No abstract

No abstract

This volume presents an overview of the relationship between the state, law, and Adivasis that have experienced a profound political shift due to privatization of natural resources. It discusses the role of the corporates and its impact on livelihoods of the Adivasis in India. For the Indian state, a significant challenge is to establish a new normative framework for indigenous autonomy based on the values of equality and sustainability. This calls for recognition of the right to self-determination and exercise of collective rights of the Adivasis. The chapters in this volume examine: • ‘Exclusion’ as a useful framework for analyzing the various axes of inequality that affect the Adivasi communities • How state, development, and Adivasi politics play out in entangled ways in the social, political and legal domains The interplay of and the deep tension between the promise of legal protection and the realities of inadequate implementation.

This chapter examines the historical emergence of secularism through movements, debates, and legal formulations to explain specific features that the concept has acquired in the context of India. The first part examines the tensions between the theoretical narratives of Indian constitutionalism and the practices of politics that led to the acceptance of certain essential conditions of secularism. The approach towards secularism found in writings of Nehru, Gandhi and Ambedkar are then discussed. The third part focuses on the ill-defined meaning of secularism that does not accurately reflect the conceptual shifts made by the modern legal system. The final section critically examines the claim that secularism is a state-led exercise in certain domains. An overview of the legal literature shows that secularism is also the domain of experts, bureaucrats, and professionals. The history of court decisions about what constitutes a religious practice that is protected by law reveals considerable variation and arbitrariness..

The Supreme Court’s recent judgment upholding the economically weaker sections (EWS) quota has given rise to the idea that reservations can be provided to economically vulnerable sections of the people. This expansion in the beneficiaries of affirmative action has triggered the perception that the reservation policy, which was earlier seen as promoting the principle of equal opportunity and providing compensation to historically marginalised castes, is now also a tool to overthrow poverty, unemployment and economic deprivation. This essay addresses this rebuttal by the court and clarifies that in the context of India, the implementation of reservation policies was based on the premise that the abolition of untouchability was not sufficient to secure equality of opportunity and the battle for social equality will remain as long as we are struggling to deal with caste discrimination. This essay explains why the EWS quota is likely to be a poor tool for achieving economic equality or redressing social discrimination.