How to play politics with minority welfare
By J.S. Rajput

They never practise what they preach is perhaps the most appropriate way of describing the majority of our political parties and politicians. At least this is certainly the public perception. They can go to any extent to ensure popular support. But no one should grudge this, so long as national and community interests are not compromised. Indians have experienced exploitation on the basis of religion and caste for short-sighted political gains. The wounds of communal conflict are yet to heal. Sadly enough, not many lessons appear to have been learnt. The current political scenario is creating conditions that could create serious differences between Hindus and Muslims, though the terms used are majority and minority communities. Looking back, the communal elements even accused Gandhi of being the leader of the Hindus, and the hard-core communalism preached by the Muslim League, eventually succeeded in dividing the country. In this context, Louis Fischer’s Mahatma Gandhi: His Life and Times is worth recalling, particularly for the way minority provisions and rights are being interpreted: "Hinduism and Mohammedanism are dissimilar religions but Hindus and Mohammedans are far less dissimilar. Most of the Moslems of India are converted Hindus, converted by the invading Arabs, Afghans and Persians who began thrusting into India during the eighth century. Jinnah said converted Hindus were 75 per cent of Moslem community; Nehru put it at 95 per cent." He goes ahead to state the obvious: "In parts of India Moslems worship in Hindu temples. There are castes among some Indian Moslems. In many areas, Hindus and Moslems are indistinguishable from one another in appearance, costume, customs and language… Hinduism is an insidious, emotional religion native to India, which clings to the descendants of those who were converted to the Quran by the sword. Religious leaders have succeeded in widening the gulf and poisoning the relations, yet ties remain."

If Fischer were to rewrite his work today, the term politician would certainly find a place next to religious leaders. Some political parties in India are keen to misinterpret the Constitution on communal lines with short-term goals like the Assembly elections being held in five states. Some of the pronouncements made after May 2004 in the name of minority welfare have created apprehensions among the majority community and made the minorities see through the game.

No one would have any reservation about initiatives that help the cause of education, particularly in providing equality of opportunity to the weaker sections. These need not be taken on sectarian or religious considerations. Constitutional provisions made for the minorities have to be respected in letter and spirit. No one, however, should be allowed to exploit these for political purposes. The much-hyped Common Minimum Programme, CMP, of the Central government is very clear in its intention to politicise the issue of minorities, particularly in education. It all began with the minorities and their education and the much-publicised "detoxification" and "desaffronisation" campaign. The intent and imperatives were not unclear to the nation. In a consultative meet on minority education convened in June 2004, the BJP was not invited. Senior officers of the ministry offered the explanation that they wanted undisturbed discussion. The HRD ministry was in a tremendous hurry. In public perception, it started to implement a "Common Minorities Programme" with full force. Some of its measures have serious implications for the future of education and also the country. Minority status to Aligarh Muslim University, establishment of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions, non-reservation in minority managed institutions, were some of the initiatives which were totally unnecessary and were hurried through. The objectives are political and electoral, certainly not academic or professional. The way the Supreme Court judgment on illegal immigrants of Assam has been circumvented, speaks volumes about how politics can disown all ethical norms.

Religion-based reservations are now attracting "secular" politicians. They make announcements and, amazingly enough, are not perturbed when the judiciary rejects these as ultra-vires to the Constitution of India. But whispers are heard: "The purpose is served."

Muslims in India need to seriously ascertain the politics being played in the name of their backwardness for six decades. How much have they benefited in the process? Yes, a select few, who needed no special provision, have enjoyed some benefits. But how long will the majority of Muslims allow themselves to be treated as mere pawns in the hands of politicians who only need them for votes and for that sole reason keep showing them the bogey of communal forces? Reservations for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes and the benefits accrued, or the lack of them, should come as eye-openers. No right thinking person would even slightly grudge the provisions of positive discrimination as enshrined in the Constitution. Even in these categories, development has been highly skewed and only the creamy layer has benefited. No caste or tribe has reached a stage from where they would like to move out of the reserved category. More and more groups now fight for inclusion under the reserved categories and politicians are ever willing to extend a helping hand.

The perils of pursuing religion- and caste-based politics can be understood only as a continuation to what happened to the country because of the inappropriate handling of communalism. India must learn from its history, particularly its recent past. Can it be denied that Partition was a consequence of the communal divide created by politicians? Is it not a fact that political expediency outweighed national needs and the Indian leadership agreed to Partition instead of creating conditions of communal harmony even at the cost of a delayed independence? No one can ignore it was the president of the Indian National Congress, Maulana Azad, who, while chairing the session in Nagpur in September 1923, declared: "I will give up Swaraj but not Hindu-Muslim unity, for if Swaraj is delayed it will be a loss for India, but if Hindu-Muslim unity is lost, it will be a loss for the whole mankind."

There are instances of attempts to offer religion-based reservations in jobs and in institutions. All such pranks serve no purpose and create a climate of distrust within society. No party or person need ever compromise certain aspects, particularly respect to the Constitution and its spirit for political gains. Those who can think beyond the next election and party lines, have to take the initiative and let the country know the disastrous results of exploitation of religions. They just cannot remain unconcerned.

J.S. Rajput is a former director of the NCERT