Joginder Singh
Rather than seek empowerment through education, UP’s Muslims want to trade votes for community and caste-based reservation.
One man’s (in this case, party’s) need is another man’s opportunity. The principle followed in this unprincipled approach is that of Behati Ganga mein hath dho lo. Led by the Muslim Reservation Movement which includes several community leaders and clerics, Muslims in Uttar Pradesh have asked all political parties, especially the Congress, to take up the issue of reservation for the minority community in the Winter Session of Parliament.
They have served an ultimatum to the Government to introduce a quota especially for Dalit Muslims, and have made clear that their demand should be fulfilled or else the community will not vote for the party in the 2012 State Assembly election. One has always been under the impression that Muslims are not divided on caste lines, as Prophet Mohammed preached brotherhood and equality among all Muslims. Yet, it looks as if casteism has creeped into Islam, which is against the tenets of this religion.
In India, reservation is a monster which has been feeding on the political ambitions of our leaders. It was originally to last for 10 years and was applicable only for Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribes. However, reservation has now existed in India for 64 years and has been expanded to pander to various other groups and communities. Reservation does not necessarily benefit the marginalised classes but effectively caters to the requirements of vote-bank politics.
One of the primary reasons for the support of reservation politics is that it allows for the creation of vote-banks. These, however, lead to the division of society along the lines of caste, religion and gender. The final objective here is to perpetuate the rule of the ruler forever. Reservation politics is aimed at communities which have substantial votes to offer during elections. In the case of Muslims, for instance, the community forms nearly 20 per cent of the vote-bank in Uttar Pradesh, 28 per cent in Kerala, 31 per cent in Assam and about 22 per cent in West Bengal. Hence, they can substantially impact the outcome of elections.
The quota phenomenon is not unique to India but practised all over the world. In the US, for example, it is called affirmative action, and in the UK it is known as positive discrimination. Affirmative action in the US was introduced in the 1960s to address persisting inequalities between the White population and the African Americans. The specific term was first used to describe US Government policy in 1961. President JF Kennedy mandated affirmative action to ensure that “applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, colour, or national origin.”
In 1965, President Lyndon B Johnson elaborated on it by saying: “Nothing is more freighted with meaning for our own destiny than the revolution of the Negro American... In far too many ways American Negroes have been another nation — deprived of freedom, crippled by hatred, the doors of opportunity closed to hope... But freedom is not enough... You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair... Men and women of all races are born with the same range of abilities. But ability is not just the product of birth. Ability is stretched or stunted by the family that you live with, and the neighbourhood you live in, by the school you go to and the poverty or the richness of your surroundings. It is the product of a hundred unseen forces playing upon the little infant, the child, and finally the man.”
Johnson amended the previous executive order specifically mentioning discrimination on account of sex, as well. The UK also has a similar law that allows for discrimination in favour of minorities and other deprived sections of society. The problem with reservation in India is the way politicians abuse the system to develop vote banks. As a result, reservation is here to stay.
The Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh has written to the Prime Minister seeking reservation for Muslims. The Samajwadi Party also wants a separate quota for Muslims. As for the Congress, it is more than keen to accept the demand for it desperately wants the Muslim votes.
Clearly, there is no end to the reservation policy in India. It is not that we want to deprive our fellow countrymen of the benefits of reservation but it is time that economic status, and not caste identity becomes the criterion for reservation. Our present reservation policy is caste-based. While no precise data is available about the beneficial or harmful effects of reservation, we are all well aware of third-generation beneficiaries of caste-based quotas.
Reservation, introduced at the time of independence, was only meant to be a tool towards the ultimate goal of development of the most downtrodden sections of the society. Our experience of reservation since then shows that it has only led to the fragmentation of society on caste lines.
On November 25, 1949, participating in the Constituent Assembly debate, BR Ambedkar said: “In India there are castes. The castes are anti-national. In the first place, (they are anti-national) because they bring about separation in social life. They are anti-national also because they generate jealousy and antipathy between caste and caste. But we must overcome all these difficulties if we wish to become a nation in reality. For fraternity can be a fact only when there is a nation. Without fraternity, equality and liberty will be no deeper than coats of paint.”
Hindu society may be caste-based but the Indian Constitution is not based on a similar system. It positively forbids discrimination on the basis of caste, religion, place of birth and language. So there is no justification at all to provide or enable reservation on the basis of caste.
Chairman of the First Backward Class Commission Dattatreya Balkrushna Kalelkar had pleaded that reservations recommended on the basis of caste would not be in the interest of the country. He opined that the principle of caste should be eschewed altogether. Then alone, he said, would it be possible to help the extremely poor and deserving members of all the communities.
But the Government seems to have entangled itself in its own web. It is time it pays heed to former Prime Minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru, who in his letter dated June 27, 1961, wrote: “I have referred above to efficiency and to our getting out of our traditional roots. This necessitates our getting out of the old habit 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.”
Will our politicians and political parties resist the cautionary words of Nehru and Ambedkar?
No comments:
Post a Comment