| Home | About | Introduction | Achives | Ideas & Comments | Documents | Today's Events | Contact Us |
 |
 |
||||
| Syed Shahabuddin is a well known in the political and academic circles as well as in the mass media and does not need an introduction. In his many incarnations he has been a university teacher, a diplomat, who served as an ambassador and a government official who was at the time of his seeking pre-mature retirement, the Joint Secretary in charge of South East Asia, the Indian Ocean and the Pacific in the Ministry of External Affairs. He was a MP for three terms between 1979 and 1996 and made a mark as a Parliamentarian. He has edited Muslim India, the monthly journal of research, documentation and reference from 1983 to 2002 and again from July 2006. He has been a regular contributor on current affairs in the media and a familiar participant in seminars and TV discussions. He has been a member of many learned bodies and associated with several Muslim institutions and organizations. More... |
||||
|
||||
 |
Sachar Report: Analysis of Approach & Strategy The data so painstakingly collected by Sachar Committee and so competently analyzed more than suffice for recognition by the State of the Muslim community, as a whole, as a Backward Class within the meaning of Article 15(4) of the Constitution. Such recognition would imply reservation in education, public employment, benefits of welfare and development programmes, and economic support like flow of bank credits, even reservation in legislatures on par with the SC/ST. Reservation in fact would open the door for participation and progress and for an equitable share in the services that the state provides and in all the benefits of development. One wonders why the Committee did not follow the logic of its own conclusions. The Committee appears to have deliberately skipped the issue and confined itself to a brief discussion, in a rather round-about manner in Para 5 of Chapter Two of the Report without coming to grips with the problem even reaching a conclusion. Indeed, the title of this paragraph speaks for itself: “In Lieu of a Conclusion”. One wishes that the Committee had discussed the pros and cons of provision of reservation for the Muslim community as a whole, its constitutionality and political feasibility. On one hand. the Report does make out a foolproof case for reservation both in terms of backwardness and prevailing communal bias and prejudice that the Muslims have to face in every sphere; on the other, perhaps on political considerations, the Committee ignored the logic of the situation and the data. Politics should have been left for the Government of the day to tackle and legality, for the Judiciary to decide and the Committee should have approached the problem in a purely academic and professional manner, diagnosed the problem in all its dimensions and suggested the best possible remedies. This is the “original sin” of the Committee, which leads to flaws in its approach and strategy and to inadequate, and sometimes impracticable, suggestions and recommendations. Political Empowerment The Committee virtually leaves the heart of the problem untouched, the political empowerment of a persistently deprived community, which is still being made to pay for the ‘sin’ of Partition and the real and imaginary crimes committed by its ‘forefathers’. Without political empowerment no group, in a multi-segmented polity, can participate governance, or have a finger on the levers of the decision-making process, or even enter the chambers where decisions were made. Political empowerment of a social group above all demands due representation in legislatures in proportion to its population and in keeping with the principles of democracy. It means reform in the electoral system, and commitment by the political parties to nurse potential cadres and to field them from winnable constituencies. On political front, the Report touches only one minor aspect and that too inadequately – the question of reservation of Muslim concentration constituencies for SC/ST. It does not mention the deliberate fragmentation of Muslim concentration pockets into more than one contiguous constituencies, which is designed to reduce their political weight. The question of rotation of reservation for SC/ST has long been debated and there is more or less a consensus that such constituencies in a given State or district should cover the highest possible share of their population. This means that constituencies with the highest SC/ST population should be reserved for them within the overall limit set by their proportion in the State population. Reservation of some Muslim concentration constituencies, which have a higher proportion of Muslims than SC/ST, in lieu of other available constituencies for the SC/ST, makes marginal contribution to under-representation of Muslims. The Committee throws up the alternative idea of nomination of minorities to elected bodies but nominations will always mean inclusion of non-representative persons close to the Government of the day, will not benefit the community nor add to its voice in management and governance. Even the Andhra Pradesh experiment has only marginally added to the representation of the minorities and made little impact. The Committee does recommend inclusion of Muslim Dalits in the list of SCs but they constitute only 1.3% of the Muslim population and it is doubtful whether these sub-communities, which are now listed as OBCs, would fare better in their second home, without a sub-categorization of the SCs which has been barred by the Supreme Court. Their real problem is their low population and wide dispersal. Territorial