Indian Constitution does not allow reservation on religious grounds - A myth or reality

By S. Farman Ahmad Naqvi,

Our polity allowed religious based reservation by using Constitutional provision i.e. article 341 which permits to specify castes to be added in a LIST by the president, by just issuing a notification. One will be surprised to know that when this notification was issued in 1950 it allowed religious based reservation in total violation of Constitutional provisions namely article 15.

The notification called THE CONSTITUTIONAL (SCHEDULED CASTES) ORDER, 1950 says in para 3 regarding allowing reservation to only Hindus and no one, in the following words;
“4 (3). Notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph 2, no person who professes a religion different from the Hindu 5 [the Sikh or the Buddhist] religion shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste]”.

The presidential Order 1950 renders the Dalit Christians and Dalit Muslims ineligible for enjoying the benefits of affirmative action of Government. Before Proceeding it is appropriate to place article 15 of Constitution of India here in below:

1. The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
2. No citizen shall, on ground only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to
a. access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or
b. the use of wells, tanks, bathing Ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained whole or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of general public.
3. Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.
4. Nothing in this article or in clause (2) or article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.

Although Article 15 of the Constitution says that there shall be prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth, except from making some provision for advancement of any educationally and socially backward classes of citizen as well for SC and ST so far that provision relates to their admission in educational institutions.

The Presidential Order 1950 states that the criterion to define the Scheduled Caste, which reads: Not withstanding anything contained in paragraph 2, no person who professes a religion different from Hindu, shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste. So the religion was used as a criterion to define, who shall be Scheduled Caste. On the basis of that criterion all other people professing Islam, Christianity and other were left out. Although in 1956 and 1990 the third paragraph of the Presidential Order 1950 was amended by the Parliament to extend the benefits to the Dalit Sikhs and the Dalits Buddhists along with the Dalit Hindus.

The serious question arises here is that whether this presidential Order of 1950 is in conflict of Part III of Constitution of India which envisages equality to all citizens of India in article 14 and 16 in all spheres of life or not?

Article 14 of Constitution of India says,’ the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.’ Article 16 of Constitution of India says that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Although article 15 of Constitution of India provides for State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.

Numerous studies most prominently and recently the Sachar Committee report, have pointed out, Muslims are among the most economically, educationally and socially backward sections of Indian society. Undoubtedly, the report is immensely useful for understanding the magnitude of this problem, as are many of the suggestions that it provides for ameliorating it.

The Govt. of India had also constituted National Commission for Religious and Linguistic Minorities which was also called as Ranganath Misra Commission constituted on 29 October 2004 to look into various issues related to Linguistic and Religious minorities in India. It was chaired by former Chief Justice of India Justice Ranganath Misra. The commission submitted its report to the Government on 21 May 2007.

Initially, the commission was entrusted with the following terms of reference.

(a) To suggest criteria for identification of socially and economically backward sections among religious and linguistic minorities; (b) To recommend measures for welfare of socially and economically backward sections among religious and linguistic minorities, including reservation in education and government employment; and (c) To suggest the necessary constitutional, legal and administrative modalities required for the implementation of its recommendations.

After nearly five months of its work the Commission’s Terms of Reference were modified so as to add the following to its original Terms of Reference.

(d) To give its recommendations on the issues raised in WPs filed in the Supreme Court of India and in certain High Courts relating to Para 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950 in the context of ceiling of 50 percent on reservations as also the modalities of inclusion in the list of Scheduled Castes.

Following are the salient features of recommendations of Ranganath Misra Commission:
• 15% of jobs in government services and seats in educational institutions for minorities
• reserves 8.4% out of existing OBC quota of 27% for minorities
• SC reservation to Dalit converts.
• Para 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950 – which originally restricted the Scheduled Caste only to Hindus and later opened it to Sikhs and Buddhists, thus still excluding from its purview the Muslims, Christians, Jains and Parsis, etc. – should be wholly deleted by appropriate action so as to completely de-link Scheduled Caste status from religion and make the Scheduled Castes net fully religion-neutral like that of the Scheduled Tribes.

Although an entire religious group had still not been granted reservation by the 1950 order but backwardness was considered a qualification for granting reservation to a religious group by this order. Applying the same analogy other religious groups can be identified and granted reservation on the basis of their backwardness. As mentioned above Muslims backwardness had already been identified and it was found that a substantial chunk of Muslims is living below poverty lines. Then where is the impediment to provide adequate representation to them in public employment in view of article 15 (4) of Constitution. By not doing so discrimination is extended to the left out religious groups.

Till today twelve States Government and Union Territories have recommended to Union of India for granting the SC status to these people. In the year 2000, Bihar State Assembly passed resolution for granting SC status to Dalit Christians and Dalit Muslims; in the year 2006 Uttar Pradesh State Assembly passed resolution for the same; in the year 2009 Andhra Pradesh State Government had passed resolution in its assembly for granting the SC status to Dailt Christians and Dalit Muslims. Andhra Govt. granting 4 percent reservation to Muslims was negated by its High Court on technical grounds. Against it, the A.P. Govt. approached Supreme Court where the order of High Court was stayed and matter was referred to a constitution Bench of Seven Judges and the reservation of Muslims in A.P. was allowed to be continued during the matter is pending there.

Now the focus has shifted from political space to economic and educational entitlement, but at the core remains the grievance of injustice. If reservations are good for virtually everyone else, why do they become such a terrible idea when it comes to Muslims? True or false, the Constitution does not permit reservations for religious groups; but this is fact that article 15 envisages reservations for women and reservation to women is provided taking advantage of the said constitutional provision. If State can take advantage of the Constitution to accommodate women, Dalit Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs, why not educationally and socially backward Muslims taking advantage of article 15 (4) of Constitution of India?

On the other hand if the argument is that religious reservation is not permissible then how to reconcile with 1950 Presidential order which provides reservation to the persons who professes Hindu, Sikh or the Buddhist religion? We can hide the truth behind millions of words loaded with heavy reasons, but the simple truth is that reservation on religious grounds was allowed indirectly taking cue from the words of Article 341 of Constitution of India.

(The author is lawyer at Allahabad High Court)

Source:

http://twocircles.net/2012jun02/indian_constitution_does_not_allow_reservation_religious_grounds_myth_or_reality.html

Who are the Dalit People?

The Dalit people of India have been the most widely oppressed caste for more than three thousand years. Indian Dalits comprise nearly 1/4 of the total population, a massive 250 million men, women, and children. Dalits are considered the "outcasts" of Indian society - the "untouchables", those the Hindu scriptures call the "unborn" - translated: it would be better if they had never been born.

Dalits are denied access to public wells, public parks, basic medical services, and education. Many restaurants even use drinking glasses reserved only for Dalits. The ruling caste tells them they are Hindu, yet they are denied access to the temples, cannot become temple priests, and are even prohibited from reading the Hindu scriptures. Seventy percent of Dalits live below the poverty line. Dalit women are widely exploited and are considered the "Dalits of the Dalits".

The caste system is an integral part of Indian society dating back to the time of the Aryan invaders to India. The Hindu religion sanctioned the caste system. Caste is considered worse than racism by the Dalits. Dalits across the nation, however, have experienced an awakening and are now demanding equal human rights and dignity. They believe that turning to an ideology of personal and spiritual freedom and acceptance, and getting an education are the keys to finding liberation. On November 4, 2001, the Dalit community gathered in New Delhi to express their cry for freedom. On that day, Indian leaders of faith stood in solidarity with the Dalits in their quest of liberation. This has led to the formation of Dalit Freedom Network International with the commitment to help the oppressed Dalits of India.

CULTURE & CASTE

The caste system has been in place for more than 3,000 years. Each caste is historically linked to an occupation and represents a strict hierarchy of society and status, into which people are born and can never change their caste-identity. At the top of the caste system are the Brahmins, who are the priests and arbiters of what is right and wrong in matters of religion and society. Next come the Kshatriyas, who are soldiers and administrators. The Vaisyas are the artisan and commercial class, and finally, the Sudras who are the peasant and slave class. These four castes are said to have come from Brahma's mouth (Brahmin), arms (Kshatriyas), thighs (Vaisyas) and feet (Sudras).

Beneath the four main castes is a fifth group, the Scheduled Caste who are not considered a caste. They are the untouchables, the Dalits, which means "crushed", "downtrodden", "broken".

A Dalit is not considered to be part of the human society, but something, which is beyond that. The Dalits perform the most menial and degrading jobs. Sometimes Dalits perform important jobs, but this is mostly not socially recognized.

In India there are approximately 250 million Dalits who do not have access to enough food, health care, housing and clothing. They also have limited access to education and employment. Officially everyone in India has the same rights and duties, but the practice is different. Education will help provide the opportunity to change the future -- and transform a child's life now and forever.

