This blog has, through its pages, been unequivocal that although reservations for the disadvantaged per se is not a bad idea, identifying the disadvantaged on the basis of commune or faith is a retrograde one, and one that deserves to be sent to no other place but the dustbin. Affirmative action loses its meaning when it becomes a sort of divisive mechanism, pitting people against their compatriots. And this is the danger that
The Sachar Commission, appointed by the Prime Minister to evaluate the social, economic, and educational status of Muslims in India, has made its submissions, and from early reports, one comes to the conclusion that Muslims are just one step away from having distinct reservations, or at best reservations within the current scheme for themselves. I scarcely expect that any legislation brought about as a response to this commission's recommendations would stand in the eyes of the judiciary, but then politicians are politicians.
Firstly, that a secular state should differentiate amongst its people on the basis of their faith is a most puzzling irony, and that too when its Constitution affirms through
- Article 14: The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the
- Article 15(1): The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any of them.
- Article 16(1): There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.
Let it be proven that, as in the case of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes, there exists a bias in the minds of recruiters, when it comes to the Muslim commune. If no such bias exists, then the issue cannot be hoped to be resolved merely by reserving seats for them at educational institutions and at organizations under the State. If the commune remains woefully inadequate as regards to education, social status and economic status, then it would be worthwhile to look first at what the commune itself is doing to alleviate its problems, and whether these measures, instituted by the commune, are effective, and display an inherent desire of the commune to improve its lot.
Let this not be seen as a tirade against Muslims. I have always supported reservations, but only when the guiding principle is economic status. That a rich man is capable to getting all facilities made available to him in this modern age, irrespective of his caste or faith, is a given fact. I would not like to believe that all Muslims or rather a majority of Muslims are so deprived that only reservations can provide them succor.
Should there be a bias, then the Constitution provides those afflicted by such a bias a strong weapon, that being
- Article 29(2): No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them.
Moreover, even under the Constitution, reservation was never viewed as an infinite process.
- Article 334 clearly states that reservation of seats in legislative bodies and special representation shall cease to have effect on the expiration of a period of fifty years from the commencement of the Constitution.
So basically what we would end up doing by granting Muslims or any other religious commune reservations solely on the basis of their religion would be to give them temporary crutches, which in no manner whatsoever would alleviate their problems, or resolve their issues. Once a man is given crutches to lean on, and is also made to believe that these crutches are his sole alternative, and without them, he would surely fall, even if his feet were to be able, this man would not be amenable to giving up his crutches.
The basic issue is not so much of ensuring fast development of a commune; it concerns the long-term progress of a people, a people who form an intrinsic part of this nation. Any piecemeal solution to their problems would only go to aggravate matters, only to further deepen the malaise. Let better judgment prevail!
3 comments:
Hey reddy, You seem to have taken great pains to get exact quotes from the constitution to support your argument. Good work.
Now about the content. If we knew better about the economic and social conditions of Muslims in India, we'd find out that a majority for them have little or no access to higher education. The levels of literacy are horribly low. I'd even go to the extent of saying that our growth in the urban economy has not been inclusive enough to take along many sections of the population including muslims. Besides, the larger issue has been the social integration in this new age economy. We might have made a lot of money in the stock markets but a number of high brow- posh societies in so called cosmopolitan cities like Mumbai still bar out entry of Muslims. The media attention on how difficult it was for some celebrities of Muslim faith to get accommodation in Mumbai only sheds a bit of light on the unwritten rule. I wish I had stats to back my claims. But I hope you will not disagree with the basic premise of my argument.
Now this is not to support reservations of any sort for any community. I'd rather support affirmative action which brings the level of basic education at par before doling out any preferential treatment.
NJ, it is erroneous to presume that the economic and social conditions of Muslims in India are local only to that commune. The situation is the same, be it Hindu, Muslim or otherwise. The lack of basic infrastructure hurts all equally, irrespective of the individual's faith.
That in Mumbai and elsewhere, individuals are unable to secure accommodation solely because they profess to one faith is distressing, but one must bear in mind that this matter had been brought to the notice of the High Court, which had upheld the creation of societies, which may restrict entry so as to allow only members of a particular faith or commune to become their constituents. And again, this is not local to only Muslims. The matter was more focused, I remember, on individuals who eat non-vegetarian food, rather than on religious beliefs. That Muslims and Christians have no religious injunctions against eating meat is solely incidental.
I am not anti-Muslim, and should so be seen, I am apologetic, but the point is that, inherently reservation based solely on communal affiliations are a retrograde concept, and serve no purpose beyond increasing the longevity of those very problems which it presumably must solve.
Well, I think there should not be any reservations for Muslims.
If somebody wants to behave as a sadist why should the whole country suffer. Their backwardness has more to do with their own religious beliefs and not social atrocities. Besides there are no constitutional grounds for giving them reservation. They are neither obscurely poor nor social outcasts. If they are poor, I think it’s more from choice than social conditions. I mean, who asked them to declare a fatwa against taking interest from bank? Who asks them to spread rumors that the polio drops for the children make them impotent? Who tells their kids to drop out of school? Statistics say that only 5% of the Muslim children complete schooling up to 12th. Then is it the society’s fault that they do not have respectable salaries because they are not well educated. The society did not teach them to look down upon main stream education. Even if they do follow the Madarassa system they can at least include modern education into it.
I think this vote bank politics is stretching too far. Muslims don’t need reservation neither do they deserve it. If only economic backwardness was the criteria for gaining reservation then there are many communities which need them. Why zero ion only on the Muslims.
On the whole this Muslim reservation business is just a political hype.
Post a Comment