This raises a key question: if the government’s response remained largely the same, why did Jarange continue his hunger strike for 20 days, putting his body through prolonged physical strain? What exactly was achieved during those 20 days? Did the government change its decisions, or were only the words in the note revised? And beyond the assurances, what actually changed?
The differences between the two government notes provide the details.
In the case of Kunbi records, the figures have changed. In the earlier note, the number of certificates distributed in the Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar division was stated as 3,16,977. In the new note, the figure has been revised to 3,13,897. The state-wide figure has also changed from 51,84,537 to 51,71,781.
However, the new note adds several points relating to further action. These include approval for action within 90 days, providing data through a pen drive, appointing district-wise nodal officers and immediately beginning the tour of the Shinde Committee.
There is also a significant change in the figures related to the Hyderabad Gazette. The earlier note stated that 3,966 applications had been received. Of these, 3,806 certificates had been distributed, 25 applications were pending and 135 applications had been rejected.
In the new note, the number of applications received is stated as 3,553, while 3,372 certificates have been distributed. The number of pending applications has increased to 50, while 131 applications have been rejected. The most notable change here is that pending applications have increased from 25 to 50.
There are also changes in the wording concerning the Satara-Kolhapur Gazette. The earlier note stated that the proposal had been sent to the Advocate General and included a detailed reference to whether the Attorney General’s opinion should be sought, the Law Department’s view and the 30-to-45-day period required to study the 1,173 pages of the Satara Gazette.
The new note states that the proposal was submitted to the Advocate General on August 31 and identifies Milind Sathe as the Advocate General and Birendra Saraf as the Special Counsel. However, the detailed reference to the earlier 30-to-45-day period and the reference to the Attorney General are absent from the new note.
At the same time, the government had proposed a 90-day extension for this process in the earlier draft as well as in the latest draft.
The figures relating to cases registered during the agitation, however, remain unchanged. A total of 1,509 cases were registered. Of these, 1,373 have been withdrawn, 118 are ineligible for withdrawal and 18 remain pending.
While these figures have not changed, the wording regarding further action has been revised. The earlier note mentioned the appointment of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Jalna, as the nodal officer. This reference does not appear in the new note. Instead, the new note mentions providing a list of the cases that have been withdrawn and reviewing again the cases that are ineligible for withdrawal and those that remain pending.
There are also changes in the figures relating to caste verification.
In the Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar division, the earlier note stated that 21,051 applications had been received. The new note puts the figure at 20,763.
The number of certificates issued has changed from 16,110 to 15,994. Rejected applications have declined from 64 to 60. Applications disposed of for other reasons have decreased from 2,456 to 2,176.
At the same time, the number of pending applications has increased from 2,421 to 2,533.
Taken together, the comparison shows that the figures relating to Kunbi records and the Hyderabad Gazette have changed. In the case of the Satara-Kolhapur Gazette, changes have largely been made to the details of the action and wording. The figures relating to cases registered during the agitation remain unchanged, although the language concerning further action has been revised. The figures relating to caste verification have also changed.
The comparison of the two government notes therefore puts the focus on the distinction between changes in figures, changes in wording and changes in actual action. The central question remains what concrete changes followed the 20-day hunger strike and whether the revised note represents a change in decisions or primarily changes in the details and wording of the government’s response.
About The Author
Comment List