User talk:KsVenkatesh

Male Kudiya Community The 1956 ST list indicates that the source of ST names is 1951 Census for 1956 ST list. But the 1956 ST list of Mysore state was an expansion of the 1950 ST list with the addition of 3 names (Gowdalu, Hakkipikki and Malaikudi). The 1956 ST list of Mysore has been translated to Hindi and notified in the Central Govt. Scheduling of Tribes: Maleru (ಮ಺ಲ ೇರು मालेरु) mystery resolved DOI: 10.9790/0837-20550627 www.iosrjournals.org 8 | Page Gazette in 1974 where ‘Maleru’ has been translated as मालेरु (ಮ಺ಲ ೇರು). Thus we get the confirmation that Maleru in 1950 ST list is मालेरु (ಮ಺ಲ ೇರು) and not the fictitious मलेरु (ಮಲ ೇರು). Hence, it is a confirmation that from 1881 Census to 1951 Census, मालेरु (ಮ಺ಲ ೇರು) community alone had been in existence and not the मलेरु (ಮಲ ೇರು). Obvious conclusion is that मलेरु (ಮಲ ೇರು) is an imaginary community. . Illustration 1. The portions of 1901 Mysore Census list of ‘tribes’ relevant to scheduling of tribes in 1950. The Maleru (without diacritic á) and Kannada version ಮಲ ೇರು (मलेरु) does not exist even under the Animist-Forest & Hill tribes. Instead, Máleru (ಮ಺ಲ ೇರು मालेरु) exists under Animist-Forest & Hill Tribes and Hindu-Temple Servants, both. Obviously, these are just two entries for the same community as a consequence of Census enumeration and collation of data (see the next section for the description on Maleru from VRT's glossary). 2.7 Animist Máleru (ಮ಺ಲ ೇರು) and Hindu Máleru (ಮ಺ಲ ೇರು) are the same community. The Animist-Forest & Hill tribe Máleru (ಮ಺ಲ ೇರು) and Hindu temple servant Máleru (ಮ಺ಲ ೇರು) in 1901 Census list are one and the same community. This conclusion is based on the hard fact. The clinching evidence is available in the glossary of castes written by V. R. Thyagaraja Aiyar [4]. VRT has indicated that the Maleru are comprising of both Hindus and Animists with traditional occupation as temple servants for both. The fact is that VRT has arrived at this conclusion based on the 1901 Census. This is clear from the Illustration 2. Hence, the 1901 Mysore Census Animist Máleru (ಮ಺ಲ ೇರು) were also really the ‘misnomer’ traditional occupation Temple Servants while being enumerated as animists too (see Section 2.11). With one or more enumeration of Máleru (ಮ಺ಲ ೇರು) as animists, the census collators must have sensed an apparent dilemma in showing them under Animists list with other communities because they were ‘advised’ by higher authorities to show traditional occupation as Forest & Hill tribes for other communities. Therefore, they avoided tinkering with that issue and simply entered Máleru (ಮ಺ಲ ೇರು) under the ‘misnomer’ Íraliga group under Animists because Hasalaru and Soliga too are not ‘sub-tribes’ of Íraliga (Sec.2.8). Ofcourse, the reality is that the ‘misnomer’ Temple Servant Máleru (ಮ಺ಲ ೇರು) were also real ‘Forest & Hill community’ as is clear from the statement that ‘the chief occupation is returned as cultivation and labour’. Labour and cultivation is carried out in Forests & hills Malnad where the distinction as towns, villages and hills is spurious. Scheduling of Tribes: Maleru (ಮ಺ಲ ೇರು मालेरु) mystery resolved DOI: 10.9790/0837-20550627 www.iosrjournals.org 11 | Page While the above interpretation explains VRT's single person entry as animist, the fact is that the 1891 Census Forest & Hill tribes have been re-packaged as 1901 Census Animist-Forest & Hill tribes. Obviously, in the 1891 Census too, enumerators must have used their own judgement and entered traditional/hereditary occupation for a large number of Maleru ('sic' Maaleru) as Forest & Hill tribes due to the fact of their residence in Forests & Hills and also because they were not the sub-caste of any main caste nor did they have any standard occupation nor a lifestyle anything comparable to civilized life which needs to be appreciated by the present day authorities by studying the past predicament of Maleru ('sic' Maaleru).

