( 2 opinion pieces and a book review below)
Kashmir Times
May 10, 2007
Editorial
Concern for minorities
Not treated as equal citizens but only a vote bank
It is said that, on the election eve, it is the voter who is the king. The cynics reiterate it with a distorted emphasis to assert that 'only on the election eve' are the sovereign voters the king. If both these statements are true, in varying degress, they are more true in the case of minorities, who are collectively woeed to vote in a group for a party that promises them the most and appear the most trustworthy. But, over the years, now that free India is sixty year old, the minorities, which is virtually a euphemism for Muslims, have come to see through these pre-election promises, which are forgotten as soon as the voters had been cast. Some of their leaders are already pointing it out that all the major parties, who had promised them so much during the UP assembly election that was over two days ago, had not evinced the slightest concern for their welfare, when a few months earlier the Sachar Committee's report was published exposing the highly dismal state of their economic condition and their poor, if not negligible, presence in government jobs, in general and in certain categories of jobs and in the officers' cadre, in particular. If Muslims constitute around 15% of India's total population, their share in central government services and those of most state governments is less than its half. The most pathetic is their share of jobs in West Bengal where, with 25% of its population, they occupy hardly 4% of government jobs. Their presence in institutions of higher learning, like universities, the IITs, the IIMs etc. too is pathetically miniscule.
True, much of these can be attributed to the fact that the Muslims have always remained behind the Hindus, economically and educationally. But, in fact, there is more to it than meets ones eyes normally. A little investigation confirms the uncomfortable suspicion that the Muslims were never welcome in government jobs, especially in those viewed as sensitive ones from the so-called national security point of view and that in course of decades has made them victims of the paralysing belief that these jobs are not meant for them, however deserving some of them may prove to be in the tests. Actually, it has come to light only recently that none but the first Home Secretary to the Government of India had sent a secret circular to all state governments and central departments asking them to make a list of their Muslim employees with doubtful loyalties to India. That, obviously, set the ball rolling and that is why even today, after sixty years, there are hardly a couple of Muslim officers in the IB and none in the RAW. Their present number is too few in the army, the police and the para-military forces, even now. Only a few years ago the grandson of late Prof. Humayun Kabir, one-time our education secretary and then a cabinet minister was debarred from joining the IB, even after his selection, when it was reported that he was a Muslim. Over thirty years ago, in the early 70's, when a Bengali Hindu, with the surname, 'Khan', was posted at Jammu as the post-master, an inquiry was ordered to find out how a non-state subject Muslim could be posted here.
The situation is not much different in the case of the Christians, either, although the literacy rate among them is higher than that among the Hindus. In fact, there was a virtual ban on their recruitment in the IB--probably because of the insurgency in Nagaland and Mizoram--till NK Mukherjee, a Christian himself, became the Cabinet Secretary in 1977. The situation in the private sector is not much better. Till a decade ago it was known that there was not a single Muslim employee in the entire Birla empire. The situation is likely to be, more or less, the same in other concerns, since Muslims and Christians are no where to be seen as bosses in the world of business, industries and high finance. Denied the normal opportunities, both in the public and private sectors, they have naturally turned into a listless community, with little faith in the country's institutions and in the opportunities and facilities they can provide. Seeing no future in paths usually chosen by others a high number of them become school drop-outs and then take to a life of crimes. The majority needs to correct the situation for their own sake, for their own peace and security. But, for that, filling in a few high posts with Muslims and declaring that they do not constitute a minority in UP will not serve the purpose. Faith in the country and in its institutions have to be restored in their hearts to bring them back into the main stream of our lives and activities. Today the situation, at least in UP, is so bad that a majority of them have apparently voted for the non-NDA parties, not because they hope them to keep their promises, but because they, at least, do not speak of openly humiliating and physically eliminating them. For them the choice during elections is among evils of different categories and they opt for a lesser evil. A very sad state of affairs, indeed.
o o o
[Book Review]
(The Telegraph
May 04, 2007)
Hurdles on the path of learning
Politics of Minority Educational Institutions — Law and Reality in the Subcontinent Edited by Tahir Mahmood, Imprint, Rs 495
Minority rights have become a favourite subject of discussion among politicians in India. But that is about it. Nothing much has been done by way of securing the educational rights of minority communities. If one political party tries to uphold the rights of minorities, others oppose such a demand in order to keep their vote banks intact. As a result of this political one-upmanship, the real issue gets swept under the carpet .
Even after sixty years of independence, minorities in India have remained in the periphery of development. They have been caught up in a vicious circle and, consequently, have not been able to make much progress. Ironically, political and judicial activism has ended up erecting hurdles rather than removing them. The narrow political interests of political outfits have also resulted in the stagnation of minority educational institutions. Thus, minorities running their own educational institutions have remained more of a myth in our country.
It is perhaps pertinent to note that few books are written on minority educational institutions. The few that get written are not in English. The present volume is an exception to this rule. It not only addresses the question of politics but it also shows the impact politics has had on minority educational institutions over the years. This book has been edited by Tahir Mahmood, a former chairman of the National Minorities Commission. It consists of several interesting essays, along with a foreword by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer.
The essays have been divided into three separate sections, according to their style and content. The final section includes appendices that contain recommendations on minority educational institutions as well as reactions to the report published by the Sachar Committee.
The opening chapters comprise articles that have been mostly written by legal experts who examine the question from a technical point of view. The technical nature of the content does not make the book monotonous. This is because the contributors have taken care to ensure that they look at the question from different points of view. For instance, the essays written by both Anil Wilson and Swami Agnivesh are incisive and offer suggestive insights. Similarly, Soli J. Sorabjee’s contribution stands out for its pedagogic content while M.P. Raju’s article is likely to generate heated discussions among readers who are interested in this topic. On the whole, this particular section is unlikely to evoke an enthusiastic response from the lay reader. However, it would provide members of the legal fraternity with a wealth of information.
