12-29-2006, 07:19 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Minorityism rules </b>
Pioneer.com
Arif Mohammad Khan
'My' problem is not necessarily a 'Muslim problem' and this is the core of the message for Uttar Pradesh
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is reported to have said at the International Conference of Dalits and minorities that "the plight of Muslims has been established by data provided in the Sachar Committee report which studied the social, economic and educational status of the Muslim community in the country". He declared that it was "incumbent" upon any democratically elected Government to redress such imbalances and "eradicate such inequities". Needless to say, he reiterated his Government's "commitment" to fall in line.
I have no doubt about the responsibility of the Government as mandated by the Constitution to secure a social order in which justice, social, economic and political shall inform all the institutions of national life. The Constitution further charges the Government with the duty to minimise the inequities in income and eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities not only among individuals, but also within groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations.
It is undoubtedly the Prime Minister's duty as head of the Government to redress any and every imbalance and eradicate inequities wherever they exist. This is a sacred duty owed to the Constitution and to the citizens of this country. But I am flabbergasted that even this constitutional commitment has been reiterated in a context where instead of creating confidence and hope among the underclasses and poor citizens, it would only heighten community consciousness which, in turn, may be exploited by the practitioners of identity politics to herd communities into political groupings for a solution to their economic backwardness and other problems.
The Prime Minister needs no reminder about the disastrous consequences of a religious community being converted into a political grouping or the assumption that religious commonality necessarily leads to commonality of secular interests. I am not going to dispute the data collected by the Sachar Committee or the conclusions it has reached.
However, <b>my question is why the Prime Minister paints my backwardness as "Muslim backwardness"? Why can't he address my problem along with the problem of other Indian citizens who happen to fall in the same category of social, educational and other backwardness?</b>
Mr Singh has asserted that "the principle that explicit measures should be taken to protect the interest of minorities is an idea embedded in our political discourse and in our constitutional provisions". What he said is true as far as the political discourse of the so-called secular parties is concerned. But the findings of the Sachar Committee report have proved the futility of this discourse. Muslims are worst off in West Bengal, the State ruled by a party known for its explicit pro-Muslim discourse and secular protestations.
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>I am tired of this special treatment because, far from helping me, it gives rise to resentment and alienation. I would rather be treated equally, entitled to same benefits and rights and ready to shoulder same duties as my other compatriots. In fact, the experience has amply demonstrated that special rights and inequality are the two sides of the same coin and I do not wish to labour under inequality in the guise of explicit measures.</span>
As far as the Constitution is concerned, it was envisaged as an instrument to further the ideals of equality, justice and freedom of conscience and expression. Communal electorates were abolished to give a strong message that common religious faith does not admit common secular interest. Besides, judicially enforceable fundamental rights were incorporated to secure equality and dignity to every single Indian citizen on the one hand, and safeguarding certain important minority rights like freedom of various denominations to manage their own affairs in matters of religion on the other.
It was hoped that that these safeguards would extend the principle of equality to all religions. In secular domains, the distinction between "minority" and "majority" was expected to vanish under the working of adult franchise. A homogeneous Indian nation was to have evolved, the basic unit of which would be the citizen and not the religious group.
The Constitution holds the right to development as an inalienable human right and charges the state with the responsibility to apply this principle in making laws and formulating its programmes and policies. India is a signatory to the UN Convention on Right to Development. Who can know better about its significance than a professional economist like Mr Manmohan Singh? If necessary steps are taken to translate this constitutional vision into reality, then every single citizen who is economically weak or deprived shall have first right over the resources and no one shall grudge it.
It often appears that although we adopted a vibrant Constitution to pave the way for building a modern India, we have not been able to give up our old habit of looking at every issue from a communal prism. If the Prime Minister feels that there are instances of discrimination on the basis of religion or caste, the right response is to identify the culprits and take strong action against them for violating the provisions of the Constitution.
Any other course of action will only institutionalise the discrimination and the remedy will prove to be worse than disease. Safeguarding freedom of religion, conservation of language, script or culture may require specific governmental intervention, but issues of economic and educational development are of common interest and must be tackled on a general plane.
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, in his speech before the Ramgarh AICC session, said: "I repeat that nothing in India's political development has been as blatantly wrong as the assertion that Muslims constitute a political minority, and that they should be wary of their rights and interests in a democratic India. This one fundamental misconception has led to innumerable misunderstandings. Wrong arguments have been built upon false foundations."
We may decide to ignore Maulana but we cannot ignore the constitutional provisions. We cannot initiate measures that will heighten the sense of community identity and weaken our common Indian identity. The dangers inherent in this approach have been beautifully articulated by Allama Iqbal in one of his couplets: Ujada Hai Tameeze Millat o aaeen ne qomon ko/ Mere Ahle Watan ke Dil mein Kuchh Fikre Watan Bhi Hai. <b>(The consciousness of community and customs has destroyed many a nation. Do my countrymen feel any concern for the well being of the country.)</b>-- The writer is a BJP leader and former Minister
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pioneer.com
Arif Mohammad Khan
'My' problem is not necessarily a 'Muslim problem' and this is the core of the message for Uttar Pradesh
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is reported to have said at the International Conference of Dalits and minorities that "the plight of Muslims has been established by data provided in the Sachar Committee report which studied the social, economic and educational status of the Muslim community in the country". He declared that it was "incumbent" upon any democratically elected Government to redress such imbalances and "eradicate such inequities". Needless to say, he reiterated his Government's "commitment" to fall in line.