If Malekudiya are also known as Maleru, then the conclusion is that Malekudiya are a sub-tribe of Íraliga. This is because a section of authorities have made an inference that the so called primitive Maleru is a sub-tribe of Íraliga. Kudiya/Malekudiya/Malekudi/Malaikudi have not even been mentioned in the 1901 Mysore Census. Obvious reason is that they were not living within the geographical limits of the then Mysore state. In spite of Thurston writing in detail about Kudiya/Malekudiya community (in the coastal districts), he has not written that Malekudiya are a sub-tribe of Íraliga. Even the 1901 Census list does not indicate Malekudiya as a sub tribe of Íraliga. Hence, Maleru cannot be a sub-tribe of Íraliga group. In other words, Íraliga is not a group at all with any sub-tribes but a distinct community with only name variations as Íraliga, Illigaru and Iruliga. The summary is that, one section of the authorities (Member-NCST) implies that Maleru are a ‘sub-tribe’ of Malaikudi and the other section (Gautam Basu) expresses an opinion that Maleru are a sub-tribe of Íraliga. The fact is that both have interpreted wrongly even when the evidence pointed out that Maleru is none other than ‘sic’ Maaleru. Hence, the authorities are again contradicting themselves. Some ‘researchers’ have described so called primitive Maleru as if they are another version of Malaikudi tribe [1]. Actually, such pedestrian ‘research’ exists in abundance. One such ‘paper’ casually writes that Gowdalu (Goudlu) community (ST) is known as Malekudiyas [8]. This is a new ‘invention’. At this rate we may end up with some ‘super pedestrian research’ that will suggest that all the names in the Karnataka ST list are different names of a single tribe. Lokur committee has shown Gowdalu as having no synonym or sub-tribe. Specifically, Lokur committee has not shown Gowdalu as a synonym or sub-tribe of Malaikudi. Unfortunately, ‘authorities’ lend wrong credence for such bogus literature that results in wrongly fixing the issue in favour of a never-existed imaginary primitive Maleru. In this context, we may note that even the Lokur committee report cited at Section (3.3) proves that Maleru is neither a sub-tribe of Íraliga nor that of Malaikudi. Even the RGI has declared that ‘identity of tribal Maleru with Iruliga has not been substantiated’. The fact is that Íraliga and Malaikudi are not only distinct communities but also they inhabit distinct geographical regions. Íraliga are found in the Bangalore and Mysore region whereas Malaikudi are predominantly in South Canara, Coorg and lately (after 1960s) a splinter group in Malnad. An interesting fact is also that Gaudalu (ಗೌಡಲು) has been shown as a sub-caste of Vakkaliga in the 1901 Mysore Census, but later Gowdalu has been included in ST list. So authorities have no qualms about a ‘Vakkaliga’ sub-caste being declared as a scheduled tribe.