Approach Having rejected summarily the reservation option, the Committee has adopted the old territorial approach. Special; consideration for Muslims in what are called “Muslim concentration districts”. It can be easily established by reference to Census statistics that whatever the criterion for districts, either in terms of Muslim proportion of district population (20% or above) or minimum Muslim population in the district, (say 400,000 and above), the selected districts as a whole, roughly 125 in number, will have only 25% Muslims in their total population. This means that the territorial approach will leave 75% of the Muslims out in the cold. Further even in a fair selection for development benefits, or educational seats or Government jobs or bank credit the Muslims of these districts on the whole will not receive 25% of the outlay. It may be added that the territorial approach has other inbuilt limitations. In a communally charged society with sparse economy, with demand exceeding the supply, with dominant well-connected groups getting more than their due share, the Muslim community last in the queue will not receive a fair share. Also, there may be situations in which the community may not be in a position to field qualified eligible candidates in adequate numbers and its off-take would be reduced. Proportionality Approach The Committee has not discussed the alternative of Proportionality in all districts, whatever the proportion, in distribution of services and facilities and incentives provided by the State and in the benefits of development and welfare schemes at the distribution point. This would mean a much better coverage of the entire community which is dispersed throughout the country and which is in fact poorer, less educated and less developed in districts where it has a lower profile by population. Across-the-Board Approach Another approach indirectly adopted by the Committee in relation to PM‘s 15 Point Programme is that the in some schemes, Muslim community should receive 15% across the board. In effect, the community would receive much less because in the 100+ districts where it forms 20% or above of the population it will be limited to only 15% and in 450 other districts where its population is less than 15% it cannot aspire to the promised 15%. So, it would be a loser at both ends. Universalisation and Decentralisation The Committee should have proposed universalization of all development and welfare schemes just as school education under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan or rural employment under the Ministry of Rural Development. Universalisation will cut out bias and prejudice and will go a long way to remove frustration and sense of deprivation not only among Muslims but among all economically weak and politically powerless groups. But universalisation will depend upon availability of resources, inadequacy would imply selection among potential beneficiaries & would lead to injustice. Failing universalisation, the Committee should have studied possible impact of administrative decentralization and financial devolution down to the Panchayat level for delegating ‘Power to the People, which will ensure, if not immediately, over the years, equitable distribution of resources of benefits among various sections of the people because of transparency and immediacy. The Committee has not considered the impact of Panchayat Raj of minorities and weaker sections. Artifical Barrier of 50% The inherent weakness of the Report lies in that it has shied away from breaking new ground and found it casier to follow the beaten track. Had the Committee considered reservation for Muslims it would be forced to challenge and break through the artificial barrier of 50% set up by the Supreme Court on the totality of reservation quotas. Presently, under Mandal dispensation the Muslims have a notional share of 4.2% within the 27% for OBCs as a whole. If the Muslim community is recognized as a Backward Class, either as a community, or as a group of backward sub-communities, and given its due quota based of its level of backwardness, which the Committee has confirmed to be more or less the same as that of SC/ST and its population which it has under-estimated its entitlement would come to 12%. Unless the OBC quota of 27% itself is increased to match OBC population and level of backwardness as compared to SC/ST, it will not accept slicing of more than1/3rd for the Muslim Backwards. If overall quota for the OBCs is increased, the total will excaed 50% at least in some States, if not all. But, precisely this has been done in some States like Karnataka and Tamil Nadu and has been constitutionally protected. Karnataka Model of Sub-categoraisation It is not understood why the Committee has ignored the Karnataka model of sub-categorization of Backward Classes, which recognizes the Muslim community as a backward class and provides a separate sub-quota for it. It is regrettable that the Committee has in Box 2.1. (Page 10) misquoted Article 15 to put Muslims out of reservation by omitting the critical word ‘only’ from the text of the sub-Article 15(1). In fact, sub-Article 15(1) prohibits both religion-based and caste-based discrimination. But, permits both, if a religious community or a caste group is found to constitute a Backward Class under Sub-Article 15(4). The same word ‘only’ plays a critical role in Article 16 (2). The Committee should have collected data on benefits to the Muslim community under the Mandal regime, State by State and under the Union, to find out if the Muslims have got their notional share of 4.2%. If it found that they have not, this would strengthen the argument for a