|

May 28, 2015

India: Why Zeeshan’s job denial should be a game-changer (Praful Bidwai)

http://epaper.dnaindia.com/story.aspx?id=79180&boxid=20506&ed_date=2015-05-28&ed_code=820009&ed_page=8

Why Zeeshan’s job denial should be a game-changer

Praful Bidwai

It is well known that Indian Muslims suffer multiple forms of deprivation and discrimination, especially in access to education and white-collar jobs. But it’s only very rarely that an instance of blatant discrimination, practised consciously as policy, comes to light, based on hard, irrefutable evidence. That happened in the case of 22-year-old Zeeshan Ali Khan, a management graduate who applied for a job with a big Mumbai-based diamond export firm — only to be told: “We regret to inform you that we hire only non-Muslim candidates”.

The company, Hari Krishna Exports, with businesses in 50 countries, has denied that this is its policy, and blamed a human resources department “trainee”, who is “unaware” of corporate policy. It claims it has 71 Muslims on its 8,500-strong payroll. Its chairman said the employee didn’t “realise the gravity of her blunder”. When asked if it’s planning to take disciplinary action against her, he merely said: “What will we gain out of it?” This speaks of a strange moral calculus — especially if the employee acted on her own against company policy, which many people doubt.

Two encouraging things have happened since. The police have registered a complaint against the company under Section 153-B of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with hurting religious sentiments or denying persons their rights by virtue of their religion. Second, two of Zeeshan’s classmates, both Hindu, have decided not to take up a job with the firm. This is a welcome sign of solidarity.

Zeeshan would be ill-advised to let political parties take up his case. Rather, it should be pursued by the National and Maharashtra minorities commissions, and by conscientious individuals cutting across religious lines, as part of a major legal initiative. This must aim to secure from the higher judiciary an unambiguous interpretation of laws pertaining to non-discrimination on the grounds of religion. The initiative must include cases, too numerous to be counted, of the systematic exclusion of Muslims from cooperative housing societies, and landlords’ refusal to rent flats to them. This is the experience of middle-class and affluent Muslims, leave alone poor ones, in most Indian cities, who are now forced to move into ghettoes.

Such discrimination is not necessarily nastier than the other disadvantages or deprivations that most Indian Muslims suffer from, including denial of educational opportunities, healthcare facilities, municipal amenities and civic infrastructure in Muslim-majority areas, or a strong bias against employment in government jobs, access to bank lending, etc. The Sachar committee has documented all this amply.

What makes the exclusion of Muslims from certain neighbourhoods and their ghettoisation pernicious is the segregation that’s involved, and its ever newer forms and insidious nature. Landlords will agree to rent their houses, but suddenly renege on the deal after discovering the tenant’s religious identity. Chemists, florists, grocers and pizza-delivery boys will boycott the ghettoes. There will no government dispensaries, milk booths or bank branches in them. Autorickshaw drivers will charge you extra for getting there.

Segregation happens with predictable, if revolting, frequency, but for unstated reasons. Under it, Hindu and Muslim children will grow up loathing but not knowing one another. That’s why the reality of the discrimination, the vicious prejudice involved, the silent demonisation of a category of citizens must be revealed and punished by creating a special complaints commission, which aggrieved citizens can approach. This must be followed by an amendment to our anti-discrimination and hate-speech laws that’s similar to the Scheduled Castes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which reverses the burden of proof if the complaints commission finds a strong prima facie case.

The author is a writer, columnist and social science researcher based in Delhi

Published Date: May 28, 2015