Reservations for Muslims in government employment and education in India
Indian Constitution debars reservation on the basis of religion and caste. But the key word is ONLY. Reservation cannot be on the basis of only religion or only caste. If caste is identified with poverty, that becomes an acceptable proposition for reservation. In the same manner, if religion is either matched with caste or with poverty, that combination becomes acceptable. In as much as in Islam, there is no caste provision as Manu has laid down for Hindus, the only combination that will pass the legal muster, is religion plus poverty. Some Leftist groups have been making a career out of proving and imposing caste in Islam, under the pretext, that that combination will make Muslims eligible for constitutional provision for reservation. They have never come out sympathising with Muslims as a section of our citizenship that suffers from acute poverty, for reasons galore. The Supreme Court had after 63 years woken up to permit Andhra State proposal for 4% reservation to Muslim with only double disabilities: lower caste identified with menial professions as well as poverty. The need is to call for reservation for Muslim on the basis of poverty and backwardness. That will save them from the bureaucratic hassles of running around government offices and go through the corruption ridden system of granting caste certificate by bribing the officials and becoming part of the criminalising process of all state governance. That will further protect them from the Machiavellian strategies by the so called Left Liberals writers to divide Muslim community into castes and keep options for further scope for divide and discord or at worst assimilation into Hindu caste system itself.
Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai
Constitution, Quotas and Courts |
BY RAJINDER PURI There should be no surprise if Muslims get reservation quotas. The belief that the Constitution debarred reservation on the basis of religion was demolished earlier when the Supreme Court upheld reservation on the basis of caste in its judgment in the Mandal Case delivered on November 16, 1992. The Supreme Court allowed the government to subvert the spirit of the Constitution and grant reservation on the basis of caste. Now, how can it deny reservation on the basis of religion? Article 16(2) of the Constitution states: "No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any one of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State." This appears explicit enough in debarring reservation on the basis of religion or caste. However, there is a catch. The article debars discrimination on the basis of "only" religion or caste. Other qualifications added to religion or caste would allow reservation because these would then cease to be "only" religion or caste! Article 16(4) of the Constitution states: "Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State." So what did the Mandal Commission do? It utilized Article 16 (4) of the Constitution to create caste-based reservation. To identify backward classes the Mandal Commission assigned weight to various criteria to define backwardness. It gave many points to caste and very few points to economic status. Abracadabra! Certain castes became "backward classes". Reservation doors became open not only for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes but for any caste that could wield sufficient political clout to influence the politicians of any state. In the opinion of the Honourable Supreme Court does this conform to the spirit of the Constitution? If it does, then surely it should be possible for, say the Jats of Haryana, to one day obtain reservation by conforming to the Constitution. They too can be made backward. After all their cousins, the Yadavs, who are forward in Haryana, are backward in Uttar Pradesh. Why can't the Jats be forward in Uttar Pradesh and backward in Haryana? Given this background the Ranganath Mishra Report's proposal to grant reservation rights to Muslims should encounter no Constitutional impediment. The Supreme Court had cleared all the roadblocks. It is for people and for Supreme Court judges to consider whether the spirit of the Constitution is being upheld or not. The judges must introspect and decide for themselves whether their past judgments conformed to the spirit of the Constitution or were influenced by the prevailing political atmosphere. After the majority judgment (4:3) in the Mandal Case of 1992 eminent jurist late Nani Palkhiwala said: "Future historians of the Indian republic will regard 1992 as one of the saddest years in the history of our jurisprudence. This is the year in which the Supreme Court, by a majority continued, virtually in perpetuity, the scourge of casteism." Palkhiwala himself seemed to have had little doubt that the judges were influenced by the prevailing political atmosphere that overrode legal constraints. When Rajhbhoj, the MP from Pune, approached Palkhiwala to take up the case of minority religion Dalit members, Palkhiwala told him: "Bring 10 Lakh Dalits outside the Supreme Court when the case comes up, and I will get you your reservation!" That remark did not reflect a particularly high opinion about the Supreme Court's objectivity.As demands for reservation continue to mount unchecked, it is for the judges to consider whether the Supreme Court's past judgments on the quota issue were justified. If not, the Supreme Court must take steps to rectify the error. They would be serving the interests of the Supreme Court as well as of the nation. |
No comments:
Post a Comment