Prof.
Makkhan Lal
Senior Fellow, VIF
Among the political
parties, who treat Muslims as a vote-bank, the clamour for the reservations for
Muslims is increasing every day. Every time elections, be it of a State
Assembly or the Parliament, approach the pitch for reservation for Muslims
increases. Recently held Assembly election in Uttar Pradesh which has sizable
presence of Muslims population, is an example. Various political parties
promised from 9% reservations 18% reservations for the Muslims in Government
jobs and educational institutions. It is ironical that Prime Minister of India
should declare from the Rampart of the Lal Qila on 15th August
2007 that “Muslims have the first right on the resources of the country.” This
is the mental makeup of the Prime Minister and the largest political party
which claims the legacy of the Freedom movement, then what can be said about
smaller leaders and the parties. The Congress leaders, freedom fighters, the
Constituent Assembly and Jawaharlal Nehru had given enough thought on the issue
and felt that reservation of any kind will be detrimental for the development
of the nation and a cohesive society.
These leaders often quote
Justice Ranganath Mishra Commission and Justice Sachar Committee Reports for
such reservations for Muslims. This is despite the fact that Muslims are
enjoying the benefits of reservation having been included in various states
lists for the OBC/BC/SC and ST; despite the fact that Islam or Christianity
denies existence of caste system within its fold.
Several times in the past
separate reservations enacted in the name of religious denominations have been
struck down by courts and the latest is the judgement delivered by Andhra
Pradesh High Court declaring 4.5% sub-quota for the Muslims within 27% quota
for the OBCs as unconstitutional. Predictably, the Central Government appealed
for a stay of Andhra Pradesh High Court’s judgement. After hearing the matter
argued by the Attorney General of India the Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to
stay Andhra Pradesh High Court’s judgement and indeed made indicting comments
on the Government that there is no rationale and justification for 4.5%
sub-reservation for the Muslims within the 27% quota for the OBCs. . The
Supreme Court criticized the government for the way it had handled the
"complex" and "sensitive" issue. The apex court had also
expressed its "unhappiness" that the Centre was blaming the High
Court when it had itself failed to produce documents to support its case.
Justice
Ranganath Mishra Commission
A ‘National Commission
for Religious and Linguistic Minorities’ was set up by the Government of India
in October 2004 under the Chairmanship of Justice Ranganath Mishra t. Other
members were Prof. Tahir Mahmood (Muslim), Dr. Anil Wilson (Christian), Dr.
Mohinder Singh (Sikh) and Mrs. Asha Das (SC and a former IAS officer) as Member
Secretary. The Commission submitted its report in May 2007.
The terms of reference of
the Commission were:
1. To
suggest criteria for identification of socially and economically backward sections
among religious and linguistic minorities;
2. To
recommend measures for welfare of socially and economically backward sections
and among religious and linguistic minorities, including reservation in
education and government employment; and
3. To
suggest necessary constitutional, legal and administrative modalities required
for the implementation of its recommendations.
However, subsequently
following point was also added to the above terms of reference:
“To
give its recommendations on the issues raised in writ petitions 189/04 and
94/05 filed in Supreme Court and in certain High Courts, relating to para 3 of
the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950 in the context of ceiling of 50
per cent on reservations as also the modalities of inclusion in the list of
scheduled Castes.”
The Commission lists
following communities as recognized minorities: Muslims, Christians, Sikhs,
Buddhists, Jains and Parsi. Accepting the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgement in TMA
Pai Foundations and others Vs State of Karnataka and others the
Commission says that “for the purpose of Article 30 a minority, whether
linguistic or religious, is determinable with reference to a state and not by
taking into consideration the population of the country as a whole.”