separate Sub-quota within the OBC quota. It may be added that the Committee has suggested reconciliation discrepancies between identitty of Muslim OBCs in various State lists and the Central List. Common list would bring roughly 3/4th of Muslim population within the OBC‘s and a sub-quota for the Muslim community or for specified sub-communities so listed would mean a step forward. Public Perception The Committee visited many state capitals and had a dialogue with representatives of the Muslim community and received many memoranda, which have been summarized in Chapter two dealing with public perception. Although the Committee reaches a balanced view that ‘all perceptions are not correct but they also not built in vacuum’, the Report unfortunately adopts an apologetic and diffident tone in dealing with the Muslim perceptions of the problems they face. To any objective observer, the submissions made by the Muslim community represent no more than the tip of the iceberg. They have been useful to the Committee in gauging the mental state of the community and the social environment in which it lives. The Committee should have analyzed the submissions, come to its own conclusions after checking them against evidence it collected otherwise and nailed down the obvious exaggeration or imagination but owned the rest as fact and used then in reaching its conclusions and suggesting remedial measures. To sum up, for development and empowerment of the Muslim community there is no other viable road except its recognition as a Backward Class, or a set of Backward Classes and provision of a sub-quota within the OBC quota Hoever due representation in legislatures in proportion to their population on par with the SC/ST will need a constitutional amendment The Committee unfortunately neither explored the reservation option for economic progress nor the higher-representation in Union and State legislatures for political empowerment. New Delhi, 1 January, 2007 The Sachar Report: Major Recommendations Analysed The Sachar Committee has classified issues as relating to Identity, Security and Equity but it has largely ignored the first two and concentrated on the third namely, Equity, particularly Equality of Opportunity in the Educational and Economic fields. Which normally increases with development. This omission is particularly serious on the question of Identity because it is related to a community sense of dignity. The persistent pattern of vilification and demonisation of its core beliefs and institutions have caused deep scars in the Muslim psyche and raised emotional blocks to its participation in the development process and to its full appreciation of the progress it has made since 1947. Denigration as an unwanted ‘other’ has not only made it conscious of victimization but reduced its faith in the democratic process. The Committee has unfortunately made no recommendation to fill the legal and administrative lacunae for dealing with hate crimes and or with communal incitement and provocation by anti-Muslim elements who seem to operate above the law and enjoy freedom of the land. Similarly, issues relating to security have been pushed under the carpet. Almost the entire community today lives under a blanket of suspicion, cocooned in a miasma of fear. Indeed, it is insecure not as much about bread as about life and honour. When communal poison bursts into communal violence, it not only causes material damage and creates a feeling of victim-hood but also shatters hope and faith. Even Muslims with means do not venture out of their ghettos for investment of their savings or seek better housing or send their children to good schools. They hesitate to assert their human and legal rights, given the indifference of the authorities. They shudder at the sight of the police because their cap and beard have become ‘symbols’ of terrorism. All these sap economic progress. The Report is unfortunately silent on how to remove the sense of insecurity in the Muslim mind, to take them out of their mental and emotional ghetto, to assure them of the rule of law and social order. Obvious remedies lie in raising Muslim presence in the police force and the armed forces, inducting Muslim officers in the CID the IB and the CBI and, above all, systematic composite posting in the Muslim concentration districts, blocks and thanas. The Report has correctly categorized issues of equity into three; as those common to all the poor, those common to all minorities and those specific to Muslims. Since the entire planning process is keyed to the elimination of poverty and other common problems, the Committee has wisely not spent much time over them. Since it comes to the conclusion that other religious communities comparable to the Muslims do not suffer the same degree of deprivation, it has felt free to deal exclusively with the Muslims which were indeed its mandate. But it should have formulate all its remedial recommendations and suggestions in a pan-Indian context so that they would apply not to Muslims exclusively but to all social groups and individuals anywhere facing similar situation. But in places, the Committee has broken its own rule by proposing special or exclusive schemes for the Muslims. As it recognized the Muslim community as a Backward Class, it would have been a simpler and more practicable approach to study the impact of all existing special provisions for the Backward Classes namely the SC, the ST and the OBC and apply them to the Muslims, or, at least devise parallel schemes or envision a common pool with equitable compartments for each beneficiary. Unfortunately the Committee did not take the trouble of collecting full information