OBC quota affidavit controversy in MP:Govt accused of insulting Lord Ram and Dronacharya; here’s the full truth behind the viral content

In Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court will conduct daily hearings from October 8 on the matter of 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBC) in government jobs. Just before this important legal battle, Dr. Mohan Yadav’s state government has become embroiled in a major political and social controversy. The government has submitted 15,000 pages of documents in the Supreme Court. Some of these documents have gone viral on social media. They contain serious allegations against the government for insulting Lord Ram and Guru Dronacharya. These viral documents contain sharp comments on the old caste and varna system, which has created an uproar in state politics. However, the government has clarified that this viral content is not part of their main affidavit. This raises the question of what is the truth behind this viral content? Read the report… First know what is the viral content that has caused the controversy The documents that are going viral on social media cite two major mythological references to show the rigidity of the caste system 1. The Episode of Shambuka’s Killing: The viral document states, ‘The religious system was so strict that as a result of its violation, sage Shambuka was killed, even though Shambuka was performing penance. What problem could this act cause to anyone, but a person of lower caste performing noble work, gaining respect, and doing meditation was considered against the rules. King Ram punished the violation of social order by having Shambuka killed.’ 2. The Episode of Ekalavya: It further states, ‘Being a Bhil son, Dronacharya refused to teach Ekalavya. There are many such examples where capable individuals were denied education due to their lower caste status.’ As soon as these documents came to light, the opposition and several social organizations attacked the government. Allegations were made that the government has portrayed Hindu scriptures and deities in an insulting manner to support OBC reservation. Government said – Viral excerpt is not part of affidavit
As the matter escalated, the government and BJP organization went into defense mode. The government officially issued a statement clarifying that the excerpts that went viral on social media are not part of the government’s affidavit nor are they part of any declared or approved policy of the state. BJP’s state media in-charge Ashish Agarwal called it ‘propaganda by mischievous elements’. He said, ‘The truth is that the circulated document is from the 1983 report of the Madhya Pradesh State Backward Classes Commission (Mahajan Commission), not from the current administration. Reports of commissions formed during Congress government are being posted on social media without reading and understanding, spreading confusion.’ Where did the controversial content come from?
Actually, there was a hearing on September 24 in the OBC reservation case in the Supreme Court. Before this, a 15,000-page report was submitted on behalf of the state government. The petitioners’ lawyers said that new documents have been submitted by the government, which were received just a day before. Time should be given to study this. Which the court accepted. Know what is in these documents…? 80-page main affidavit: According to ministry sources, the government’s official position or affidavit is only 80 pages long. In this, the government has presented its legal and factual arguments in favor of 27% OBC reservation. The government claims that the viral excerpts are not found anywhere in this 80-page affidavit. 14,920 pages of Annexures: The remaining thousands of pages are actually annexures, which have been attached as evidence with the report. These include excerpts from reports of various commissions formed from time to time regarding OBC reservation over the past 42 years. 4 important reports were also attached with the affidavit Ramji Mahajan Commission: This commission was formed in 1983. Ramji Mahajan was a senior legislator during Arjun Singh’s government. In 1980, the government asked Ramji Mahajan to submit a detailed report on reservation. Three years later, the commission submitted its report. This is the oldest report regarding OBC reservation. The government claims that the viral content is taken from this report. State Backward Classes Commission Reports: From 1994 to 2011, the Backward Classes Commission has periodically submitted its reports and made recommendations regarding backward classes. These have also been attached as additional documents with the affidavit. Dr. BR Ambedkar Social Science University, Mahu: Excerpts from its report have also been included. The university submitted a detailed survey report to the government on July 28, 2023, about the social, economic, educational, and political status of backward classes in Madhya Pradesh. Gaurishankar Bisen Commission Report: The report of the Backward Class Welfare Commission, chaired by former minister Gaurishankar Bisen, has also been included in this. Why did the OBC reservation case reach the Supreme Court?
This controversy began in 2019 when the then Kamal Nath government, making a major political move just before the Lok Sabha elections, increased OBC reservation in the state from 14% to 27%. This decision was challenged in Jabalpur High Court, citing violation of the 50% reservation limit set by the Supreme Court in the Indira Sawhney case. The High Court stayed the increased reservation, since then this matter has been pending in courts. Now this case is in the Supreme Court for final hearing, where regular hearings will begin from October 8. If 27% reservation is granted, this will be the mathematics of seats
If the Supreme Court accepts Madhya Pradesh government’s arguments and approves 27% OBC reservation, the total reservation figure in the state will reach 63%. This figure is 13% more than the Supreme Court’s fixed reservation limit of 50%. Additionally, the central government has implemented 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), which is not included in this 63%. The government will have to prove in the Supreme Court that there are “extraordinary circumstances” in the state that justify exceeding the 50% limit. ​