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 become
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


http://www.freepressjournal.in/FPJ/FPJ/2010/03/31/ArticleHtmls/31_03_2010_005_014.shtml?Mode=1


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.*
*
*

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"humanrights movement" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/humanrights-movement?hl=en.

Reply via email to