Source:

http://www.dalitfreedom.net/about/about-us-2.aspx

Periyar's Hindutva

By Avikumar,

There is need today to re-examine the ideas of E.V.Ramsamy (1879-1973), who came to be known as 'Periyar' (the Great Man) after he dropped his caste surname 'Naicker'. This has to be done for two reasons. Mayawati, who lost her chief ministership in 1995 after she launched the Periyar Mela, is again harping on Periyar today. In Tamil Nadu, the relationship between the Hindutva BJP and the Dravidian parties is getting stronger by the day.

In such a context, intellectuals who write about Tamil society and polity in the English-language media continue to posit Periyar as an important anti-Hindutva voice. If that were to be true, how/ and why is it that we see Dravidian parties like the DMK, AIADMK and MDMK vying with each other to be seen in the company of BJP? Also, why is it that these Dravidian formations brazenly attempt to implement an agenda over which even states ruled by the BJP would hesitate?

POTA, which has become a dreaded national law today, was something the DMK introduced in Tamil Nadu when in power in 1998. Since the then president K.R.Narayanan refused to give assent, it could not be implemented. The DMK government also introduced a GO (on September 19, 2000) that clamped down against Dalit Christians who sought to convert to Hinduism, with the sole purpose of denying such converts the benefits of reservation.

These were acts that even BJP-ruled states of that period did not dare think of. On its part, the AIADMK beginning with its Annadaanam scheme (free lunch in Hindu temples) in March 2002 till the Prohibition of Forcible Conversion of Religion Act of October 2002 has made clear the kind of agenda it espouses. MDMK's Vaiko, a keen advocate of the very POTA that has landed him in jail, provides us comic relief in this Dravidian drama.

Are these actions of the Dravidian parties to be viewed as merely a result of opportunistic politics? Or is there an inherent tendency in Dravidian politics towards such actions? Moreover, in the 30-plus years of Dravidian parties' rule, the manner in which the dalits of Tamil Nadu have been affected in terms of education, employment opportunities, their right to land and other sociopolitical indicators, has been elaborated in the Bhopal Document (January 2002). In such a context, there's a need to reexamine Mayawati's propagation of Periyar.

Ambedkar had always propounded that the problems of the untouchables are the same as the problems of the minorities. According to him, what is termed as the majority in India is only a religious-communal majority and not a political majority. Political majority is something that can change with time. However, communal majority, since it is based on birth, is unchanging – reason why Ambedkar argued that winning a political majority in an election is not the same as winning the confidence of the people.

In Indian democracy, governments that are established because they win an electoral majority must rule because they have a political majority and not because of a communal majority, according to Ambedkar. He believed that since the Hindus form a communal majority, there should be a check on their influence and authority. He elaborated this idea with reference to the Central Assembly that was functional then. In this, the Hindus who comprised 54.68 per cent of the population must have only 40 per cent representation, the Muslims who were 28.5 per cent should have a representation of 32 per cent; Christians who were 1.16 per cent should have 3 per cent; and the Sikhs who were 1.49 per cent should have a 4 per cent representation, he said.

Ambedkar, for whom the conspiracy of the communal majority was acceptable neither in principle nor could be justified in practice, felt that the communal majority could have at best a relative majority in representation but never an absolute one. Towards this end, he stressed the need for some protective measures in the Constitution. (This was stated by Ambedkar in a meeting organised by the Scheduled Caste Federation in Bombay on May 6, 1945.)

Today, we realise the significance of Ambedkar's warning even more than we could or did before. But how did Periyar view the question of minorities and the rights to due to them?

When we read Periyar's article under the head 'Minority Community', we suspect that it could have been written by a Hindutvawadi (see 'Periyar EVR Sinthanaigal' Vol. 1, page 46; all subsequent references to Periyar are from Vol. 1, Vol. 2 and Vol. 3 of this work edited by Anaimuthu). Says Periyar:

"Under any definition of nationality, in any nation, if people who are a minority in terms of population, in terms of religion or in terms of culture, control power and wield authority, it will be disastrous for the wellbeing and development of that nation. The brahmins and their womenfolk who constitute 3 per cent of our population, without contributing one bit for common societal good, and by commanding us 'Stay away, don't come in contact with me', are leading a luxurious life. The Muslims, who comprise 6 per cent of the population, without doing any coolie work or labour that involves the flexing of bodies, do not let our gaze fall on their women even if these women belong to families that beg for a living, are also enjoying a good life in this country."

"If these be their religious dharma and their religious practice, in whose nation? Amidst which people? Whose religious dharma? Whose religious practice? And who is being insulted by this?

"The products of such minority-appeasing privileges will be 'betrayal' and 'blatant betrayal'. And this is already happening. In our country, selfish irresponsible people who work against the society's interests use these minorities as a support base and can stoop to do anything. We feared the brahmin, and yielded extra space for the Muslims. We are facing the consequences today. It's like that old proverb: fearing the dung, we have stepped on shit.

"Why did the Muslims betray? The Muslims must give a satisfactory explanation to the people," wrote Periyar in 1962. But even in 1954 his position was similar. He referred to Tamil Nadu's Christians and Muslims as 'non-Tamils':

"In Tamil Nadu's entire population it seems the brahmins are 2.75 per cent, the Christians 4 per cent, the Muslims about 5 per cent, the Malayalis 8 per cent, those from Karnataka are it seems 5 per cent – if we combine these, it emerges that the non-Tamils in Tamil Nadu constitute 25 per cent of the population. However, in employment these non-Tamils hold 75 per cent of the top posts. Not just that, the reason why the Tamils are suffering is because the brahmins, Christians, Muslims and others claim themselves to be Tamil."

Periyarists will point out that Periyar had advocated conversion to Islam. "Islam offers a good cure for humiliation and oppression," he had said. But he had explained this: "I am not defending Islam. Nor am I propagating it. This is the truth, the only truth. I have no greater love, friendship, trust or cooperation with or for Muslims than I have for you." In another instance, he asked: "If Sahibs [meaning Muslims] get proportionate representation, and the Scheduled Castes get representation in jobs and education, and if the rest of the slots are monopolised by brahmins, O Sudra, what will be your fate and future?" As a counter-shock, Periyar had suggested conversion to Islam.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that the bases of the electoral alliances of today's Dravidian parties can be found in Periyar. The spread of an anti-dalit mentality and the reasons for the backwardness of dalits in the last three decades can be traced back to Periyar.

It is true that Periyar was in touch with Ambedkar. It is equally true that Periyar had spoken in praise of Ambedkar. However, we must examine the reasons for this. Tamil Nadu had witnessed the dawn of modern dalit consciousness even before the arrival of Ambedkar. The dalits here had been politically mobilised by leaders such as Iyothee Thass (1845-1914), Rettaimalai Srinivasan (1860-1945, who attended the Round Table Conference with Ambedkar) and M.C.Rajah (1883-1947).

Though Iyothee Thass died before Periyar entered the political scene, the dalits had become a political and intellectual force to reckon with much before the non-brahmin, non-dalit bloc had found its political moorings. Periyar's praise for Ambedkar was motivated by his keenness to belittle Tamil Nadu's dalit leaders. After this purpose was served, he was quick to talk of Ambedkar as "a north Indian who succumbed to the Congress".

Tamil Nadu's untouchable leaders had paid special attention to dalit education. They also fought for jobs in the government sector. Periyar ridiculed this. "Asking the government for jobs, education, duties, huts and housing; and seeking from the Mirasdars two extra measures of paddy will not help in anyway," says Periyar. "Can fighting for all this be intelligent or honourable," he wonders.

The dalit leaders who raised these issues were derided by Periyar. "Whoever your leaders be, they parade you – as lame, diseased, blind, leprous – for money; and even without buying milk to feed you, nor applying any balm on your wounds, they further emaciate you, and display your condition to others to earn more money," says Periyar to the untouchables.

In his public life Periyar was never involved in any direct struggle for the untouchables. Even the Vaikkom struggle (in Kerala, 1924), which the Periyarists praise, was not something initiated by Periyar. The backward caste Ezhavas of Travancore, with the support of reformer Narayana Guru, had initiated this struggle. Periyar was just one among those who participated in the Vaikkom struggle. However, "It is because of our struggle and efforts that today the oppressed are able to walk with their heads held high. We are the ones who showed them the path to progress in the field of education. We were the first to fight for the entry of dalits into temples and streets," claimed Periyar in 1956.

Says Ambedkar: "Every society consists of groups. But it must be recognised that the mutual relations of the groups are not the same everywhere. In one society groups may be only non-social in their attitude towards one another. But in another they may be anti-social." (What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables, p.193). The attitude of the caste hindus towards dalits is anti-social. Therefore, the interactions between them are likely to be mechanical and non-social. In such a setup, individuals will be able to use one another for selfish ends. In such a society, there will not be commonality in thought, nor harmony in intention, nor will there be unity in action. This is demonstrated by Periyar's attitude.