about the existing schemes for the SC, the ST or the OBC or analyzing them. The above critique does not mean that the Report has not thrown up many new ideas or suggestions which may be useful for the community and for the people as a whole. But many of these valuable suggestions have been lost in the academic verbiage of the voluminous presentation. Some recommendations do not appear to be implementable/ practicable either because in a country of continental dimension the distance between those who suffer and those who have the power to alleviate distress is not only long and tortuous but passes through many levels. Some of the recommendations are too academic and one wonders how such ideas can ever be translated into solutions for living situations. This brings us to a discussion of the concluding Chapter Twelve, ‘Looking Ahead, Perspectives and Recommendations’, divided into two sets: ‘General Policy Initiatives and Approaches’ and ‘Specific Initiatives for Muslims’. One need not examine them all in detail in a brief article. I shall leave the exercise to the interested academics and the appropriate authorities when the ideas are sought to be cast into administrative schemes and action programmes. The Committee has recommended the creation of an autonomous National Data Bank but has refrained from spelling out its modality and the responsibility for regular collection of relevant data. It is unimaginable that various Government departments shall maintain data relating to minorities or other deprived groups and regularly feed them to the NDB. It also recommends the setting up of an autonomous Assessment Monitoring Authority to evaluate development benefit to various communities. Perhaps it may have been more practicable to recommend the modification of the questionnaire for the decennial census to make it development-oriented and suggest cross tabulation of data relating to social identity and various development parameter. This would at least ensure a systematic & uniform decennial collection and analysis. These data are surely too important to be the subject of sample or random survey by a statistical organization The next general recommendation of the Committee is aimed at ‘enhancing the legal process for providing equal opportunities’. Certainly, the facts speak for themselves to establish the reality of hostile discrimination. If Muslims are not represented in almost every walk of national life, (except Bollywood and the Underworld) is it because, they are genetically different or deficient? Or is it because they hate progress and development? Or is it because they lack desire for a higher standard of living and better future for their children? Or is it because at every step, they face hostile discrimination, Constitution the rule of law and national commitment notwithstanding? But the Committee has its doubts. Perhaps it knows that biases and discriminations, which have deep roots, cannot be eliminated. So, it recommends establishing a ‘mechanism’ to look into individual and group grievances relating to equal opportunity. Such a mechanism may establish a facade of action but will not make a dent in the situation nor will it remove the negative perception in the deprived groups. Also the proposal lacks a sense of proportion; it exaggerates the capacity of the aggrieved millions to approach the Commission, go up the bureaucratic ladder in quest of justice. It also exaggerates the capacity of such a Commission to deliver justice, make awards and execute them. Bias and hostility have to be institutionally checked at every level, in every administrative activity, charged with distribution of jobs, services, concessions, benefits, contracts, and any commodity including higher education, which is in short supply. The remedy lies in transparent distribution through reservation or proportionalisation. This Committee has been at pains to avoid such ‘revolutionary’ concepts! The next objective the Committee tackles is enhancing participation in governance. Once again the symptoms of non-participation are well known. The diagnosis is perfect. The Report speaks of empowerment deficit of the deprived groups & calls upon them to engage in the democratic process and take the initiative to form a collective ‘agency’. But the Committee has not taken the trouble of analyzing the roots of political and electoral systems, which have disenfranchised the Muslims as well as deprived vast sections of the Hindu community of their legitimate share of power. This indeed meant going into how single-member constituencies are demarcated, how the electorate remains unrepresented in the first-past -the -poll system and how it systematically eliminates all minorities political or social from the corridors of power. No deprived group can enhance its representation under the present system. The Committee, however, suggests nomination. But how can nomination be a substitute for representation? The Committee has recommended de-reservation of high Muslim-concentration constituencies. This has been on the national anvil but even if it was done it will make only a marginal difference. The Committee has completely ignored fragmentation of Muslim concentration pockets into multiple constituencies. The Committee has even failed to appeal to the major political parties to field more Muslims candidates from winnable constituencies. Coming to education, the Committee suggests linking diversity in institutions of higher learning through a transparent and acceptable methodology (which has not been spelt out). This, in any case, can not work at lower levels, where the deprived need immediate support. It may perhaps work in professional