The Commission took the
trouble of going through the economic, education and employment opportunities
for all the people of India on the basis of religious denominations and to its
dismay it found that by-and-large no substantial gaps exists among the various
communities/religious groups – be it Hindus, Muslims or Christians. They are
all suffering same level of disadvantages or having almost the same level of
opportunities. In fact, in many aspects minorities and especially Muslims and
Christians are doing much better. After discussing various issues like
education, poverty, employment opportunities, caste and social status, and the
various measures undertaken for the upliftment of disadvantaged groups, the
Commission expresses it complete disillusionment with the existing system of
reservation. It concluded as follows:
1. The
inclusion of an entire caste, tribe or class in the list, is contrary to the
principle of social justice. No 'caste’, or class or tribe suffer from social, economic
and educational deprivations as a whole. Class or caste or tribe as a criterion
identifying the socio-economic backward has become totally irrelevant. The only
option is to identify families that are socially and economically backward and
devise criteria that are implementable. (Chapter 6, para 40),
2. The
lack of a system to regularly assess the impact on castes, tribes or classes
enlisted of schemes and programme under implementation, to exclude categories
either wrongly included in the list or no longer being eligible, has further
complicated the situation. Non-exclusion of the ineligible has marginalised the
poorest and most backward amongst various categories including the minorities.
(Chapter 6, Para 41)
3. Religion
or castes do not determine 'socio-economic backwardness. Poverty is not
religion or caste based and the socially, economically backward should be
identified on uniformity applicable criterion throughout the country
irrespective of caste, creed / religion affirmatives’. (Chapter 6, Para 42)
4. The
poorest of the poor families should get opportunities for advancement. Those
falling in the creamy layer category should be excluded from the lists of
backwards. Family-wise data should be collected and treated as valid for at
least ten years and renewed periodically. Benefits of reservations should be
made time-bound and for one generation only. (Chapter 6, Para 45 to 49)
5. All
lists (SC/ST/OBC) have been prepared without any scientific basis (no data base
as no surveys were undertaken). (Chapter 6, para 65)
6. Since
BPL (below poverty line) lists are prepared on the basis of social/educational
and economic criteria, they are more scientific. They are also revised
periodically. BPL lists should, therefore, be made eligible for grant of
reservation without distinction on caste, class, groups or religion basis.”
(Chapter 10, Para13)
However, all good
intension end here. When it came for suggesting concrete steps for a fair
reservation system Commission not only failed in recommending any such measure
but also to make the matter worse it jumped into the same rotten system, for
the inclusion of Minorities also in the categories of OBC/BC/SC/ST. The
recommendations read like a charter of demands on behalf of Muslims rather than
a Commission’s report on all religious and linguistic minorities of India which
also include Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians and so on. It says:
“We
recommend that in the matter of criteria for identifying backward classes there
should be absolutely no discrimination whatsoever between the majority
community and the minorities; and, therefore, the criteria now applied for this
purpose to the majority community whatever that criteria may be - must be
unreservedly applied also to all the minorities…. “To be more specific we recommend
that all those social and vocational groups among the minorities who but for
their religious identity would have been covered by the present net of
Scheduled Castes should be unquestionably treated as socially backward,
irrespective of whether the religion of those other communities recognises the
caste system or not…. that the caste system should be recognised as a general
social characteristic of the Indian society as a whole, without questioning
whether the philosophy and teachings of any particular religion recognise it or
not… (Chapter 10, Paras 5-16)
Unbelievable, as it may
sound, the Commission Members totally forgot that reservations for SC/ST come
into force because of the peculiar social-system and religious practices of
Hindu society. They forget that it is this cast system for which Hindu society
is constantly berated at political, intellectual, social, religious and
academic platforms. Can the Islam and Christianity accept that in their social
and religious practices they are same as their fellow Hindus? Are they willing
to accept that caste system exists in the Islam and Christianity as a part of
religious and social tenets?
The Member-Secretary very
rightly questioned the wisdom of the Commission regarding the existence of
caste system in the Islam and Christianity and submitted a 13 pages Note of
Dissent. The Commission had no cogent reply to this note of dissent.
Sachar
Committee Report
Justice Ranganath Mishra
Commission report perhaps fell short of Government’s expectations, at least from
the point of view of enhancing Muslims’ tilt toward the Congress. The
Government of the day started looking for some other avenues for catering to
the Muslims alone. Justice Rajinder Sachar Committee, appointed on 9th March
2005, filled this space. What was missing in the report of Mishra Commision,
Sachar Committee compensated that in ample – reservation in the legislature and
elected/political bodies.