Periyar was someone who was jealous of the constitutional safeguards that were given to the dalits. Having repeatedly spoken of dalits as a people who don't have a history, who don't have a political movement, who don't have leaders, Periyar even made them believe this. Having used the dalits to serve his political ends, he asked them: 'Of what use are you to us?'

Periyar worked solely for the cause of the non-brahmin, non-religious minority, non-dalit backward and upper castes. He deployed the concept of 'majority' for this purpose. There's only one difference between the majoritarianism that the hindutvawadis propound and that of Periyar's: that is, over the exclusion of brahmins from this majority.

Dravidian parties allying with the BJP even as they praise Periyar is no different from Mayawati's praise for Periyar even as she rules in alliance with the BJP. There's always a scope in Periyar's ideas for such possibilities. This is Periyarism.

avikumar is a Pondicherry-based writer. The article was written on 1 March 2003 and was translated from the Tamil by S. Anand. A drastically cut version of this appeared in the edit page of The Indian Express titled Questioning Periyar's legacy dated 12 March 2003.

Source: http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?225056

The Political Misfortunes of Muslim

By Maulana Wahiduddin Khan

Indian Muslims, comprising so large a segment of the population that they can top the polls in any one of a hundred constituencies, are in a position to tip the political balance of the entire country

Yet, paradoxically, it is the Muslim community, more than any other, which is suffering from political deprivation. Individually certain Muslims have managed, as a matter of chance, to secure an insignificant number of political posts, but the Muslim community as a whole enjoys no political pre-eminence on the national scene. Nor does it, at the international level, have any share in establishing political relations with Muslim countries. Even in so relatively small a country as Sri Lanka, the Muslim minority has greater political standing than its Indian counterpart.

It is common for Muslim writers and speakers to lay the blame for this at the door of the Hindus. But this view is entirely without foundation. In this world, by the very law laid down by God, gain and loss are not external but internal in their origins. Any explanation seeking to hold other responsible for our deprivation must be rejected prima facie, since it in no way accords with the law of nature.If the truth be told, it is the incompetence of Muslim leaders which has given rise to this unfortunate situation. And Muslims, in actual fact, are now being made to pay for the crass inaptitude of leaders who launched movements based on shallow politics instead of creating among their followers a balanced political awareness—something for which there was a crying need.

If you go around any Indian city during the elections, you will find greater fervor for the elections in Muslim localities than in Hindu conclaves. This is a symbolic indication of the error which has led Muslims into their present state of political neglect. Misguided by incompetent leaders, they have come to feel that in simply empathizing with the national election fever, they are making an adequate contribution to the political scenario. They have stopped short of understanding that taking a real part in politics means full participation in the political processes of the country.

Muslims may display great zeal for sehri (food taken before dawn during the fasting of Ramadan) and iftar (the breaking of a fast in the evening after fasting all day during Ramadan), and for sermonizing on loudspeakers during the month of Ramadan, but they cannot be credited with taqwa (piety) if throughout the year they have not lead pious lives. Similarly, the mere display of enthusiasm for election activities on a few specified days will not bring them any significant political position in the country. They must realize that, for this, they must engage themselves fully and unremittingly in constructive national activity.

From 1947 till today, I have attended innumerable meetings without coming across any notable Muslim gathering which had been convened specifically to discuss the problems of the Indian nation. National issues simply do not figure on Muslim agendas. At Muslim meetings, communal issues, or more often, communal grudges are the favorite subjects of discussion. It would seem that national issues are of no concern to Muslims. I have often found, moreover, that Muslim speakers, invited to Hindu gatherings, give vent even there to the grudges of the Muslim community against the Hindus. This makes it abundantly obvious that Muslims have in no way identified themselves with the political mainstream of the country.

Muslims need seriously to consider the necessity to make their community an integral factor in the political system. For a start, their mode of entry into it could be an indirect one. For instance, Muslims could launch the publication of such newspapers as would be read throughout the country; they could play an effective role in trade unions and other such institutions which have a considerable influence on politics. But there is no significant Muslim presence in these organizations. And Muslim newspapers, if they are worth the name, are little better than communal complaint bulletins, bearing no relation to national journalism. So as trade unionism is concerned, Muslims are barely aware of it as a concept. And so on.

Over the last fifty years, under the guidance of self-styled Muslim leaders, what Muslims have largely done in the name of political activity is vote Congress. Yet, throughout this period they have never felt the need to become part of the administrative structure of the Congress Party. Now, frustrated with the Congress, they tread the path of negative voting. At present, any party claiming to oppose Congress policies can have the Muslim vote for the asking.

To my way of thinking, if Muslims want to have what is politically their due, they should first of all establish their own viability vis-à-vis mainstream politics. Only then will they be in a position to chalk out any real election program and secure benefits which at the moment seem beyond their reach.

For this to become a reality, Muslims must develop a strong journalistic network which is decidedly national in character. This will establish the bona fides of their patriotism and provide an acceptable base from which to project a positive Muslim identity with a wholesome political stance. However, a brand of Muslim journalism which is genuinely national in character cannot come into existence simply by calling some publication a ‘national newspaper’ and placing it on the news stands. In order to launch and sustain such a venture, Muslims will be obliged to enter the field of industry. For, in the world of today, industry is the institution which ‘feeds’ the national press. So long as Muslims have no appreciable share in large scale industry, they will not bring into existence any journalism worth the name.

But it is not just the lack of their own nationwide press that helps to perpetuate the Muslims’ political under-representation. Even journalistic opportunities in the existing national press are not availed of by them because of their own backwardness. Major national issues may be regularly thrashed out in the national dailies, but whenever there is a Muslim contribution, it may be taken for granted that it is about some narrow communal issue and takes the form of a demand or a protest. Letters and articles by Muslims (and I have seen this in several major national dailies), far from urging Muslim participation in national political processes, are mere expressions of Muslim reactions against others in restricted local sphere.

Muslims need to be roused to a proper political awareness. They must be led to understand that politics, far from being just another name for reaction or negative voting, is actually the science and art of government. They must realize that inflicting defeat on one party in order to make another party victorious is only one aspect of politics. And it is nothing more than a kind of political somersault. If such somersaults have not improved the Muslims’ situation in the past, they are even less likely to do so in the future.

Muslims will have to make their presence felt—in a positive sense—in the political environment of the country, they will have to participate actively in the ongoing political processes. And they will have to prove at the national level that such participation on their part is of vital significance. For instance they can provide an important link in establishing good relations between India and West Asian Muslim countries, and they can play a useful role in securing different kinds of contributions from Muslim countries to the Indian State, etc.

It is regrettable that present circumstances and current attitudes rule out hopes of any such activity. For instance, whenever our Muslim leaders, both religious and secular, visit Muslim or Arab countries, they present a negative picture of India, projecting it as an anti-Muslim country. Due to this unwise approach, it is not possible to secure the kind of contribution from Muslim countries which would significantly enhance the religion to reach the point of agree status of Indian Muslims. If Muslims, on the other hand, were to play a positive international role—which is certainly possible—they would see a sudden and radical improvement in their image throughout the country. No longer would they be regarded as liabilities, but as national and political assets. The day this happens will mark the beginning of a brighter future for Muslims all over India.

There is no doubt that India offers every possibility for the construction of a great political future for Muslims. But the secret of securing such a future lies not in the ability to make or break political parties at election time, but in the reform of the community at the political level and in an increased political awareness. The secret, in fact, is not external to the Muslims but within them.At present, everywhere among the educated classes of Muslims, discussions of the national Muslim agenda are going on. Meetings are being held. A whole spate of articles is appearing in the Hindi and English press. Books on the subject are being published. But nowhere do Muslims figure in their activities. They are almost entirely isolated from the whole issue.

The Muslim role in politics is the subject of much oratory and features regularly in the press. But the founding of a political party on the basis of a single community is more likely than not to exacerbate Muslim problems. The need of the hour is for Muslims to join national political parties and, by becoming part of their organizational structure, make themselves effective at the stage where political decisions are taken.

At present, Muslims in this country are viewed as a group with a grievance. Nowhere do they assume the stature of political entities, either in intellectual discussions or in practical activities. The best way for Muslims to resolve this identity crises would be to throw themselves wholeheartedly into the political processes of the country. I am certain that, in filling this great vacuum, they would become a political asset to the country—to the point where, one day, one of their numbers might ultimately become the nation’s prime minister.one country and one country alone; that cably linked with the progress of ully accomplished, we must rid ourselves of our obsess.

More castes in Central OBCs list

Cabinet nods for inclusion of more castes in Central OBCs list

New Delhi: Union Cabinet today approved an amendment in the Central list of Other Backward Classes (OBCs), to include some more castes and communities the list. The decision was taken on consideration of the advice by National Commission for Backward Classes.

The newly included castes/communities in the Central list of OBCs would avail the benefits of reservation in Central Government services and posts as well as in the Central education institutions, thus contributing to the goal of equity and inclusiveness.