I have no doubt about the responsibility of the Government as mandated by the Constitution to secure a social order in which justice, social, economic and political shall inform all the institutions of national life. The Constitution further charges the Government with the duty to minimise the inequities in income and eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities not only among individuals, but also within groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations.
It is undoubtedly the Prime Minister's duty as head of the Government to redress any and every imbalance and eradicate inequities wherever they exist. This is a sacred duty owed to the Constitution and to the citizens of this country. But I am flabbergasted that even this constitutional commitment has been reiterated in a context where instead of creating confidence and hope among the underclasses and poor citizens, it would only heighten community consciousness which, in turn, may be exploited by the practitioners of identity politics to herd communities into political groupings for a solution to their economic backwardness and other problems.
The Prime Minister needs no reminder about the disastrous consequences of a religious community being converted into a political grouping or the assumption that religious commonality necessarily leads to commonality of secular interests. I am not going to dispute the data collected by the Sachar Committee or the conclusions it has reached.
However, <b>my question is why the Prime Minister paints my backwardness as "Muslim backwardness"? Why can't he address my problem along with the problem of other Indian citizens who happen to fall in the same category of social, educational and other backwardness?</b>
Mr Singh has asserted that "the principle that explicit measures should be taken to protect the interest of minorities is an idea embedded in our political discourse and in our constitutional provisions". What he said is true as far as the political discourse of the so-called secular parties is concerned. But the findings of the Sachar Committee report have proved the futility of this discourse. Muslims are worst off in West Bengal, the State ruled by a party known for its explicit pro-Muslim discourse and secular protestations.
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>I am tired of this special treatment because, far from helping me, it gives rise to resentment and alienation. I would rather be treated equally, entitled to same benefits and rights and ready to shoulder same duties as my other compatriots. In fact, the experience has amply demonstrated that special rights and inequality are the two sides of the same coin and I do not wish to labour under inequality in the guise of explicit measures.</span>
As far as the Constitution is concerned, it was envisaged as an instrument to further the ideals of equality, justice and freedom of conscience and expression. Communal electorates were abolished to give a strong message that common religious faith does not admit common secular interest. Besides, judicially enforceable fundamental rights were incorporated to secure equality and dignity to every single Indian citizen on the one hand, and safeguarding certain important minority rights like freedom of various denominations to manage their own affairs in matters of religion on the other.
It was hoped that that these safeguards would extend the principle of equality to all religions. In secular domains, the distinction between "minority" and "majority" was expected to vanish under the working of adult franchise. A homogeneous Indian nation was to have evolved, the basic unit of which would be the citizen and not the religious group.
The Constitution holds the right to development as an inalienable human right and charges the state with the responsibility to apply this principle in making laws and formulating its programmes and policies. India is a signatory to the UN Convention on Right to Development. Who can know better about its significance than a professional economist like Mr Manmohan Singh? If necessary steps are taken to translate this constitutional vision into reality, then every single citizen who is economically weak or deprived shall have first right over the resources and no one shall grudge it.
It often appears that although we adopted a vibrant Constitution to pave the way for building a modern India, we have not been able to give up our old habit of looking at every issue from a communal prism. If the Prime Minister feels that there are instances of discrimination on the basis of religion or caste, the right response is to identify the culprits and take strong action against them for violating the provisions of the Constitution.
Any other course of action will only institutionalise the discrimination and the remedy will prove to be worse than disease. Safeguarding freedom of religion, conservation of language, script or culture may require specific governmental intervention, but issues of economic and educational development are of common interest and must be tackled on a general plane.
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, in his speech before the Ramgarh AICC session, said: "I repeat that nothing in India's political development has been as blatantly wrong as the assertion that Muslims constitute a political minority, and that they should be wary of their rights and interests in a democratic India. This one fundamental misconception has led to innumerable misunderstandings. Wrong arguments have been built upon false foundations."
We may decide to ignore Maulana but we cannot ignore the constitutional provisions. We cannot initiate measures that will heighten the sense of community identity and weaken our common Indian identity. The dangers inherent in this approach have been beautifully articulated by Allama Iqbal in one of his couplets: Ujada Hai Tameeze Millat o aaeen ne qomon ko/ Mere Ahle Watan ke Dil mein Kuchh Fikre Watan Bhi Hai. <b>(The consciousness of community and customs has destroyed many a nation. Do my countrymen feel any concern for the well being of the country.)</b>-- The writer is a BJP leader and former Minister
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->