3.3 Lokur committee have not indicated Maleru as a sub-tribe of either Íraliga or Melakudi/Malaikudi. We may note an important point here. The Lokur committee appointed to revise the Schedules of Castes and Tribes (ST/ST list) has listed tribes of the then Mysore state (page 108, Appendix.VII). Maleru has been shown as having no synonym or sub-tribes. The tribe Kudiya has also been shown as having no synonym but Malaikudi and Melakudi as sub-tribes. Their report was submitted on 25th August, 1965. It is also important to note that Maleru have neither been declared as a synonym nor as a sub-tribe of Kudia/Melakudi/Malaikudi. This completely thrashes the rather loose inference to this effect by some writers which are unfortunately touted as authoritative literature of an imaginary tribe. This unequivocally nullifies the conclusion of the NCST that the Malaikudi people of Alekhan Horatti are the so called Malaikudi/Maleru. Also, Lokur committee has not indicated Maleru as a sub-group of Íraliga. 3.4 Maleyaru (मलेयरु ಮಲ ಯರು) and not Maleru (ಮಲ ೇರು मलेरु). While Malaikudi announces their community name as Malaikudi only, the inhabitants in that area address Malaikudi as Maleyaru (मलेयरु ಮಲ ಯರು) which must have been mistakenly entered as Maleru (ಮಲ ೇರು मलेरु) in school records by teachers with poor language skills as well as by some writers [11]. This is like addressing Gaudas as Gaudru in a polite and respectful manner which is the hallmark of the Kannada people of this region. Hence wrongly writing the name of Malaikudi as Maleru (ಮಲ ೇರು मलेरु) and defending it as the Scheduling of Tribes: Maleru (ಮ಺ಲ ೇರು मालेरु) mystery resolved DOI: 10.9790/0837-20550627 www.iosrjournals.org 22 | Page name of that community while the community itself is not claiming the same is wrong. Supreme Court has ruled that spellings of names in the SC/ST list are sacrosanct. School staff with poor English proficiency and halfbaked writers commit sacrilegious horrors by recklessly using spellings such as Malleru, Maleraru, Maleur, Maleuru, Male Maleru etc. Government social scientists, who are ‘social scientists’ only because of some university degree use their own prejudices and put a stamp of approval for such non-sense and become surrogate mothers for false inventions of non-existing community names. A section of ‘authorities’ happily gulp such gaffe to harass helpless communities.

3.5 No pre-1950 document available with the Govt to prove that the so called Malaikudi/Maleru existed in Mysore state and recommended for inclusion in ST list. The Maleru community was declared as a scheduled tribe along with 5 other names in the year 1950. Hence, it important to note that there is no document with the Govt to prove that the so called Malaikudi/ Maleru (ಮಲ ೇರು मलेरु) were only included in the ST list in the year 1950. No document exists with the Govt to prove that either such a community existed in the then Mysore state or a study was conducted on the so called Malaikudi/Maleru (ಮಲ ೇರು मलेरु) in 1950 or the name (ಮಲ ೇರು मलेरु) was recommended for inclusion in the ST list. In fact no study was done on any community to draw the ST list. The Member-NCST in his report has written that school record for the period between 1962-63 and 1998-99 has entries of Malaikudi/Maleru as Maleru and Malaikudi. That means even the school entries are also not available for the period before 1962. In other words, this supposed school document is a full 12 years after the scheduling of tribes in 1950. The Govt must provide concrete proof prior to 1950 both for their existence and also for the study on the so called Malaikudi/Maleru to prove the claim that Malaikudi/Maleru are the true entry in the ST list. If the argument is that there was no school in Alekhan Horatti before 1962 but they were there before 1950 and they were also known as Maleru, then authorities must have sent a report to higher authorities in Bangalore/Mysore. Otherwise how authorities in Bangalore would have recommended them for inclusion in ST? Hence, the authorities must produce such a pre-1950 document without which their claim is hollow. If they were known as Maleru before 1950 it would have appeared in the Census before that period because the existence of a school in 1962 or before ensures that teachers were available to enumerate them. The fact that no such pre-1950 Census document is available as Maleru proves that they were not known as Maleru and the name was ‘provided to them’ later for obvious reasons. Also if school existed in Horatti in 1962 or before, it is completely improper to consider such a community as primitive in the year 2005.