The National Commission for Backward Classes had earlier advised the Union Government to amend the Central list of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) for the states of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Goa, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, West Bengal and Union Territories(UTs) of Andaman & Nicobar Islands & Puducherry.

Accordingly, the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment is about to make amendments in the Central lists of OBCs with respect to these States and UTs.

[Courtesy:  www.twocircles.net ]

Social Politics vs Party Politics

By Ashok Yadav

There are two kinds of sub-altern politics being played out in India. One is Social Politics and the other is Party Politics. As I have gathered from years of activism, sub-altern politics is a sum total of unlimited number of activities pursued by differently oriented but commonly concerned persons directed towards advancement of society from inferior to superior stage of social organization. There are two groups of activists. The one group consists of activists engaged in raising and agitating issues which are fundamental and basic to our society. For example, these activists are spreading awareness among the people for eradication of superstitions, for overcoming mental slavery of religious dogmas and priestly classes, for fighting against caste discrimination, for proper and strict implementation of reservation policies, for promotion of brotherhood among much differentiated lower caste groups along caste lines etc. This group is of the view that society is fundamental from which all politics should emanate. That is to say that social issues should also be the issues of politics, that political mobilization should be conducted around these issues and that once political power is achieved; it should be harnessed to further the social agenda. These activists are practitioners of what I have preferred to call Social Politics. Arjak Sangh, BAMCEF, Triveni Sangh and scores of such organizations of dalit and backward castes may be cited as examples of outfits engaged in Social Politics. The other group consists of activists engaged in different political parties as foot soldiers of their party bosses whose sole aim is how to reach their party boss to the chair of different political posts.

These activists are practitioners of Party Politics. Their primary target is how to win elections and become part of the government. They do not employ social issues to win elections as they are of opinion that social issues will not win them elections. They mobilize people along their caste identities by propping up different caste faces and raking up emotive issues to exploit the caste sentiments. Like directors of the run of the mill Bollywood cinema they have reduced the art and science of politics to the formula based politics which can be illustrated by an example. In the last Bihar assembly elections (2010) Laloo Prasad and Ram Vilas Paswan calculated that their castemen would automatically vote for them which would fetch them roughly sixteen-seventeen percent votes. They further reckoned that hurt by Allahabad High Court Judgment in Ayodhya Babri Masjid case the Muslim would vote for them which would again add some ten percent votes. Laloo then mulled that if he raked up the issue of ten percent reservation to the upper caste people, the upper caste would split and cause harm to the prospects of NDA. Then he went extra miles to rope in a Rajput leader of Saran Division. Laloo calculated that by aligning with him he would cause Rajputs to vote for his alliance. On the other hand Nitish cajoled his erstwhile detractor Upendra Kushwaha to return to his fold by offering him Rajya Sabha seat so as to lure the Kushwahas to vote for NDA. It is another matter that the Kushwaha of Bihar voted for Nitish even though Upendra did not canvass for his party during the assembly elections. Not only this, Nitish paid a visit to the kin of a gaoled Rajput politician in a move to counter Laloo’s attempts to woo Rajput votes. It is well known that Mayawati’s BSP never raises any public issue for the sake of mobilization of its support base. BSP entirely depends on caste sentiments of the voters and tries different caste combinations to win elections. Mulayam’s SP computed the loss and gain of aligning with Kalyan Singh; whether the gain of Lodh votes would more than compensate the loss of Muslim votes. In the same way Karunanidhi’s DMK makes alliances with different caste organizations. For the sake of Muslim vote Karunanidhi takes special care to align with the Congress. All the above cited politicians believe in social engineering rather than in social justice, depending on caste equations rather than on the issues affecting the sub-altern society.

The social politicians are radical while the party politicians are status quoits. The party politicians come into power in the name of doing everything possible for ameliorating the plight of the people belonging to the support base. In their party manifesto they promise to fulfill those issues which are of broadest nature, not specifically concerned with the core social base. Even these promises are rather election time public relation exercises. However, on assuming power, they do every compromise to pander to the ego of elite media and to cling onto the power by hook or crook. Consequently the party politician in power loses people’s support and has to relinquish power. Laloo Yadav is a living example of a party politician, who was once darling of the people, losing the people’s support and making way for Nitish Kumar, another party politician from the OBC group.

The party politicians know it very well that their survival and growth in politics could not have been possible without the sustained ground work done by social activists. They are actually political parasites who reap the harvest of the sustained ground work of the social activists and numerous people movements. Even then they maintain safe distance from social issues and movements. We may again cite the example of Laloo Yadav to show how party politicians benefit from social issues and movements. When Laloo Yadav became the Chief Minister of Bihar in March, 1990, no one knew how long would he survive in his post as in the past no backward caste Chief Minister had been allowed to complete his tenure by the upper caste forces. With the announcement for implementation of Mandal report in September, 1990, a social revolution was set in motion. Laloo Yadav, a product of JP movement, which had not much to do with social justice, suddenly became champion of social justice. Mandal brought windfall in the political fortune of Laloo. He challenged the upper caste hegemony and their arrogance and, thereby, ignited the hitherto suppressed anger of the dalit and backward castes against caste atrocities, discrimination and domination. The point to note is that he did this from the position of power that too when Mandal had presented him the opportunity. The Mandal momentum sustained him in power for the next fifteen years though after 1995 he had practically abdicated Mandal agenda. V P Singh had announced for implementation of only one recommendation of Mandal Report. Never in his innumerable rallies and public meetings Laloo raised the demand for implementation of all of Mandal recommendations and also as the person in power he could not implement none of those recommendations which were in domain of state government. History tested his commitment to Mandal agenda when during his tenure as Railway Minister in the UPA-I government the ghost of Mandal visited again to haunt the country this time courtesy Arjun Singh. Laloo kept mum when Mandal II was implemented in haphazard manner. Neither he nor his party raised any voice against obstacles put in by the vested interests in the way of implementation of OBC reservation in central government run educational institutes of higher learning. In fact none of the OBC party politicians barring a few exceptions has agitated for proper implementation of OBC reservation in job and education despite the fact that all of them would have been political non-entity but for the Mandal they are holding respectable positions here and there. In 2010 some seven thousands seats meant for the OBC were converted into general seats by the colleges of Delhi University. None of the OBC politicians, who have otherwise immensely benefitted from Mandal, have spoken against this day light robbery of OBC seats. The OBC party politicians have failed to appreciate the historical experience that it is basically the struggle for reservation policy and their eventual implementation [e.g. 1978(OBC Reservation in Bihar), 1990 (Mandal-I) and 2005(Mandal-II)] that have kept alive the backward caste politics in India. Assault on reservation policy from different sides (conversion of reserved seats into general seats and sending general list reserved candidates in reserved list, telecast of anti-reservation TV serial Armaano Ka Balidaan-Aarakshan on NDTV Imagine and movie like Aarakshan) are actually assaults on bahujan politics. The sub-altern party politicians actually believe in power for the sake of power and not for the betterment of the society they belong to. Power for the sake of power and politics for the sake of politics have become their motto. They join politics as people join government jobs. First, they aim to become MLA and MP. After becoming MP or MLA they aspire to become minister just as a government employee having served a number of years desires to be promoted to the next higher grade. A minister desires to become chief minister and a chief minister desires to become prime minister. They lead people not as a leader but as the Pied Piper of Hamelin. They seek to inspire or rather say influence people less by their thoughts and actions and more by glamour of power.

Party politicians are often degenerated social politicians which is exemplified by none other than Kanshi Ram who is credited for having written a new chapter in dalit politics. Kanshi Ram began his political career from BAMCEF, an organization of SC-ST-OBC employees of government and public sector. Kanshi Ram and his friends formed BAMCEF to arouse social-political consciousness of educated class of SC-ST-OBC people and to raise an elite army of organic intellectuals dedicated to the cause of social transformation. He then formed another social organization DS-4 in order to attract common sub-altern masses as BAMCEF was restricted to educated class. DS-4 was then transformed into a political party by the name of Bahujan Samaj Party. He could have proceeded on his political journey by maintaining organic relations with BAMCEF and DS-4. However, he cut all umbilical cords with social issues by distancing himself from BAMCEF and DS-4. He emerged as a political leader in blind pursuit of power by striking different caste combinations. His boldness coupled with total vacuum in dalit politics since the days of Dr Ambedkar more than compensated his otherwise sterile political agenda. Kanshi Ram thrived on simplistic, vulgar and context less interpretation of Dr Ambedkar’s dictum that political power is the master key. The entire life, struggle and works of Dr Ambedkar suggest that politics must flow from society, more specifically, from social problems, challenges and issues, that the social issues should be the soul of political agenda, that all political mobilizations and agitations should be organized around social issues. Dr Ambedkar exemplified it foremost when he as Law Minister agitated hard for passing of Hindu Code Bill in the Parliament and when he did not succeed owing to stiff resistance from conservative Hindus he did not hesitate in relinquishing the power. Philistinism of Kanshi Ram and his disdain for actual legacy of Dr Ambedkar became rampant when in an interview he openly declared that whereas Dr Ambedkar collected books he collected people. In fact almost all sub-altern party politicians are philistines and hard core pragmatist and detest the great legacy of social justice principles and practices as it put burdens and responsibilities on them for which they have not trained themselves.