Sachar Committee was
ostensibly appointed by the UPA Government to look into the matters concerning
“Social, Economic and Educational Status of the Muslim Community”. The
subject matter itself shows as if the social, economic and educational problems
in the other communities and among the followers of other religions in India do
not exist. If that is not the case, then it can be safely said that even if the
social, economic and educational problems do exist in other communities and
amongst the followers of other religions in India, they do not merit any
attention because they do not form a vote-bank or they do not form a “very
strong, well knit and well-organized minority… that could force the partition
of the country.”1 Be it as it may.
However, while going
through Sachar Committee report, one can see that it is not only full of
inaccurate data but also in many areas it dwells in the realm of fantasy. A
large number of problems and deprivations that are being faced by most of the
Indians, irrespective of caste, creed and religion, have been presented as
those of Muslims’ alone. Many of the problems discussed in the report have
nothing to do with the polity, government and the economic condition. They
emanate directly from the social customs and the religious beliefs. It is
impossible to believe that Justice Sachar and his learned colleagues are
unaware of this aspect of the problem. They have simply ignored it. The entire
report reads like compilation of reasonable and unreasonable complaints,
grievances and demands of Muslims since independence.
One can reasonably expect
that many people will continue to discuss various aspects of this report for
sometimes to come. Our purpose is limited; only to discuss the insinuating
statement concerning the ‘political participation of the Muslims’ and the
recommendations that the report has made in the matter. The notification of the
Government of India certainly had not mandated the Committee to go into
political matters. But it still has gone into it. What is most shocking is that
it has suggested the very same remedy which was based on two-nation theory that
finally led to the unprecedented human miseries, both for the Hindus and
Muslims, and partition of the country. The Committee has recommended
reservations in the legislature and in the other elected bodies besides having
reservations in the services, educational institutions and public and private
sectors.
These recommendations
though discussed and contained in just two paragraphs of the report, become
significant in the light of explanations given by Abusaleh Shariff, Member
Secretary in the Sachar Committee. Mr. Shariff writes:
“It is
a cruel irony that the development process by passed in particular Muslims who
stayed back in India after the partition – those from Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and
West Bengal.
The
root cause of this neglect is lack of political empowerment. While the
Constitution and the democratic framework allowed Muslims to maintain their
identity and profess their faith, their representation in political system has
suffered. This impacted their participation in governance.”
After this the Mr.
Shariff talks about the population ratio in terms of Muslims belonging to the
OBC, SC and ST categories. This is nothing less than a revelation that among
the Muslims there exists caste system which discriminated them socially within
the realm of Islam. Mr. Shariff now gives the solution of the problem:
“However,
problems of Muslim deprivation cannot be addressed adequately through extension
and implementation of reservations alone. OBC reservations apply only to public
employment and now at higher levels of education. With the report detailing the
nature of discrimination against Muslim, the challenge before Government,
political class, private sector and civil society is to create institutional
mechanism t ensure the delivery of essential public goods.
“To
begin with, Muslims should be represented in political bodies, policy-making
agencies, administration and law-enforcement agencies in relation to their
share in the population.”
Reservation
and the Constituent Assembly
The question of
reservation in the services and in the elected bodies for the religious
minorities was considered and discussed in detail by the Constituent Assembly.
It constituted an Advisory Committee of 43 eminent political and religious
leaders and social workers. The Committee was headed by was Shri S.C.
Mookerjee, a Christian. Some of the Members were Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Khan
Abdul Samad Khan, Hifzur Rehman, Syed Ali Zaheer, Abdul Quiyum Ansari,
Chaudhari Khaliquzzam, Saiyid Jafar Imam, Haji Abdul Sathar, Haji Isaq Seth.
Jawaharlal Nehru, and Sardar Patel, Rajendra Prasad and B.R. Ambedakar (for the
speeches of some of the leaders see earlier article on reservation on VIF web
site - Reservation Based on Religion is Anti-Constitution).