institutes, as in allocation of public land for coopratives or distribution of residential units in Government financed or public housing. The concept of common public space is interesting but is not likely to be very helpful when every deprived community largely lives in its own ghetto with hardly any mutual interaction. These are all theoretical/fancy ideas, which do not change social reality. The Committee rightly desires Government functionaries to be sensitive to diversity and suggests training those in contact with the public but the smiling face and polite behavior can not be a substitute for a hostile environment which can be moderated only by due representation of the weaker sections and the deprived groups. Coming to specific policy recommendation for Muslims, the Committee has emphasized critical access to education which is as it should be. But the recommendation needs to focus on honest universalisation of equal and quality schooling. Given the national objective of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, one does not understand this diffidence of the Committee. Similarly it should have insisted on secular content & culture of school education so that the parents are not apprehensive about Hinduisation increasingly taking roots in the system. It should have spoken clearly on universal introduction of mother tongue as the medium of primary instruction and its teaching through school as a compulsory subject and on adequate provision for vocational education and training for the drop-outs through harnessing of both public and private endeavour The Committee has however, made a useful contribution by emphasizing that education is a primary duty of the state. But today elite schools receive financial support from the state which in some cities Government schools run in tents. Forgetting that it takes 15 years to produce a graduate, the Committee suggests diversity incentive for admission of Muslim students to degree or professional courses. Let us hope for the best but one can doubt whether the UGC can monitor the application of the diversity index, even in recognized and affiliated colleges. The Committee has not gone into the administrative hurdles their own institutions face at every step, particularly the requirement of ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the State government and denial of Government aid. The Committee should also have taken note of increasing commercialization of these institutions and recommended that the MEI’s, by definition, must have at least 50% students of the establishing community. On the question of Urdu, the Committee does not seem to be aware that among the five States of Urdu-concentration, three are non-Hindi States, namely, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka. The problems of Urdu education must be resolved within the framework of these language Formula and the by developing Urdu-Hindi composite course as the first language in place of Urdu in the non-Hindi States should be explained. The Committee is confused about the viability and utility of the Urdu medium high schools. The Committee has done well to leave Madrasas largely alone. The Scheme of Madarsa Modernization has failed with only about 1600 schools opting for it in the year 2006 but the Committee has made an excellent suggestion applicable at least to selected self-financing Madrasas of national eminence: recognition of their Sanads of Alim, Fazil and Kamil as equivalent to Higher Secondary, B.A. and M.A for academic exchange as well as for public employment. The Committee second point of emphasis is on bank credit. Which holds the key for development of self-employment among youth and self-help groups but the Committee has once again gone into the old rut by limiting credit facilities to 58 districts, which have more than 25% Muslims. Altogether, this will help conceptually only 25-30% of the total Muslim population. This suggestion will leave 70% of the Muslims as deprived of credit as ever. Can’t there be a special quota for self-employed entrepreneurs, who need core money, say, 100,100 or less, to set up their shop. The Committee wants the benefits of some schemes relating to development and welfare to be fairly distributed. The Committee should have been generous enough to recommend that the benefit of all development and welfare schemes should be equitably and proportionally available to all deprived groups at the operational level. When the Report comes to the vital question of gainful employment, the detailed system suggested by the Committee shall be examined by the Government but it can be foretold that in their totality they are hardly likely to improve Muslim employment in the public, for less in the private sector or even at lower levels with the monopoly enjoyed by the vested interests. The Committee has sineply repeated the 1983 proposal in the PM’s Programme for the Welfare of Minorities, of having Muslim representation in selection committees and boards. This has not worked and will not work in future because all recruitments are managed through internal dynamics and net-working. The pattern again could be broken only by statutory reservation. This is a key the Committee had in its hands and managed to drop it along the way! Coming to infrastructure in deprived Muslim pockets, whether in rural or urban areas, only allocation of earmarked resources for every inhabited area will work. Without statutory allocation and without decentralization of administrative authority and devolution of financial power to the lower levels, the deprived will continue to rot in their ghettos. What is amazing is that the Committee does not make any