For garnering votes and planning political strategy, the party politicians occasionally turn to the social politicians. The social politicians often work as intellectual workers and advisors of the party politicians. Resourceless as the social politicians are they bank upon the party politicians to get their agenda fulfilled, to whatsoever extent possible. However, the party politician would receive only which is politically expedient for him or her. Exploiting their resourcelessness the party politician often strikes a deal with the social politician according to which the latter is given a seat in this or that house. In the bargain the latter has to compromise his agenda. Ali Anwar built up pasmanda movement from scratch in the post-Mandal phase. He supported Nitish led NDA in November, 2005 assembly elections which took away the power from the hands of Laloo and elevated Nitish to the post of chief minister of Bihar. After coming into power Nitish sent Ali Anwar to Rajya Sabha. But in the process Ali Anwar had to heavily compromise his agenda. When he was in dire straits he could still publish a magazine called ‘Pasmanda Awaz’ i.e. The Voice of Pasmanda. However, when he became an MP and had resources to run the magazine he chose to close it. Not only that he also had to canvass in favour of BJP candidate Shahnawaz Hussain in the by-election for Bhagalpur Lok Sabha constituency much against his declared policy that secularism was an article of faith for the pasmanda movement. We also have the example of Prem Kumar Mani, the noted Hindi short story writer and social justice intellectual. Mani played a pivotal role in bringing most backward caste people including pasmanda muslims in JD (U) fold in 2005 Bihar assembly elections. He was later awarded with membership of Bihar Legislative Council. He started Jan Vikalp, a monthly Hindi magazine, dedicated to the cause of progressive and sub-altern politics, which he preferred to shut down after publishing twelve issues. The party politicians are wary of social politicians because of their intellect and commitment and finding the first opportunity the former do not hesitate in clipping the wings of the latter.

The crisis of sub-altern politics and their politicians (Laloo, Mulayam, Mayawati, Karunanidhi, Sharad Yadav, Nitish etc) lies is this dichotomy of social politics and party politics. The party politicians have simply refused to acknowledge that political energy is generated by social movements by tapping which they can sustain their politics on a long term basis that will benefit both, the people and the politics. All the above cited politicians are struggling to keep their mass base intact. They are resorting to all sorts of compromises which go against the very philosophy of sub-altern politics landing their politics and people in deep trouble.

[The writer is social justice activist and writer. He is attached with All India Federation of Backward Classes (OBC) Employees Welfare Associations headquartered at Chennai. He can be contacted on ashokyadav2007@gmail.com)

Divide OBCs into subgroups

Divide OBCs into subgroups, says govt panel

By Subodh Ghildiyal, TNN | Nov 11, 2011

NEW DELHI: A government panel wants the Centre to initiate legal measures to split the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) into subgroups based on their socio-economic status, in what is the first show of official intent to categorize the monolith group.

The panel has suggested that the mass of thousands of backward castes presently part of an umbrella OBC list be divided into distinct categories of "backward" and "most backward".

The landmark initiative, with implications for OBC mobilization and apportioning of reservation benefits, may gather momentum from next year if the government accepts it as a policy objective.

The government's plans may invite resistance from the dominant sections since it will shrink their share in the 27% reservation pie to a fraction proportionate to their share of the total OBC population.

The government's plan to divide the OBCs will be a boon for the weaker "backwards" who are far more numerous but are unable to compete with the well-off backwards for quota benefits because of their education handicap.

The 'quota within OBC quota' thinking is in line with the views of National Commission for Backward Classes, as reported by TOI on May 27. The sub-categorization of OBCs will change the way quota politics has been run since the advent of Mandal commission which introduced job reservation for OBCs in central bodies. The Mandal policy turned OBCs into a crucial political force, forcing a churn in the upper caste-dominated politics. However, the OBC monolith has started disintegrating because of the resentment among the Most BackwardClasses (MBCs) over the domination of the "creamy layer". The last few years have seen them emerge from the shadow of Yadavs and Kurmis to be a factor in the electoral success ofMayawati and Nitish Kumar.

While the sub-division is already in force in many states, successive regimes at the Centre have avoided following suit for fear of backlash from the dominant groups. It is to be seen if the UPA will keep the recommendation of the Planning Commission's subgroup on 'empowerment of OBCs' as part of its policy objective for the new plan period.

NCBC chairman M N Rao had told TOI that the treatment of OBCs as a monolith had led to iniquitous distribution of quota benefits with dominant groups monopolizing the fruit of reservation. Advocating sub-division, he said, "A stonecutter and a goldsmith cannot be lumped together and asked to compete for a job." A preliminary discussion had earlier taken place between the commission and the social justice ministry.

MBCs have long complained that with their lower level of education, they are unable to compete with the strong backward castes. They have argued that weaker castes be asked to compete only against each other to ensure a levelplaying field for quota benefits. Significantly, the Congress-a late comer to OBC politics-has taken baby steps to court the MBCs. Unable to effectively woo the dominant groups, the party is trying to reach out to MBCs in the upcoming UP polls with a spike in party tickets for their members.

Reservation In Private Sector

Reservation In Private Sector: A Legitimate Demand

By Rahul Kumar Balley

DrAmbedkar on reservation has categorically stated “ Reservation is neither a policy matter , a political gimmick nor a matter of charity .It is a constitutional obligation .

Every social history in the society has background .Reservation has its own background when people into High and Low on the basis of their birth and not on the basis of merit were divided by the law book of Brahmins i.e Manusmriti .

According to Manusmriti low caste people were not allowed to have access to the education, a primary step to rise in life .Having no access to the education majority of them remain uneducated as a result of which they could not participate in the legislature ,the executive and the judiciary .Non availability of educated people from these low caste people gave opportunity to the upper caste Brahmins to monopolise the 3 arms of the government and subsequently laid greedy paws at the treasure of the country after departure of the British government from the Indian soil.

Brahmin dominated political parties and religious bodies are harping on doling out reservation on the economic criteria to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes but forgotten that their own books and religious leaders prescribed such division of people on the basis of caste . It is a lethal strategy by the Hindu organisations throughout the country and prepare the mind of one & all to bring about changes in the constitution to maintain pathetic status quo of the so called Scheduled castes & Scheduled Tribes .

Britishers left the culture of inequality and suppression which the governing class after partition of the county adopted with hatred in hearts and untouchability in minds against the so called Scheduled castes & Scheduled Tribes .Common untouchability practises such as :segregation in housing ,schools & cremation grounds ;de facto prohibition of caste marriage ;limitation or prohibit of access to public places such as water taps ,health care & education ;restriction on occupation ;assignment of the most mental ,dirty & dangerous jobs as defined by the caste hierarchy ;de facto prohibition of access of land ;bloody & brutal killing ,parading naked Dalits women everyday particularly in rural areas of the country . Most of the law enforcing agencies in the states are controlled under the supervision of the upper caste officials who do not want to lend a sympathetic ears to the suffering Dalits . Nothing has stopped in India against SCs & STs even after independence despite of constitutional safeguards but terminology of atrocities changed like honour killing ,stone to death, house burning so & so on .

The respective governments at the centre have failed in upholding the constitutional obligation for the betterment of the weaker sections of the society in letter and spirit since most of the governments are financed and run by the majority of the upper caste Brahmins at the centre .

Congress is squarely answerable since they rule the states with maximum Dalit population for almost first 40 years of Indian democracy .The litany of the matter is that from M.K. Gandhi to Rahul Gandhi paid lip service to the Dalits without having done anything substantial to improve the worsening condition of the weaker section of the society .After the death of Dr Ambedkar in 1956 ,not a single government has made sincere and honest efforts to ameliorate the ever pathetic conditions of the Dalits . It shows that political parties run by the upper caste Brahmins at the centre are least concerned about the welfare of the Dalits .It is pity to know that most of the welfare schemes for SCs & STs floated by the central government are financially crunched or die its own death in the government files .

Similarly ,t he "National Agenda for Governance," the election manifesto for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which came to power in the February 1998 elections, outlines a program of action for the "upliftment" of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. It promises to take steps to establish "a civilised, humane and just civil order... which does not discriminate on the grounds of caste, religion, class, colour, race or sex"; ensures the "economic and educational development of the minorities"; safeguards the interests of scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and backward classes by "appropriate legal, executive and societal efforts and by large scale education and empowerment"; provides "legal protection to existing percentages of reservation in educational institutions at the State level"; and removes "the last vestiges of untouchabilit y." However, to date, the state government ruled by BJP has done little to fulfill its promises to Dalits. Currently seven states ruled by BJP ,the atrocities on minority communities have been increasing day & night .

Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes commission report says that A large number of cases which deserve to be registered under Protection of Civil Rights Act or the SCs & STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not actually registered under these Acts, either due to ignorance of law or under pressure from the interested parties. Investigations in even those limited number of cases is often earned out in a slipshod manner and with considerable delay.”

Source: National Human Rights Commission Report on the Prevention and Atrocities against Scheduled Castes

A large chunk of the key posts in the police department are held by the upper caste Brahmins in all states of the country . It is but natural that their tendency towards the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes will remain repressive because of prevalence of negative mind set Corruption is a major issue that affects the lives of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes . Siphining of funds through the state agencies earmarked for the welfare of the so called SCs & STs is common affair .Illiteracy rate among SCs & STs is on the rise despite of several educational schemes at the district level launched by the respect states mainly because of deep rooted corruption .The central government has to bring about change in the existing system and should also ensure strict supervision & monitoring of the optimal uasage of funds earmarked for the welfare of the SCs & STs by state legislatures & their committees .

The political scenario in India has drastically changed subsequently the degree of insensitivity on the part of the upper caste Brahmins to the underprivileged class has increased manifold in the last few decades The powerful words like socialism or secularism are replaced by privatisation ,globalisation & liberalisation .Shrinking of government jobs and faster disinvestment policies of the government of India in ONGC,SAIL,HINDUSTAN COPPER(HCL)& NATIONAL BUILDING OF CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION has already hit hard the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes .Skyrocketing privatisation with Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in major industry in India will further block the chances of getting jobs for the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes subsequently more exploitation and segregation . On the educational front the situation is getting worse day by day . In the process of globalisation, many foreign universities are invading the educational spheres through hitherto unfamiliar strategic alliances with non-descript commercial agencies, of course at hefty dollar equivalent prices. Many elite institutions like IIMs, IITs, and suddenly facing fund crunch had to raise their fee structure and other prices many fold. They were already beyond the reach of Dalits.

On the hand the PSUs for global free market regime, the PSUs were allowed/encouraged to have strategic alliances with private companies from India and abroad. As such, over the last five years, many profit making PSUs have formed the joint venture companies (JVC). These JVCs are strategically structured as not to fall in the ambit of the PSU-framework. The typical equity stake for the PSU and private could be 49:51. There appears to be a great deal of receptivity for this scheme in the government circles. There are no policy barriers on the business to be pursued by these JVCs. Such joint venture companies will watch the interest of the rich people only.

During the brief government of BJP at the centre state owned enterprises were sold to the private business houses ( for an extremely low price ) which has no place for Dalits .Privatisation in india is a great challenge for the Dalits

Economic backwardness of the Dalits will make them helpless to acquire new skills to compete in the private sector .`Poverty is not just low GDP ;it is dying babies ,starving children and oppression of women & the downtrodden (Easterly William ,2001) English as a medium of language & e-learning techniques has become altogether a stumbling block for the Dalits particularly in the rural areas of the country .

In metro cities ,the hiring rate of the Scheduled castes & Scheduled Tribes by the Multi National Companies (MNCs) is almost negligible because of lack of technical skills and passable English . Above that educational coaching institutes funded by government of India for imparting free computer skill training to the SCs & STs are not upto the mark .It should be noted computers installed at such educational coaching institutions hardly work or upgraded as per the industry requirement subsequently making them unfit for the globalised market Survey revealed that in modern private enterprises (including IT) applicants with a typical Muslim or Dalits name had a lower chance of success than those with the same qualified & an upper caste Hindu name because of no access to intellectual technological & financial resources at their disposal.

Liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation have eroded opportunities for SC/ST and marginalised people to retain the gains already achieved, what to talk about pacing with time and space. The demand by All India confederation of SCs & STs organisations and National Justice party President Dr Udit Raj for reservation in private sector is a legitimate demand .The government of India should implement reservation in private sectors to open up job opportunities for the SCs/STs .All scheduled castes & Scheduled Tribes organisations should educate the poor Dalits about the harmful effects of privatisation on their daily life ;organise & mobilise the people throughout the country to raise voice and agitate for pressing the demand for reservation in private sectors before it becomes too late to mend the ways .

Rahul Kumar Balley, Director , Buddha Education Foundation, New Delhi

( Courtesy: Countercurrents.org )

The Real Goal Of The Anna Movement?

What Is The Real Goal Of The Anna Movement?

By Rohini Hensman

Many people including members of Team Anna have expressed reservations about the way in which their campaign has been developing, and some have even resigned. This raises questions about the real aim of the leadership around Anna. Is it really what it is proclaimed to be?

Is the aim to get the Jan Lokpal Bill passed by parliament?

Team Anna has repeatedly stated that they have just a one-point agenda: to get the Jan Lokpal Bill (JLB) passed. According to a detailed report, [1] the bill is actually the brain-child of Arvind Kejriwal, who joined the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) when it was working on the Right to Information (RTI) Bill, and was later delegated, along with others, to draft a Lokpal Bill. However, he parted company with the rest of the team when they did not agree with him that the judiciary should come under the scrutiny of the Lokpal. As Justice A.P. Shah explains, the NCPRI feels that corruption in the judiciary should be dealt with by a strengthened Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill. [2] Kejriwal was unconvinced, and went on to draft the bill with inputs from Prashant and Shanti Bhushan. He also succeeded in getting the full support of anti-corruption campaigner Anna Hazare.

Since the bill is so crucial to the campaign, it is worth asking: what are the chances that it could actually become law? Most people who support the bill have not read it, and those who have taken the trouble to do so find it deeply flawed. One legal expert who attended consultations about the bill and, along with others, made criticisms of it that were apparently not heeded, felt the flaws were so glaring that the movement could not possibly be about the bill. The Lokpal takes over functions of the legislature (parliament) and judiciary, thus violating the basic structure of the separation of powers which is fundamental to the constitution of a liberal democracy. This structure cannot completely prevent the abuse of power, but it does put in place certain checks and balances, and thus creates obstacles to the seizure of absolute power by any state institution. Abuse of power by the Jan Lokpal would be almost inevitable, given that it would have the power to determine, arbitrarily, a punishment for corruption between 6 months and life imprisonment. Thus even if the JLB were to be passed by parliament, it would almost certainly be struck down as unconstitutional because it violates the principle of the separation of powers. Even if it were not struck down, it would by no means end corruption, because ‘You are creating an institution that becomes impervious to being challenged for corruption or for abuse of power.’ [3]

In other places, the drafting is extremely vague. For example, the establishment of Lokayuktas is mentioned only in the last two-and-a-half lines, where the bill merely says that the provisions would be same as for the setting up of the Lokpal! But the main criticism of the bill, according to Usha Ramanathan, is the nature of the power it would establish: ‘RTI said every one of us can take our destiny into our hands to the extent that we are able to find the energies. Lokpal says, “You become a subject of mine, I will protect you from corruption.” So if the Lokpal doesn’t succeed, I can’t do anything for myself. That’s the fundamental difference. If you do not democratise control over corruption, you cannot control corruption.’ (see[3]).

The demand that the JLB should be passed by parliament unchanged cannot, then, be a serious one, given the draconian nature of the bill and its lack of constitutionality on one hand, and its sloppy drafting on the other. It could gain so much traction at least in part because the vast majority of its supporters did not read it. If the real goal had been to pass the bill in parliament, it would have been drafted with greater care.

Is the goal a broader democratic transformation?

The fact that electoral reform, with the incorporation of the right to reject and recall candidates, was proposed by Team Anna soon after Hazare called off his fast at the end of August suggested that the team might be planning to campaign on a range of democratic rights issues. Promising to send representatives to Manipur to find out whether it was worthwhile for the team to support Irom Sharmila’s struggle strengthened this impression.

One of the first indications that this would be an illusion came in NDTV’s ‘We the People’ edition on ‘Gandhigiri in the Age of Violence’ on 2 October. During the discussion, ex-police officer Kiran Bedi said categorically, ‘I can’t believe the Indian army would kill an Indian for the sake of killing.’ Coming in the wake of revelations in the mass media that this is precisely what has been taking place, and has resulted in thousands of unmarked graves in Kashmir, [4] Bedi’s public defence of the impunity granted by the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) brings into question her commitment to fundamental rights. When Sajjad Lone commented that ‘All the killings that the army has done are not of militants,’ she conceded, ‘Could be! I’ve done encounters too. When I go for an encounter, I have to take it on, and I can go wrong and I can go right.’ The issue of human rights is nowhere on her radar, nor the idea that the root cause of corruption is excessive power and the freedom to abuse it with impunity.

