by the Special Component Plan (SCP) for Scheduled Castes (SCs). The primary objective of these plans was to allocate specific funds for schemes aimed at the upliftment of these marginalised communities. However, frequent instances of misallocation and diversion of these funds to unrelated purposes, also non- utilisation of these funds have severely weakened their impact.
To address this issue effectively, it is crucial for Maharashtra to grant legal status to the SC/ST Sub-Plan, as has been done in states like Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. Such a legal framework would not only prevent fund diversion but also provide provisions for legal actions against violations, ensuring that the allocated resources are used for their intended purpose.
Despite the importance of these plans, Maharashtra has not prioritised granting legal status. In 1976, the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council of Maharashtra approved the reservation of 15% of the state budget for Scheduled Caste communities, reflecting a commitment to their development. This decision was formalised through a Government Resolution issued in 1979 by the Social Justice Department. However, despite over four decades having passed, the state has neither reserved the promised 15% funds nor enacted any legislation to enforce this mandate. This reflects a deliberate neglect of the needs of these marginalised communities and underscores the state’s failure to fulfil its constitutional obligations.
Maharashtra’s failure to implement the long-promised budgetary provisions underscores the urgent need for legislative action to uphold social justice. Alongside the legal recognition of the SC/ST Sub-Plan, the state must also go beyond its current efforts. It should take responsibility for raising awareness among privileged groups about the advantages they derive from the caste system and how these benefits contribute to social instability and inequality. Rather than placing the burden of achieving equality solely on oppressed communities, the state must actively engage those in positions of privilege in dismantling the caste hierarchies that perpetuate inequality. True social justice can only be achieved when the empowerment of marginalised groups is accompanied by the disempowerment of those who unjustly wield power due to caste privilege.
Adv. Bodhi Ramteke, Lawyer and Erasmus Mundus Scholar at Roehampton University, London. bodhi.ramteke@opendeusto.es
