It is no coincidence that the Supreme Court’s judgment on Dalit Christians in India and the introduction of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill (FCRA Amendment Bill) in parliament came back-to-back during this Budget Session. The judgment declares that Dalits who convert to Christianity are not eligible to invoke the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, nor are they entitled to reservation in education and employment.This ruling does not confine itself to Scheduled Caste reservations alone. Its logic is likely to be extended to Dalit converts currently availing reservation under the OBC category.In states such as Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, converted Dalit Christians have a one percent reservation under the OBC category. That, too, may now be at risk, since the court’s reasoning rests on the claim that conversion to Christianity renders a person casteless.For a long time, these states have treated Dalit converts to Christianity as a Backward Class within India’s caste framework. The OBC category, even constitutionally, is not caste-free. It requires a caste certificate specifying the individual’s caste; only those castes listed as backward qualify for reservation in education and employment.Similarly, those applying under the BC “C” category (meant for converted Dalit Christians) must produce a certificate showing that they converted from a Dalit background.There is a view that this category lies in a grey area, since the court did not directly address the OBC status of Dalit Christians. But if this issue is litigated, the same reasoning – that conversion erases caste – may well be applied, putting this limited reservation in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in jeopardy.Also read: Hate Crimes in Odisha: India’s Best Kept SecretIt is arguable that an OBC convert to Christianity is already treated as a general category candidate. Until now, however, the legal system showed some recognition of the historical injustice of untouchability. This judgment marks a departure from that approach, aligning instead with the argument advanced by RSS/BJP legal advocates that Christianity is a foreign religion.Dr B.R. Ambedkar, in his search for a religion that could offer dignity to the untouchables, considered Christianity before embracing Buddhism. He recognised that Christianity offered freedom, equality and fraternity, and could serve as an engine of progress. Yet he feared that in India it might not fully dismantle caste, and that converts could be viewed as denationalised. In 1956, he embraced Buddhism along with five lakh Dalits, partly in response to this concern – even though, at the time, Dalit Buddhists were not eligible for reservation under the 1950 Presidential Order. That recognition came only in 1990.Ambedkar had anticipated that Christians might one day be targeted on grounds of nationalism. Under the present RSS/BJP regime, that apprehension appears to be borne out.Telangana–Andhra modelIn Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, the administrative understanding was that conversion removed untouchability but not caste location. In practice, untouchability often persisted even within church spaces, though its form evolved over time.The model adopted in undivided Andhra Pradesh treated Dalit Christians as part of the OBC framework – a middle-ground approach that acknowledged both religious change and social continuity. That middle ground is now under strain.The Supreme Court’s judgment departs from this understanding. By treating Christianity as entirely caste-free, it effectively forecloses caste-based claims by Christians, including those rooted in lived social realities.Why is caste now considered ‘Hindu’?This understanding does not arise from the constitution, but reflects the position taken by the RSS/BJP-led central government in court. Judges, like others, operate within broader currents of public discourse. When secularism and democracy shaped that discourse, judicial reasoning reflected those values to some degree.Over the past decade, however, a shift in ideological dominance has altered that landscape. The view that Christianity is a foreign religion – an anxiety Ambedkar himself weighed while choosing Buddhism – has gained ground.The constitution does not distinguish between “Indian” and “foreign” religions. Yet repeated assertions in media and public debate inevitably shape institutional thinking, including within the judiciary.Notably, this two-judge bench ruling arrives even as a constitutional bench has, for decades, been seized of the broader question of Dalit Christian rights.During the Mandal moment of the 1990s, many within the RSS/BJP intellectual ecosystem argued that caste was a product of Islam and Christianity. The judiciary, albeit cautiously, upheld OBC reservations despite the hierarchical order embedded in Hindu texts.Today, the argument has flipped: caste is now acknowledged as fundamentally Hindu. This is no small shift. As Ambedkar argued, caste-bound Hinduism is structurally resistant to reform. By that logic, this admission may ultimately pose a deeper challenge than earlier denials.The larger objectiveThe immediate effect of the judgment is to narrow Dalit Christians’ access to higher education and public employment. The FCRA Amendment Bill, meanwhile, threatens the institutional base – schools, colleges and hospitals – on which many depend.These institutions, often built with foreign philanthropic support since the colonial period, provide employment to Hindus, Christians, Sikhs including Dalit and Adivasi Christians and non-Christians. While many Dalit Christians remain agrarian labourers, a section has relied on these institutions for mobility.The Bill envisages a designated authority with powers that could extend to taking control of such institutions and transferring them to the state or private actors. In the absence of large Christian-owned corporate houses, and given the dominance of upper-caste Hindu-owned business groups – many aligned with the ruling ecosystem – there is a real possibility of asset transfer in that direction.Also read: Rubio Leaves Indian Christians Very DisappointedInstitutions such as the Christian Medical College in Vellore, and colleges like Loyola, St Xavier’s, St Thomas, St Joseph’s and St Stephen’s, have long produced high-quality graduates. Even where their student base has been socially mixed or upper-caste dominant, their management structures have provided employment to Christians. Their takeover would disrupt that ecosystem.Even historic churches built with foreign charity – such as the Medak Church in Telangana – could come under similar pressure. Across urban India, Christian properties occupy valuable land and sustain livelihoods. Their loss would have far-reaching consequences.The cumulative effect is a tightening legal and institutional squeeze on Christianity’s social presence.Do Shudras, Dalits and Adivasis benefit?A persistent campaign claims that minorities – especially Muslims and Christians – have appropriated resources that should have gone to SC/ST/OBC communities. Amplified by sections of media and intellectuals aligned with the RSS/BJP, this narrative has gained traction.Yet over more than a decade of rule, there is little evidence that OBCs or SC/STs have proportionately benefited. The primary gains appear to have accrued to upper-caste groups. Many of the most visible proponents of anti-minority arguments come from socially privileged backgrounds.The idealised vision of a pre-colonial “Sanatan” order obscures the fact that Shudras, Dalits and Adivasis were historically denied education and confined to labour within rigid hierarchies.Taken together, the Supreme Court judgment and the FCRA Bill signal a troubling direction. After Christians, similar legal strategies could be deployed against other marginalised groups, placing even existing reservation frameworks at risk. Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd is a political theorist, social activist and author. His latest book is The Shudra Rebellion.