However, the most dramatic proof that the team could not work together on broader issues surfaced on 12 October, when Prashant Bhushan was assaulted by members of the Bhagat Singh Kranti Sena (BSKS) and Sri Ram Sene in his chambers at the Supreme Court, in the full glare of TV cameras that had come to film an interview with him. [5] A visibly shocked and shaken Bhushan afterwards told reporters that they attacked him because he had advocated a plebiscite in Kashmir, and said that if the majority wanted to separate from India, they should be allowed to do so. The organisations too claimed the attack, and explained it in the same way. Everyone condemned the assault, but Anna’s condemnation was curiously lukewarm, because he added that the attackers ‘should not have taken the law into their own hands. They should have taken recourse to the law.’ The implication - that he agreed with the politics of the attackers but not with their methods, and that possibly the sedition law should have been used against Bhushan - was made clearer subsequently, when he proclaimed that Kashmir was an integral part of India, and he was ready to die or go to war with Pakistan to keep it so. His suggestion that the core group would have to discuss whether Bhushan would be allowed to stay on in the group [6] was quickly withdrawn, but not quickly enough to avoid giving the impression that he considered airing such views a serious offence.

Shanti Bhushan stood by his son, but other members of the team hastened to distance themselves from Prashant Bhushan’s views on Kashmir. Once again, despite the backdrop of revelations about ghastly human rights violations in Kashmir, they did not mention state atrocities. One may disagree with Bhushan that a plebiscite would guarantee the democratic rights of all Kashmiris - if 51 percent want to join Pakistan and 49 percent do not, what happens to the democratic rights of the 49 percent? - but at least he recognises that the people of Kashmir have democratic rights. Yet with the exception of Shanti Bhushan, no one else in Team Anna spoke up in his defence. Even more disturbing was the fact that it was he, the victim of violence, whose continued membership in the campaign was questioned, whereas there was no suggestion that the perpetrators of the violence - who were also part of India Against Corruption and had put up pictures of themselves at Tihar jail demonstrating for Anna Hazare - should not be part of the campaign. Indeed, no one else in Team Anna acknowledged that photographs of BSKS leader Tejinder Pal Singh Bagga with Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and L.K.Advani can be found on the internet, showing clearly where his political affiliation lies. [7]

With such serious differences on the issue of fundamental rights, it is clear that the Anna movement could not campaign on a broader democratic transformation without falling apart. This cannot therefore be its goal.

Is the aim to curb corruption?

Curbing corruption was certainly the goal of a large part of the movement, including members of its leadership. This section would consider the campaign of August 2011 a success if it resulted in the government passing a strong Lokpal Bill (not necessarily the JLB) in the winter session of parliament, along with supplementary anti-corruption legislation. However, the decision by Kejriwal, Hazare and others to campaign against Congress in the parliamentary by-election in Hisar in September - before the government had had a chance to pass a Lokpal Bill - made it clear that another section of the leadership had a different goal. As Hartosh Singh Bal comments, according to Kejriwal, ‘“Except the Congress, give your vote to any of the other 44 candidates in the fray. Do not worry excessively that there are corrupt individuals among the candidates. If they win, the Lokpal Bill will send them to jail” ~ 10 October 2011. Let us try and understand Kejriwal’s logic (if it can be termed that)—as long as the Congress is kept out, it does not matter that corrupt politicians are elected to Parliament. In fact, to take this argument to its logical conclusion, Kejriwal seems to suggest that if enough corrupt non-Congress politicians are elected, they will pass a Lokpal Bill that will ensure they are sent to jail.’ [8]

Justice Santosh Hegde immediately condemned the move, pointing out that Congress had not been given time to pass the Lokpal Bill, that the other two candidates in the fray were not above board, and that if Kejriwal and Anna felt compelled to campaign in elections, they should simply campaign for the best candidate and not against any particular party. [9] Two more prominent activists, P.V.Rajagopal and Rajinder Singh, decided to quit the core committee, objecting to the political turn taken by the campaign and complaining that they had not been consulted about it. [10] Indeed, given that the main beneficiary of a campaign against Congress would be the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which had as many or more corruption-tainted ministers as Congress, it would be correct to say that this was a party political campaign rather than a campaign against corruption.

However, the most persuasive evidence that the aim of the campaign is not to curb corruption comes from what might be called ‘the inflated travel bill scam’. On 20 October, the Indian Express broke the story that Kiran Bedi had routinely been travelling on discount airfares but charging her hosts full fare or even business class fares. [11] Her first line of defence was that she was doing this with the knowledge and consent of her hosts, thus ‘saving’ money and passing it on to her NGO, India Vision Foundation (IVF). [12] But it subsequently emerged that not only did her hosts not consent to her inflated travel bills, but some were indignant when they discovered, for example, that she was trying to get them to pay twice over for the same journey, and charging business class fares on a flight that did not have business class. [13] Former Chief Justice S.J.Verma commented that claiming reimbursement of money you have not spent is unacceptable, but Bedi’s justification for doing so was even more upsetting: if you pick a person’s pocket and give the money to someone else, does that mean you haven’t committed the offence of pickpocketing? [14]

Apparently sensing that passing off profits as reimbursement was not merely unethical but might be illegal, the trustees of IVF instructed her to return the extra money and refrain from inflating her travel bills in future. Bedi made this announcement, but botched it by saying that her travel agent Anil Bal, who was also a founder-member of IVF, would return the money. Bal objected strongly to the insinuation that he was responsible for the inflated bills, and to the ‘bizarre’ order that he return the excess money, saying that he had no transactions with Bedi’s hosts. He said he was returning the money in the IVF account forthwith, and resigned both from being a trustee of IVF and from being their travel agent. [15] Meanwhile Kejriwal, who had taken two years’ paid study leave from his job in the Income Tax Department on the strength of a Rs 9-lakh bond that he would return and work for them for three years, but had instead gone on to work for his NGO Parivartan, (see [1]), was trying (unsuccessfully) to evade payment of the bond. [16]

If Bedi’s and Kejriwal’s rants against ‘the corrupt’ had not been so strident, if the JLB had concentrated on big-ticket corruption instead of aiming to prosecute every clerk or linesman who took Rs 50 extra to do the work they were required to do, these deviations from the straight and narrow path might have been considered trivial, but in the circumstances, they made Bedi and Kejriwal appear hypocritical. To make matters worse, instead of distancing himself from Bedi, as he had from Bhushan, Anna defended her and instead blamed a ‘gang of four’ in the government for the debacle! [17] It was clear from the start that the real root of corruption - unaccountable power and impunity - were not the target of the campaign, but these recent developments demonstrate that for some of its leaders, it is not even about curbing corruption in the narrower sense of financial irregularities. If that were the aim, the first requirement would be to ensure that members of Anna’s own team had nothing to hide.

Is the goal regime change?

All the evidence suggests that the real goal of these members of Team Anna is regime change, and that, too, not in the weak sense of a change of government, but in the much stronger sense of constitutional change.

The campaign in Hisar was only one of many instances in which Congress was targeted; Anna blamed the government for the story of Bedi’s inflated travel bills instead of giving credit to the Indian Express for its exposé; and Kejriwal insinuated that Congress was responsible even for the assault on Prashant Bhushan, despite manifest evidence that it was launched by right-wing activists close to the BJP. Meanwhile, the BJP has escaped criticism despite the fact that one of its chief ministers (Karnataka) was in jail for corruption, a second (Uttarakhand) had to be dismissed due to corruption charges, and a third (Gujarat) failed to appoint a Lokayukta for seven years and then opposed the Lokayukta chosen by the Chief Justice, wanting instead to appoint a person who was subservient to him. Kejriwal and Bedi said that ‘RSS people’ were welcome to join their movement as Indians, [18] even as it emerged that Yedyurappa allocated about Rs 50 crore worth of land that had been reserved for other purposes to six RSS-affiliated organisations and seven leaders from an RSS background at throwaway prices while 350,000 genuine applicants waited in the queue! [19] It is hard to escape the impression that the campaign is aimed at bringing down the UPA government and installing a BJP-led government, which is precisely why Rajinder Singh resigned, saying that Team Anna had departed from its original objective and had become involved in ‘power brokering’. [20]

However, it is not just Congress that is cast as the enemy, but also constitutional democracy. Interviewed about why he was insisting that his own bill be passed without discussion or debate in parliament, Anna was simply unable to grasp why discussion or debate was needed; so far as he was concerned, he wanted the bill passed, and therefore it should be passed. This was how he ruled his village, and this was how he wanted to rule the country. Put beside his contempt for the electorate and elections, one gets a strong impression of hostility towards parliamentary democracy. When Kejriwal was asked by Karan Thapar (in ‘Devil’s Advocate’, CNN-IBN on 9 October), whether Anna was above parliament, Kejriwal replied immediately that he was. Then, for good measure, he added, ‘Every citizen is above parliament.’ But if every citizen is above parliament, why have parliament at all?