However, the
recommendations of the Advisory Committee were taken up for the discussion in
the Constituent Assembly on 27 and 28 August 1948 and then again for two days,
25 and 26 May 1949. While submitting its recommendations to the Constituent
Assembly the Committee reported:
“The
Committee considering the whole situation came to the conclusion that the time
has come, when the vast majority of the minority communities have themselves
realised after great reflection the evil effects in the past of such
reservation on the minorities themselves, that the reservations should be
dropped.”
The recommendations as
adopted by the Assembly were included in the Draft Constitution. In nutshell
the committee recommended that:
“It was
no longer appropriate in the context of free India and of present conditions
that there should be reservation of seats for Muslims, Christians, Sikhs or any
other religious minority. Although the abolition of separate electorates had
removed much of the poison from the body politic, the reservation of seats for
religious communities, it was felt, did lead to a certain degree of separatism
and was to that extent contrary to the conception of secular democratic
State."
On the issue of
reservation in public services it was recommended that there shall be no
reservation in the public services and competitive services except for the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
The Constituent Assembly
debates (Vol. V) on the issue of religion based reservation is an eye opener.
Most of the Muslim leaders like Z.H. Lari, Naziruddin Ahmad, Begum Aizaz Rasul,
Muhammad Ismail Khan, Tajmul Hussain, Maulan Hasrat Mohani, and Col. B.H.
Zaidi, who spoke on the occasion said in one voice that reservation on the
basis of religion has been responsible for the division of country and is
certainly an evil. They opposed any kind of reservation for Muslims just
because they happen to be Muslims and have been enjoying reservation since
1906.
Jawaharlal Nehru speaking
on 26th May 1949 in the Constituent Assembly on the issue of
reservation based on religion said:
“Where
you are up against a full- blooded democracy, if you seek to give safeguards to
minority, and a relatively small minority, you isolate it. May be you protect
it to a slight extent, but at what cost? At the cost of isolating it and
keeping it away from the main current in which the majority is going, – I am
talking on the political plane of course – at the cost of forfeiting that inner
sympathy and fellow-feeling with the majority. … It is a bad thing for any
small group or minority to make it appear to the world and to the majority that
"we wish to keep apart from you, that we do not trust you, that we look to
ourselves and that therefore we want safeguards and other things". The
result is that they may get one anna in the rupee of protection at the cost of
the remaining fifteen annas.”
Later, on the issue of
any kind of reservations in general Jawaharlal Nehru wrote to all the Chief
Ministers on 27 June 1961:
“I have
referred above to efficiency and to our getting out of our traditional ruts.
This necessitates our getting out of the old habits of reservations and
particular privileges being given to this caste or that group. The recent
meeting we held here, at which the Chief Ministers were present, to consider
national integration, laid down that help should be given on economic considerations
and not on caste. It is true that we are tied up with certain rules and
conventions about helping the scheduled castes and tribes. They deserve help
but, even so I dislike any kind of reservation, more particularly in
Services. I react strongly against anything which leads to inefficiency and
second-rate standards. I want my country to be a first class country in
everything. The moment we encourage the second-rate, we are lost.
“The
only real way to help a backward group is to give opportunities of good
education; this includes technical education which is becoming more and more
important. Everything else is provision of some kind of crutches which do not
add to the strength or health of the body. We
have made recently two decisions which are very important: one is, universal
free elementary education, that is the base; and the second is scholarships on
a very wide scale at every grade of education to the bright boys and girls, and
this applies not merely to the literary education, but, much more so, to
technical, scientific and medical training. I lay stress on the bright and able
boys and girls because it is only they who will raise our standards. I have no
doubt that there is a vast reservoir of potential talent in this country if
only we can give it opportunity.
“But if
we go in for reservations on communal and caste basis, we swamp the bright and
able people and remain second-rate or third-rate. I am grieved to learn how far
this business of reservation has gone based on communal considerations. It has
amazed me to learn that even promotions are based some times on communal or
caste considerations. This way lays not only folly, but disaster. Let us help
the backward groups by all means, but never at the cost of efficiency. How are
we going to build the public sector or indeed any sector with second
rate-people?”
For
Part I Click here : (Reservation Based on Religion is Anti-Constitution)