The second section, containing detailed information on minority institutions in India, remains the most interesting segment of this particular book. Here, Muslim and Sikh educational institutions such as Aligarh Muslim University, Jamia Milia Islamia, Jamia Hamdard, Khalsa College, Punjabi University and so on have been dealt with in an extensive manner. Surprisingly, Christian and other minority institutions have been left out from this list. The essays provide authentic information on the history and tradition of each institution. The chapters also add to the existing knowledge about madrasa education which was pioneered by gifted individuals such as Arshad Alam, Uzma Naheed and Yoginder Sikand. This kind of knowledge is especially useful when it comes to dispense with false notions that have got internalized in the collective consciousness in recent times. After all, the jihadis have given madrasa education a bad name. The merger of minority educational institutions with the history of madrasas throws new light on this topic. The information that comes out as a result of this convergence would surprise the experts in this field.
The final section, on the other hand, offers a comparative analysis between minority educational institutions in India and other nations such as Pakistan, the United States of America and the United Kingdom. Roman Catholics, Presbyterians as well as members of other religious communities have founded their own educational institutions in Pakistan. Here, the Hindus and the Parsis are also free to practise their own religion and establish institutions to impart education. However, if there was some information available on the situation in Nepal and in Bangladesh, it would have given the readers the complete picture.
The central theme in this book takes up the question of the right of minorities to run educational centres. But the contributors have also pointed out how many of these institutions get embroiled in political and judicial wrangles. Consequently, many of them are languishing in a state of apathy. Most of the contributors have succeeded in putting their points across in a forceful manner. However, it remains to be seen whether they manage to stir the conscience of an indifferent nation.
SHAMS AFIF SIDDIQI
o o o
(Indian Express
April 14, 2007)
So many inequalities
by Niraja Gopal Jayal
A few years ago, there was some contention in Indian society over whether or not minorities deserve special treatment. Now — courtesy a rather ill-considered view enunciated by one high court judge — we have a debate on who is and who is not a minority.
Technically, minorities are specified by numbers and percentages, but it is clear that numbers per se merely quantify and describe the proportion of a group in a population. They do not tell us anything about whether a particular minority group is powerful or powerless, advantaged or disadvantaged. The white minority in apartheid South Africa was clearly not subject to any such disabilities. It is only when disadvantage, discrimination or powerlessness are attached to the identity markers — race, religion, language, caste or gender — that we think in terms of the minority being deserving of special consideration. Such consideration becomes especially important in a democracy, because even the expression of minority preferences through democratic channels can be perpetually trumped by a dominant majority.
Even as they made special provision for social groups disadvantaged in different ways, the founding fathers of the Indian Constitution used the term minority essentially for religious and linguistic groups. This did not mean that they were insensitive to the condition of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who are also, numerically, minorities. The Constitution sought to redress disadvantage, regardless of numbers, but mindful of where such disadvantage was associated with particular group identities.
The constitutional provisions made for different groups differed according to the prevailing understanding of the nature of disadvantage historically suffered by the groups. Linguistic diversity was accommodated by a federation based on linguistic states. That religious minorities were given chiefly cultural and educational rights is explicable in terms of the immediate context of the Partition, and the defining of India as a secular state. On the other hand, the provisions made for the SCs and STs (such as reservations) were attempts at equalising opportunity and redistributing social resources among groups that had historically been denied these.
The strategies followed for these two sets of groups were thus quite distinct: “recognition” (for their distinctive cultural identities or personal laws or languages and scripts) for religious and linguistic minorities, and “redistribution” for Dalit and Adivasi groups. These strategies were based upon an understanding of the principal form of disadvantage attaching to these groups. This is not to say that other forms of disadvantage — for instance, untouchability — were not recognised. Rather, it was believed that by outlawing such practices as unconstitutional, and providing these groups with educational and economic opportunities, social prejudices of this kind would dissolve over time.
The state of our knowledge about the various groups in Indian society may be far from perfect even today, but it is more wide-ranging than it was sixty years earlier. We know today that both forms of disadvantage — cultural and symbolic, as well as material and economic — may be associated with belonging to Dalit and Adivasi groups, as also to the Muslim community (Parsis, Sikhs and Christians are minorities that are not, on the whole, materially disadvantaged). There is frequently an overlap between cultural and material inequalities; between inherited symbolic or cultural disadvantages of caste or religious identity and of economic disadvantage. Low caste social status is often — though not invariably — accompanied by economic deprivation.
The overlap between cultural and material disadvantage has been decisively demonstrated by official data. The data on human development indicators and poverty amongst various social groups show that levels of deprivation are highest for the SCs, followed by the STs, followed by the Muslims. Not surprisingly, on most human development indicators, the SCs are at the bottom, the STs just above them, and the Muslims just slightly better off than the other two. The Sachar Committee Report has only buttressed this with more details on the Muslim community. On the whole, it is clear that the economic impoverishment of these groups tends to mirror their social marginalisation. Of course, it is obviously not the case that all members of these groups are poor, or that there is no poverty among other groups, but only that there is a high degree of overlap between being poor and belonging to these groups.
From a policy perspective, it is crucial that the attributes of disadvantaged groups are clearly and objectively determined. The interlocking of inequalities — cultural, social and economic — is evident. As such, there is a need for policies that do not put the challenges of recognition and of redistribution into separate boxes, but clearly address the areas of their overlap. A balance must be struck between the claims of sheer identity and those of palpable material deprivation.
The writer is professor, Centre for the Study of Law and Governance, JNU and senior fellow, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library
|