recommendation, even for the rehabilitation of those who are displaced from their ghettos in the name of slum clearance or development or beautification. The Committee has done well to propose a National Wakf Development Corporation. But, to retrieve, protect and fully utilize the wakf properties, legal support is needed. Public wakf properties should be treated as ‘public premises’ for purposes of vacation of encroachment or illegal occupation. They should also enjoy exemption from Rent Control and Ceiling laws. The Wakf Act should have a provision that at least 90% of the surplus income of a wakf estate after fulfilling the intent of the wakif should be utilized for educational and economic development of the community. The idea of creating an All India Wakf Service is half-baked & a non-starter. For one thing no public service can be restricted to Muslims only. One cannot but endorse the view of Committee that any initiative taken by the state can deliver goods only with the active participation of the local community and that any deprived group must also make its own contribution towards its development. At least it must throw up social activists to take full advantage of schemes. A notable feature of the Report is the conscious omission of the Judiciary and the Armed forces. Why shouldn’t the Muslims be represented in the Judiciary, what is largely nominated? Why should the Muslims be systematically kept out of the Armed Forces, just as they are kept out of the police force at the State level? Another blind spot in the Report is the non-visibility of the Muslims in discretionary nominations by the state, in boards corporations & undertakings. This is matter of political will. There is no lack of competent Muslims, who can fit the bill as well as those in position. Many constitutional posts such as public service commissions, the upper houses of the legislatures, posts which command status such as Vice-Chancellors and even the decision making bodies of major national and State political parties have very few Muslims. The sum total of deprivation and discrimination breeds frustration and alienation. This is a negation of plurality whose basic test is that at any given time it should be reflected in every aspect of national life. In the final analysis, the nation can ignore the plight of 1/7th of its population at its peril. The great purpose that the Report has served is to remove a national illusion. At least, it has recorded the symptoms & to some extent diagnosed the malady. The remedies suggested may end up as politically unviable or administratively impracticable. Some may demand systemic changes, for which the time has not yet come. As the Prime Minister is fond of repeating, we must learn to think ‘out of the box’ if the Muslim minority is to receive a ‘fair share’, but what is a ‘fair share’, Mr. Prime Minister? For a social group bypassed by developed for 50 long years? New Delhi 25 January 2007 Sachar Report: Where Does the Muslim Community Go from Here? No other report was awaited so eagerly; no other report has been discussed so widely by the Muslim Community. No other report had excited so much expectation. On the factual side, there is nothing new in the Sachar Report. Nearly all the facts compiled and analyzed so painstakingly & scientifically by the Sachar Committee were known. But, no other report, certainly not its predecessor, the Gopal Singh Panel Report, has been found so disappointing in its recommendations. No doubt, the Report honestly reflects its self-perception of neglect and deprivation, its consciousness of educational and socio-economic backwardness, which meant that with every passing year it simply lagged more and more behind the national caravan which was ever moving forward. All these 50 years, the Muslim community has been crying over its fate, cursing its leadership, blaming the Government, the political parties, the press and the intolerant Hindu, sometimes trying to stand up, stagger and catch up with the caravan but giving it up, fatigued & unequal to face the obstacles, inherent in the system and the environment. The Congress Manifesto 2004 and the UPA’s Common Minimum Programme raised their spirits. The Prime Minister’s public commitment to the welfare of the minorities and his repeated assurances generated hope. Having voted UPA to power and supportive of its basic ideology of Democracy, Secularism and Social Justice, they expected a real change. They found the Government sympathetic and understanding but they developed a perception over three years that changes were not taking place as fast as they expected. But the Government’s credibility, sympathy and sincerity were never in doubt. Over the years many things could have been done by the Government of the day for the deprived Community within the existing framework, without any amendment to the Constitution, without passing any new laws because the Community never asked for any special treatment or any exclusive concessions or favours. Perhaps the successive Governments were unable to manage the hostile forces, which never want anything to be done for the Muslims. They even left nationally agreed programmes unimplemented because they lacked political will and determination to take on anti-secular forces. The UPA Government, worried about facing charges of appeasement, thought of first establishing the fact of Muslim backwardness beyond any doubt and placing them on the public record and then to spell out its position on providing reasonable political, economic and social space for the besieged and deprived Community. So the Government established the Sachar Committee and its Report more than adequately