POLITICAL DIARY

NEW DELHI, 17 May 2008

Muslim Development Zones

WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF US?

By Poonam I Kaushish

India’s secularism has become a byword for minority appeasement. Being hawked by the UPA Sarkar in cheap polypacks of “pyare mussalman, what more can I do for you,” a la Sachar report. Anyone questioning this is promptly dubbed a fundamentalist. Bluntly, secular translates into being pro-Muslim. What’s happened to our saare jahan se accha Hindustan hamara?

Three cheers for the Delhi High Court for spotlighting an issue of fundamental importance to the future of India’s unity and integrity as a secular democracy. By raising many searching questions on the Centre’s actual intention behind setting up the Sachar panel.  Sadly, these issues have not received due attention of the country, Parliament and the media. Only one paper carried it on front page, while others chose to bury it inside. What happened deserves to be recalled extensively.

It all happened on last Thursday when the High Court took up a PIL filed by Rashtriya Mukti Morcha, alleging that the Sachar report on the social, economic and educational status of the Muslim community and the Government's follow up action was unconstitutional. The two-member Bench of Justices T S Thakur and Siddharth Mridul pointedly asked the Additional Solicitor General (ASG), “Is this meant to appease some community? .... A lot of money is spent in a welfare state, is it that you (Centre) spend it only for one minority community?”

Interrupting the ASG’s briefing on the “targeted intervention” intended by the Centre, including basic amenities and job opportunities for “90 identified minority concentration districts and opening of more branches by public sector banks in Muslim concentrated areas,” Justice Thakur asked, “When you say in your Action Taken Report on the Sachar recommendations that we will spend more for this minority community... does it mean that you will spend less for the major community?”

Replied the ASG, “The Sachar Committee report is for all. The Muslims were more in print in the report because they were ‘India’s biggest minority community.’ Of course, there are certain Muslim dominated areas where there is no development at all.” (A justification oft-repeated by the Government from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh downwards. Clearly, the UPA has done what Jinnah could never have imagined in his lifetime, i.e. creating 90 mini-Pakistan’s in the name of Muslim development zones in secular Bharat.)

To this, the Bench said: “So are you saying there are no Hindu slums? Tell us, in our Constitutional framework, can a welfare scheme say we concentrate only on the benefit of one community and not for all? Reminding the ASG that “we live in a welfare state”, the Bench observed: “There are Sikhs, Muslims and Christians here... Why are you not doing it (welfare measures) for the majority community? If you intend to fight poverty, cut across religions and communities and fight. Never mind whether it is a Hindu poor or a Muslim poor.”

Even as the ASG assured the Court that “special care is taken of all minorities,” he however, drew the line by adding that “political issues be best left to the public to decide during elections. Courts cannot decide”. (Whatever happened to upholding the Fundamental Right of Equality for all before the law? Does the law allow discrimination?)

Justifiably, earning a sharp rap from the Court. “You are trying to please one community. Poverty is the common enemy. You should fight against poverty rather than saying that you would fight against poverty for one community only.” In addition, the judges queried, “You are saying that more money be spent for one minority community. Should it not cut across caste and religion? Does the Sachar committee say that all facilities are available to other communities? Such issues should not be decided on the basis of emotions.”

But the ASG stood his ground. Rejecting the Bench’s view that the government was giving any preferential treatment to one community, he asserted, “If out of five children, one is neglected then can it not be provided the special treatment?” (Never mind that the four other children are being neglected simply because it doesn’t help our secular netagan’s vote bank.) In a sharp response, the judges observed, “Does it mean that drinking water facilities are available to the majority community and no person from it live in slums.”

But this is not the end. The Court also put Justice Sachar on the mat for his report. (Alas, for reasons best known to our media barons, the Bench’s searching questions to the former Chief Justice of Delhi High Court went largely unreported.) When asked searing questions, Sachar went on the backfoot and defended his report on moral grounds. “The report was prepared only after the committee members agreed to prepare it. As a moral person, if I think what I am doing is improper, I won't do it."

"You (Government) are trying to please one community and this is where the rot lies," the Court asserted. Replied Sachar, "I have done what I was asked to do. I just prepared the report and submitted it to the Government." Scandalously, the former Chief Justice refused to be dragged into the debate, and washed his hands of it by asserting, "I won't comment on my report. I am not a lawyer in the court. You should ask the Prime Minister." (How can Sachar not take the responsibility and conveniently pass on the buck given that it was his report?)

Recall, the “major decisions” proposed by the Government, as per the summary text of the Sachar report submitted in Court, include improving deficient civic and economic opportunities in “338 identified towns and cities with a substantial population of minorities, including Muslims”, an inter-ministerial group to monitor a programme to better their skill and entrepreneurial development, expand the outreach of upper primary schools, particularly for Muslim girls, bank loans et al.

Interestingly, another related PIL by the Patriots Forum in the Delhi High Court too sought to know whether the Sachar report had not treated the Muslims “in a manner inconsistent with the treatment given to other recognised minorities.” Arguably, doesn’t the report give rise to racial compartmentalization? Promise the rise of political Islam in India?

So caught up is our polity in brazen Muslim appeasement that it refuses to look at crucial data that in 9 States the Muslims were educationally more advanced than other communities. Besides, Sachar ignored four globally accepted human development indicators — infant and child mortality, degree of urbanisation, and life expectancy at birth — where Muslims were better off than Hindus. Also, their lower per capita income was due to higher population growth rate and lower work input by their women.

Scandalously, in its quest for regaining the votes of the Muslims for its political gain, the Congress conveniently bypassed Parliament by accepting the Sachar report without any debate in both the Houses. The High Court has sounded a warning. The time has come for the country to debate the issue threadbare. Will the powers-that-be listen? Or will they allow vote-bank politics to continue and play havoc with India’s unity and integrity? – INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)