3.6 False classification as remoteness, shyness of contact etc. As per the NCST report, the so called Malaikudi/Maleru are living along with Vokkaliga Gowda. There are 23 families of Vokkaliga Gowda and only 15 families of so called Malaikudi/Maleru. If this community were to experience untouchability they would not have been able to live there alongwith Vokkaliga Gowda, later being a very powerful community. That also negates the hinted geographical isolation, shyness of contact and even the primitive traits. Ofcourse the so called primitive Maleru are not wandering in woods with bows and arrows but working in coffee estates and some have their own plantations. Inspite of all this Member-NCST has no difficulty in calling them as a primitive tribe who are supposedly on the verge of extinction. Actually they are thriving. Strangely, even the description in the book ‘People of India’ of this so called primitive Maleru describes them as Hindus following a rich tradition and clans. If this fictitious primitive Maleru (ಮಲ ೇರು मलेरु) were nomads engaged in hunting in the past, then the miserable past existence of the Maleru (‘sic’ Maaleru) must also be taken into account before writing them off as a forward community. The reality is that the name Maleru (ಮಲ ೇರು मलेरु) has been given to Malaikudi by some vested interests lately to knock out the real Maleru (‘sic’ Maaleru) from reservation benefits. The fact is that they are known only as Kudiya/Malaikudi/Melakudi/Malekudiya and not ಮಲ ೇರು (मलेरु).

In page 15 of the NCST report it has been written that ‘despite best efforts, the Commission could not obtain Hindi version of the Gazette Notification of the 1950 presidential Order.’ This is a totally incorrect statement. In page 217 ‘Member-NCST’ has written that ‘Maleru ‘sic’ Maaleru have taken the advantage of wrongly interpreted words of Maleru in Hindi.’ Obviously he is indirectly suggesting that the Gazette notified Hindi translation is wrong. Otherwise he would have happily mentioned that the Hindi translation is unofficial and hence unacceptable. Here we must note that the Karnataka Govt has admitted in writing that the Kannada translation of SC/ST names is unofficial and not authoritative. That renders the translation of Maleru as ಮಲ ೇರು (मलेरु) incorrect and hence unconstitutional. Further, if the Hindi translation of Maleru as मालेरु (ಮ಺ಲ ೇರು) done in 1974 is wrong, why the Govt has not initiated steps to correct the same? The reason is obvious. Firstly they have to conclusively establish that the so called other primitive Malaikudi/Maleru (ಮಲ ೇರು) was only included in the ST list in 1950. This requires the pre-1950 proof for the physical existence of such a community within the geographic boundary of the then Mysore state and further, documents to prove that a study was conducted on them and their name was forwarded to Central Govt before scheduling the tribes in 1950. In the absence of any concrete evidence regarding the entire sequence, the Govt cannot effect a change in Hindi translation. Therefore, the opinion of the member is just an opinion born out of some pre-conceived notion and not on hard facts. Therefore, in ‘‘the view of the commission’’, the NCST has avoided the translation issue. In page 31, Gautam Basu has argued that ‘‘Malerus who have been shown as forest and hill tribes in 1901 Census alone were scheduled tribes and who has rightly been included in the Constitution (Scheduled Scheduling of Tribes: Maleru (ಮ಺ಲ ೇರು मालेरु) mystery resolved DOI: 10.9790/0837-20550627 www.iosrjournals.org 24 | Page Tribes) Order 1950’’. His conclusion is that ‘sic’ Maaleru are Brahmins and hence they are not scheduled tribes. But the fact is that the name Maleru is written as Máleru (ಮ಺ಲ ೇರು मालेरु) under both the heads viz. Animists and Temple servants. Gautam Basu has avoided the use of diacritic as well as the Kannada version. He has not furnished any information as to whether there are any descendants of Animist Máleru (ಮ಺ಲ ೇರು मालेरु). He could not be expected to discharge this responsibility because he has not even mentioned the diacritic ‘á’ and Kannada version ಮ಺ಲ ೇರು (मालेरु). Also it is not clear whether Gautam Basu has deliberately avoided mentioning that Maleru are comprising of both Hindus and Animists as seen in the VRT's glossary. Ofcourse this entire exercise is to project the so called Forest & Hill tribe Máleru (ಮ಺ಲ ೇರು मालेरु)) as ಮಲ ೇರು (मलेरु). The avoidance of diacritic ‘á’ and Kannada version as ಮ಺ಲ ೇರು (मालेरु) is clearly to suit this ulterior motive. Sahitya Akademy has only duplicated Gautam Basu's ‘methodology’. Hence both have used this trick to wrongly conclude that temple servant Maleru is not ST. Besides, this action of Sahitya Academy is an undue use of power. Further, in the 1901 Census, the entry is that of Máleru (ಮ಺ಲ ೇರು मालेरु) alone and not ಮಲ ೇರು (मलेरु). Hence, their observation is at complete variance with the conclusion by the ‘Member-NCST’ that the so called Malaikudi/Maleru (ಮಲ ೇರು मलेरु) is the entry in the 1950 order. Member-NCST's line of argument is clearly a wishful thinking that the 1901 & 1950 entry should have been ಮಲ ೇರು (मलेरु) than a report of the fact. The fact is that the 1950 ST entry which flows from the 1901 Census entry is none other than Máleru (मालेरु ಮ಺ಲ ೇರು 'sic' Maaleru). In the ‘‘view of the commission’’ too, the NCST has intentionally avoided mentioning the Kannada version and the diacritic. The obvious conclusion is that they wanted to avoid supporting a view that it is none other than ಮ಺ಲ ೇರು (मालेरु Máleru ‘sic’ Maaleru) that was only declared as ST. Further, they have avoided a direct mention of Basu's opinion. But they have written that ‘‘there is every reason to believe that only the Malerus living in forests and on hills with their occupation as hunting and gathering of forest produce alone would have been included in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950’’. This has two ramifications. On the one hand the statement by the NCST makes it abundantly clear that they are not sure about their own conclusion. On the other hand, their statement is an indirect endorsement of Basu's conclusion. For the good measure, they have added ‘with their occupation as hunting and gathering of forest produce’. However, they have not furnished any valid evidence to support their artificial view that the so called true Maleru (ST) had their occupation as ‘hunting’. In this connection we must note that NCST has failed to furnish any evidence for even the existence of the so called primitive Maleru prior to the year 1950. Thus, the two segments of the ‘authorities’ have completely contradicted each other on the Maleru issue. Much effort has been invested by the Advocate for Sahitya Akademi to argue that Maleru (‘sic’ Maaleru) are Brahmins because of their so called traditional occupation as temple servants and hence they are not scheduled tribes. On the one hand this reveals his ignorance about Brahmin communities in various states being included in the ST list and on the other his ignorance about his statement that traditional occupation as temple servants renders Maleru (‘sic’ Maaleru) as Brahmins. Besides, he has not accounted for VRT’s glossary. Several communities have been shown as traditional occupation Priests but not listed as Brahmins. For example, Dásari, Sátáni and a few sub-castes of Lingayets such as Árádhya are traditional occupation Priests but they are not Brahmins. In contrast, a small section of Máleru could have been temple servants and the rest were real ‘Forest and Hill residents’. Hence, concluding Maleru (‘sic’ Maaleru) as Brahmins is nothing but prejudice. Whether the authorities argue that all temple servants are Brahmins? There is a world of difference between a temple servant and a Priest. A temple servant can be a lowly cleaner who could be from even the ‘lowest caste’ whereas a Priest has an exalted position of having the luxury of everybody touching his feet and also entry to the sanctum sanctorum. Maleru (‘sic’ Maaleru) have never been regarded as Priests. It is mentioned that ‘sic’ Maaleru are touchable. Is there any document to prove that the so called primitive Maleru are untouchables? The so called Malaikudi/Maleru are also not untouchables. Whether untouchability is the corner stone for determining one's Scheduled Tribes status? What is the difference between Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes? In the book ‘People of India’, it has been written that the so called primitive ಮಲ ೇರು (मलेरु) treats Adi Dravida (SC) and Adi Karnataka (SC) as low. Thurston writes that Kudiya/Malekudiya are not regarded as a polluting class, and can enter all parts of their landlords’ houses, except the kitchen and dining-room. Although the Constitution or the Parliament have not defined the term ‘tribe’, officials are never tired of mentioning the so called ‘tribal characteristics’ as though the definition has been handed down to them by God. The supposed