fulfills this purpose. But, the Report, which perhaps few have studied in depth, is long on diagnosis and short on remedies! What is worse, it reads more like an academic thesis and is not very amenable to concretization. For some reason, it does not have a summary of its conclusions and suggestions or a clear cut list of its recommendations as normally such reports do. Chapter after chapter, it surveys the Muslim scene from different angles and all its analyses converge towards the basic conclusion that the Muslim community as a whole constitutes a Backward Class within the meaning of Article 15(4) of the Constitution, almost as backward as the SC/ST. The Committee apparently then loses its nerves and fails to make the obvious, the logical and the reasonable and recommendation that the Muslim community be recognized as a Backward Class and included in the OBC List, the list of Backward Classes other than the SC/ST and, given the historic circumstances, treated as a distinct category and provided, no more no less, the same provisions and the same measures as for the OBCs, before or under Mandal dispensation. Having deviated from the straight path, the Committee then finds itself in academic thickets then loses itself in theoretical generalities, wastes energy on marginal questions, deals with red herrings and makes impracticable suggestions, some related to minor and improbable aspects, and becomes oblivious of the main purpose of proposing measures which should make a difference to the educational, economic and political and social status of the Community in the foreseeable future, make an impact on its mind and strengthen the political will of a sympathetic Government to battle against the anti-secular forces. The Community is now beginning to feel that it has been provided with yet another report to shout about, yet another toy to play with. It may shout itself hoarse asking the Government to ‘implement the Sachar Report’ and yet nothing will happen because nothing can happen, unless and until workable demands are distilled from the Report and crystallized. Since its coming to power the UPA Government has taken several symbolic steps; its leadership has reiterated its commitment to secular values; and reassured the Muslim community of providing it due participation in the affairs of the nation; it has revived the National Integration Council; it has presented to the Parliament a draft bill on control of communal violence; It has established the Ministry of Minority Affairs; it has revised the Prime Minister’s 15-point Programme for the Welfare of the Minorities. Under its direction, the Planning Commission set up a Working Group on Minorities in preparation for the Plan XI. It has re-activated the National Commission for Minorities. Even the Minorities Cell of the Congress Part has been reconstituted. Some universal programmes for Rural Employment, Rural Health, not to speak of the on-going Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan have been launched with vigour, which, because of their universal scope, raise the hopes of all the marginalized and deprived. And yet despite all the inputs the Budget for the year 2007-08 offers little for the Community. Indeed, it mirrors the overall insensitivity, even hostility & has thrown cold water on all their hopes. Three months after the Report was submitted, the Muslim community stands at the cross-roads surrounded by the cacophony of the market place, without any firm offer of what it expected, a Minorities Package based on the Sachar Report and on suggestions from the media, the academe, the planners, the political parties and voluntary organizations. The Government, in a word, appears to be hesitant lest any step it takes generates another storm, an unmanageable Hindu backlash. Any Government particularly in a plural society with scarce economy has its political limitations. But a Government which is forever lost in keeping the plus and minus account or engaged in a zero-sum game, to which communalism has reduced our political system, and postpones hard decision bidding for time, is bound eventually to lose credit on both sides. In the meantime, the Community has held many seminars, symposia, workshops, meetings and conferences at various levels all over the country. It has been doing its home work but so far it has also failed to produce a concrete Charter of Demands which would be reasonable, practicable, just equitable and fair, which do not clash with the Constitution or demand fresh legislation, which do not even ask for anything special but only for what has been done or is being done for the SC/ST in the last 50 years. The Community has failed because it is divided. Not ideology but clash of personal and organizational ego divides them. Muslim organizations are simply busy constructing their own little masjids, anxious to win credit if something positive does happen. This struggle for credit must cease. Muslim non-political and voluntary organizations, educational, economic and social NGOs must sit down, finalise a set of minimum demands, and pressure the Government, peacefully and democratically, help it win support from the entire political spectrum. Muslim organizations of national eminence at least must rise above sectarian and personal considerations, take joint initiative and mobilize support of the Community and its well-wishers all over the country. The Charter should be realistic and focus on basic & immediate dimensions of backwardness - Deficits in Education, Employment and Participation. Some ideas for the Charter are as follows:- Recognition of Backwardness
1 March, 2007 |
| Origin & Action of JCMOE (Document-I) |