Add to all this the fact that the JLB makes parliament subservient to an unelected panel of guardians, and the relentless targeting of MPs by Bedi in her ghunghat act at the Ramlila grounds, and the sentiments expressed by these members of Team Anna are not so different from Mussolini’s statement that parliament ‘is a plague-boil that poisons the blood of the country.’ In an essay on ‘Ur-fascism’, Umberto Eco had predicted that “In our future there looms qualitative TV or Internet populism, in which a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the ‘voice of the people’…As a result of its qualitative populism , Ur-Fascism has to oppose ‘rotten’ parliamentary governments...Every time a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the ‘voices of the people’, there is a suspicion of Ur-fascism.” [21] In this context, demands for the right to reject and recall candidates, which Chief Election Commissioner S.Y.Qureshi has said would destabilise the country, [22] appear to be an attempt to make parliamentary democracy so expensive and unstable that it collapses.

The Sangh Parivar has always wanted to overthrow the present constitution, and would also cheer on Anna’s declaration that he would be willing to go to war with Pakistan and fight to the death to ensure that Kashmir remains an integral part of India (regardless of what Kashmiris might want). Anna’s vision of a society ordered by caste hierarchy coincides with theirs. As Jyotirmaya Sharma observes perceptively, ‘Hazare is the leader of “banal Hindutva”… What Hazare is knowingly or unknowingly doing is to become the informal recruitment centre for the harder versions of Hindutva. By making “banal Hindutva” honourable, Hazare has begun the process of making the harder versions of Hindutva more acceptable and legitimate. The collateral damage…will be Indian democracy.’ [23]

This does not mean that there is no rivalry between Anna and the Sangh Parivar. Hazare has been unhappy with the RSS for trying to steal his thunder with their claims to have mobilised people for his movement, while the RSS has objected to the involvement of minorities in the anti-corruption movement. But they need each other. It is clear to the RSS that the issue of a Ram temple no longer has popular resonance, and Advani’s yatra has fallen flat because everybody knows that the BJP is mired in corruption; they need Anna’s clean image to win them votes. On the other side, Anna does not have the cadre to mobilise crowds, nor does he have a party machine that can win elections and instal him as the head of a Jan Lokpal. They have to work together, and they do. It was clear from the beginning that their agendas converged, and we can now identify the precise point at which their goals meet: the Indian version of a fascist state, a Hindu Rashtra, with a Jan Lokpal that will incorporate members of Team Anna: ‘the viewpoint that Anna and by extension Kejriwal represent is the same simplistic and ill-thought-out rightwing nationalism of the Sangh which has no space for the Constitution or the liberal values it embodies…Through the twentieth century, this combination—a claim to efficient governance, a mythic father or motherland, a contempt for a certain section of people—has been the mark of fascism.’ [24]

Averting the danger of fascism

In this situation, the government has the primary responsibility to counteract the danger represented by both the Anna movement and the Sangh Parivar. If it enacts a strong Lokpal Bill and supplementary legislation, people like Justice Hegde, whose only interest in the movement is to curb corruption, would be satisfied. But not Hazare, Kejriwal, Bedi and others, whose agenda is regime change and might campaign against Congress on the pretext that the bill that has been passed is not their Jan Lokpal Bill. Counteracting this would require Congress spokespersons involved in public debates on the issue to come out with a critique of the JLB, drawing on what has been said by members of the NCPRI, legal scholars like Usha Ramanathan, and others.

However, even this is not enough. Any government committed to secularism has to act far more decisively to clamp down on the perpetrators of communal pogroms and Hindutva terrorist attacks, and especially to root out elements in the police, intelligence agencies, investigative agencies, bureaucracy, and army (Lt. Col. Purohit cannot be an exception) who are complicit in these attacks. Both terrorist violence and infiltration of the state apparatus are typical of the ways in which fascism ensconces itself, and unless action is taken now, it could be too late. In this context, the passing of the Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence Bill is a priority that the UPA simply has not taken seriously enough. If certain groups in society do not enjoy equal protection of the law, special measures are required to ensure that they do so. Of course the BJP will cry foul, but surely those within Congress who have been pushing for the bill have enough intellectual resources at their disposal to distinguish between Hinduism and Hindutva, and to point out that this is not the first time that legislation to protect vulnerable sections of the population has been passed?

However, the struggle against fascism cannot possibly be won if it is left to the government alone; members of civil society too have to be involved, and those on the Left have a special responsibility in this regard. This brings us to a disturbing question: what are people like Prashant Bhushan and Medha Patkar doing in a team that includes such right-wing elements? Conventional wisdom would have it that they are there to push the movement to the Left, but it does not seem to have moved an inch in that direction. Part of the answer lies in the authoritarianism that is an integral part of the politics of a large part of the Left. For example, Bhushan advocates plebiscites as a means of achieving a ‘participatory democracy’ that is more advanced than the representative democracy embodied in parliament, but does he know that Hitler carried out six plebiscites between 1933 and 1938? A plebiscite on the Lokpal Bill would in fact be less democratic than the process of public consultation that has taken place and a debate in parliament.

This is only one instance of a more general malady afflicting a section of the Left: a kind of political dyslexia that renders them incapable of distinguishing left from right. Thus instead of pushing the government to present and enact the Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence Bill speedily, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) effectively gangs up with the Right to sabotage it by raising spurious objections; insisting, for example, that it should cover only victims of communal violence and not victims of other forms of targeted violence. How would victims of communal violence lose if the bill covers other victims of targeted violence? And who but the perpetrators of violence would gain if the bill fails to be passed? Which side are they on? Prashant Bhushan is even more confused. In an interview with Rajdeep Sardesai, he referred to the ‘fascist mindset’ of the people who had assaulted him, and suggested that ‘the leaders of such organisations who propagate violence, who propagate this kind of fascist thinking,’ should be booked, and their organisations banned; yet when Sardesai asked him if such people could be part of his anti-corruption campaign, he replied, ‘Yeah, they can be part of the anti-corruption campaign,’ but should not be allowed to share the platform. [25] It does not occur to him to ask why fascist elements who are by no means uncorrupt should be joining his campaign in large numbers. In both these cases, the CPI(M) and Bhushan are so intent on opposing the centre that they end up in a position that is right of centre.

If the campaign for the JLB is genuinely opposing corruption, it will end if and when the government passes a strong Lokpal Bill and supplementary anti-corruption legislation. One can only wait and see.

References

[1] http://www.caravanmagazine.in/Story.aspx?Storyid=1050&StoryStyle=FullStory

[2] http://lokpaldissent.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/lok-pal-bill-an-alternate-view-videos-of-ncpri-press-conference-of-20-august-2011-new-delhi/ 

[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tukI3MX7rvU 

[4] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Time-to-face-the-ugly-truth/articleshow/10404086.cms

[5] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Prashant-Bhushan-tried-to-break-India-I-broke-his-head/articleshow/10333319.cms

[6] http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/prashant-bhushan-kashmir-remark-anna-hazare/1/154852.html

[7] http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-operation-bhushan-accuseds-family-bears-the-brunt/20111015.htm

[8] http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/nation/nonsense

[9]http://www.indiatvnews.com/news/India/Santosh_Hegde_Says_Team_Anna_s_Campaign_In_Hisar_Was_Not-11399.html

[10] http://www.firstpost.com/politics/anna-tryst-with-politics-two-core-committee-members-quit-110649.html

[11] http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Kiran-Lokpal-Bedi-buys-discount-air-tickets-gets-hosts-to-pay-full-fare/862515/

[12] http://www.8pmnews.com/news/headlines/kiran-bedi-explains-the-controversy-over-her-business-class-tickets

[13] http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Raipur-hosts-put-foot-down-told-Kiran-Bedi-cant-pay-you-twice-for-same-flight/863124/

[14] http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=739288

[15 http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2570806.ece?homepage=true

[16] http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/income-tax-departments-deadline-to-kejriwal-for-depositing-rs-9-5-lakh-ends-today-144426

[17] http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-10-24/india/30315959_1_anna-hazare-kiran-bedi-joint-committee

[18] http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2582370.ece

[19] http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/karnataka-land-scam-b.-s.-yeddyurappa-rss-bjp/1/158133.html

[20] http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/jaipur/Hazare-has-deviated-from-his-objective-Rajinder-Singh/Article1-762035.aspx

[21] http://kafila.org/2011/08/24/reading-ur-fascism-in-our-times/

[22] http://www.aajkikhabar.com/en/news/686685/686685.html

[23] http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/anna-hazare-hindutva-rss-vhp-bjp/1/155206.html

[24] http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/voices/why-the-sangh-loves-anna

[25] http://ibnlive.in.com/news/bhushan-stands-by-his-kashmir-plebiscite-remark/192758-3.html

Rohini Hensman is a writer and researcher active in workers' rights, women's rights, anti-communal and anti-war movements. Rohini can be reached at: rohinihensman@yahoo.co.uk

[Courtesy Countercurrents.org ]