definition of tribes are the shyness of contact, geographical isolation, distinctive culture, primitive traits and general backwardness. Whether wearing sacred thread and being vegetarian defeats these attributes? If so, it is better that, firstly the Parliament of India define ‘tribal characteristics’ and specifically Scheduling of Tribes: Maleru (ಮ಺ಲ ೇರು मालेरु) mystery resolved DOI: 10.9790/0837-20550627 www.iosrjournals.org 25 | Page exclude these two aspects. Of course that will put them in a dilemma about Gaddi, Phangwal, Jaunsari, Bhotia etc. with Brahmins and Rajputs being part of those communities but being declared as STs. Member-NCST has written in his report that Hasalaru are tribals. Ofcourse Hasalaru are mentioned in the ST list. But the point is that Hasalaru are living in the same area in Malnad where all other communities are living. Hence, there is no geographical isolation. They routinely interact with all other communities and no shyness of contact is even remotely evident. They observe the Hindu culture to the extent several other Hindu castes of comparable social level in that region observe. Otherwise, all the communities have to a smaller or greater extent some distinctive culture. This holds well for the primitive traits too. They were not even classified as the so called non-Hindu aboriginal tribe (Section 2.16 of this paper & 1881 Census vide VRT). Hence the inclusion of the name Hasalaru in the 1950 ST list is due its mention in the 1901 list of Animist-Forest & Hill tribe, which is similar to the mention of Maleru (‘sic’ Maaleru). On the other hand they experience social disability factors comparable to Holeya/Madiga. Hence, they eminently deserve to utilize the SC benefits instead of ST benefits. The fact of the matter is that Hasalaru are not a sub-caste of Holeya or any other main caste, they were not associated with any standard occupation and they were the residents of Malnad and hence in the Census enumeration and collation, they have been shown as a ‘tribe’ by virtue of their dwelling in Malnad. Ofcourse the Member-NCST was not really looking for the real tribal characteristics. In fact he has clearly looked for his own notion of a tribal. Therefore all the emphasis on the tribal characteristics is contrived. The Member-NCST has proceeded along the lines of the wrong impression that an ST community has to live a narrowly defined lifestyle to be accepted as a ‘tribe’ and hence declared that ಮ಺ಲ ೇರು (मालेरु ‘sic’ Maaleru) are not tribes. This amounts to not taking into account a little development, this community has achieved in the decades gone by, which should be appreciated instead of punished. He has hinted in a roundabout way that the Hindi translation of Maleru as मालेरु (ಮ಺ಲ ೇರು) is wrong without mentioning its Gazette notification. The approach by the Hon'ble member is a wrong precedent to set as this will result in according zero sanctity to official documents. That should be avoided at all cost. He has arrived at the wrong conclusion that Malaikudi/Malekudi are Maleru on the basis of perceived notion of how a ‘tribe is like’, the unreliable and mutually contradictory set of literature and inaccurate entries in the school records but without any support from the Census documents. He has not contradicted the ethnographic note or Census enumerators’ lists. He has also unambiguously recorded that ಮ಺ಲ ೇರು (मालेरु ‘sic’ Maaleru) have suffered historical injustice and needs to be accommodated in the Govt's positive discrimination regime. The Malekudi tribe of Alekhan Horatti in Mudigere Taluk is being presented as primitive Maleru (ಮಲ ೇರು मलेरु). Further, it is stated that this Malaikudi/Maleru tribals of Alekhan Horatti are working as labourers in the Coffee estates. The report also states that Maleru tribals are leading a primitive existence. It is clear that the job of Coffee estate owners/labourers and the primitive tribe status do not go together. The report is suffering from acute inconsistency. The Govt do not appear to have subjected the 6 communities in 1950 or the later additions to the test of the so called tribal characteristics when they were declared as STs. They continued to bloat the ST list with periodic additions so that the present Karnataka ST list consists of 50 names. Besides, the authorities themselves have never taken these tribal characteristics seriously. They have always looked for those characteristics in STs that supposedly represent the SCs as if there is no difference between SCs and STs. The authorities must realize that answers such as ‘‘documents pertaining to scheduling of tribes in 1950 are not available’’ renders the Govt itself as illegitimate. Either, the Govt should produce that document or resolve the false controversy in a humane manner. That is the spirit of democracy. Member-NCST has written that ‘sic’ Maaleru avoided accompanying them to Hasalaru colony. VRT writes in his ethnographic survey that ‘‘Tamil Holeyas take food in the houses of Kannada and Telugu sections, while the latter do not return the compliment, regarding the Tamil Holeyas as inferior in origin. The Gangadikar Holeyas, however, do not eat in the houses of even other Kannada Holeyas. Endogamy is strictly observed.’’ The fact is that the SC/ST are groups consisting of castes of widely varied perceptions of social status. By giving liberty to assail such a report, the Hon'ble judges of the Supreme Court have saved the NCST from a huge disgrace. Maleru (‘sic’ Maaleru) community has put in a commendable struggle to achieve progress which has contributed its tiny bit to the building of this nation called India. This should not translate to terming this community as ‘imposters’, persons possessing ‘intellectual engineering brain’ etc. amounting to terming this community as a bunch of criminals and thieves. The process of scheduling of tribes in 1950 was primarily an office job. If any mistake has been committed, the mistake was that of enumerating and collating this community under the Animist-Forest & Hill tribe in 1901 and the scheduling of tribes in 1950. The nation called India will gain much by accounting for its own administrative flaws in the years gone by and rectify the same in a manner that deem fit for a supposed democracy and a supposedly civilized country. We have proved that the Maleru in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 is none other than मालेरु (ಮ಺ಲ ೇರು ‘sic’ Maaleru). This is a consequence of Census enumeration of Máleru (ಮ಺ಲ ೇರು मालेरु) as animists too, collation of Máleru (ಮ಺ಲ ೇರು मालेरु) as misnomer traditional/hereditary occupation of Forest & Hill Tribe and the scheduling of tribes using the names of communities under Animist-Forest & Hill tribes. The authorities have wrongly named this community as ‘Maaleru Brahmin’ out of non-appreciation of facts and wrong notions. The fact is that the so called ‘Maaleru Brahmins’ were alone included in the ST list in 1950 as a consequence of enumerating and collating this community as Animists and Forest & Hill tribes. On the other hand no real document, especially no real pre-1950 document exists to either prove the existence of the so called Scheduling of Tribes: Maleru (ಮ಺ಲ ೇರು मालेरु) mystery resolved DOI: 10.9790/0837-20550627 www.iosrjournals.org 27 | Page primitive Maleru (ಮಲ ೇರು मलेरु) in the then Mysore state or a study on them to include them in the ST list in 1950. The later day literature and inaccurate entries in school documents that supposedly claim the existence of ಮಲ ೇರು (मलेरु) are all bogus. This hard fact calls for an extraordinary statesmanlike response from the authorities. Referring this issue to one more agency such as the Karnataka State Tribal Research Institute will only result in further expenditure to state exchequer. It is a futile exercise to examine whether a community is a ‘tribe’ or not in the year 2015 to decide whether that was the community that was included in the ST list in the year 1950. If at all any investigation needs to be conducted, it is to know the percentage of ‘forest and hill’ residents of Maleru (‘sic’ Maaleru) and their backwardness. The zero-cost, appropriate, permanent and an honourable solution to this problem is to put in public domain the 1950 file containing the basic document (and the related correspondence between the Mysore Govt and Central Govt) on the basis of which the then Mysore Govt recommended 6 names to Centre for declaration as STs. In addition, the Govt must also put in public domain the basic document used to transliterate Maleru as मालेरु (ಮ಺ಲ ೇರು) to Hindi in 1974. Thereupon, the just solution will be that the Govt must forthwith issue an order that ‘Maaleru’ is an unofficial transliteration of ‘Maleru (ST)’ community and bring the necessary amendment in the Parliament if required. Pursuant to this, the continuation of this community in the ST list will be as per the abundant wisdom of the Parliament of India. There lies the solution for this unfortunate controversy.