Author: Arun Shourie
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: December 29, 2007
URL: http://www.indianexpress.com/story/255484._.html
The Task Force on Border Management, one of
the four that were set up in the wake of the Kargil War, reported with alarm
about the way madrassas had mushroomed along India's borders. On the basis
of information it received from intelligence agencies, it expressed grave
concern at the amount of money these madrassas were receiving from foreign
sources. It reported that large numbers were being 'educated' in these institutions
in subjects that did not equip them at all for jobs - other than to become
preachers and teachers producing the same type of incendiary unemployables.
It expressed the gravest concern at the way the madrassas were reinforcing
separateness in those attending them - through the curriculum, through the
medium of instruction, through the entire orientation of learning: the latter,
the Task Force pointed out, was entirely turned towards Arabia, towards the
'golden ages' of Islamic rule. It pointed to the consequences that were certain
to flow from 'the Talibanisation' of the madrassas. [In spite of what the
Task Forces themselves advised, namely that their reports be made public,
the reports have been kept secret. Accordingly, I have summarised the observations
of the Task Forces in some detail in Will the Iron Fence Save a Tree Hollowed
by Termites? Defence imperatives beyond the military, ASA, Delhi, 2005.]
And what does the Sachar Committee recommend?
'Recognition of the degrees from madrassas for eligibility in competitive
examinations such as the civil services, banks, defence services and other
such examinations'! It recommends that government use public funds to encourage
formation of Muslim NGOs and their activities. It recommends that government
provide financial and other support to occupations and areas in which Muslims
predominate. It recommends that Muslims be in selection committees, interview
panels and boards for public services.
It recommends that a higher proportion of
Muslims be inducted in offices that deal with the public - 'the teaching community,
health workers, police personnel, bank employees and so on.' It recommends
'provision of 'equivalence' to madrassa certificates/degrees for subsequent
admissions into institutions of higher level of education.' It recommends
that banks be required to collect and maintain information about their transactions
- deposits, advances - separately for Muslims, and that they be required to
submit this to the Reserve Bank of India! It recommends that advances be made
to Muslims as part of the obligation imposed on banks to give advances to
Priority Sectors. It recommends that government give banks incentives to open
branches in Muslim concentration areas. It recommends that, instead of being
required to report merely 'Amount Outstanding', banks be told to report 'Sanctions
or Disbursements to Minorities'. It recommends that financial institutions
be required to set up separate funds for training Muslim entrepreneurs, that
they be required to set up special micro-credit schemes for Muslims. It recommends
that all districts more than a quarter of whose population is Muslim be brought
into the prime minister's 15-point programme.
'There should be transparency in information
about minorities in all activities,' the Committee declares. 'It should be
made mandatory to publish/furnish information in a prescribed format once
in three months and also to post the same on the website of the departments
and state governments...' It recommends that for each programme of government,
data be maintained separately about the extent to which Muslims and other
minorities are benefiting from it. But it is not enough to keep data separately.
Separate schemes must be instituted. It recommends that special and separate
Centrally Sponsored Schemes and Central Plan Schemes be launched for 'minorities
with an equitable provision for Muslims.' It recommends special measures for
the promotion and spread of Urdu. It recommends the adoption of 'alternate
admission criteria' in universities and autonomous colleges: assessment of
merit should not be assigned more than 60 per cent out of the total - the
remaining 40 per cent should be assigned in accordance with the income of
the household, the backwardness of the district, and the backwardness of the
caste and occupation of the family. It recommends that grants by the University
Grants Commission be linked to 'the diversity of the student population.'
It recommends that pre-entry qualification for admission to ITIs be scaled
down, that 'eligibility for such programmes should also be extended to the
madrassa educated children.' It recommends that 'high quality government schools
should be set up in all areas of Muslim concentration.' It recommends that
resources and government land be made available for 'common public spaces'
for adults of - its euphemism - 'Socio-Religious Categories' to 'interact'.
It recommends that incentives to builders,
private sector employers, educational institutions be linked to 'diversity'
of the populations in their sites and enterprises. For this purpose it wants
a 'diversity index' to be developed for each such activity.
It recommends changes in the way constituencies
are delimited. It recommends that where Muslims are elected or selected in
numbers less than adequate, 'a carefully conceived 'nomination' procedure'
be worked out 'to increase the participation of minorities at the grass roots.'
It notes that there already are the Human
Rights Commission and the Minorities Commission 'to look into complaints by
the minorities with respect to state action.' But these are not adequate as
the Muslims still feel that they are not getting a fair share. The solution?
Here is its recommendation, and a typical passage:
'It is imperative that if the minorities have
certain perceptions of being aggrieved,' notice the touchstone - 'if the minorities
have certain perceptions of being aggrieved' - 'all efforts should be made
by the state to find a mechanism by which these complaints could be attended
to expeditiously. This mechanism should operate in a manner which gives full
satisfaction to the minorities', notice again the touchstone - not any external
criterion, but 'full satisfaction to the minorities' - 'that any denial of
equal opportunities or bias or discrimination in dealing with them, either
by a public functionary or any private individual, will immediately be attended
to and redress given. Such a mechanism should be accessible to all individuals
and institutions desirous to complain that they have received less favourable
treatment from any employer or any person on the basis of his/her SRC [Socio-Religious
Category] background and gender.'
The responsibility is entirely that of the
other. The other must function to the full satisfaction of the Muslims. As
long as the Muslims 'have certain perceptions of being aggrieved,' the other
is at fault...
So that everyone is put on notice, so that
everyone who is the other is forever put to straining himself to satisfy the
Muslims, the Committee recommends that a National Data Bank be created and
it be mandatory for all departments and agencies to supply information to
it to document how their activities are impacting Muslims and other minorities.
On top of all this, government should set up an Assessment and Monitoring
Authority to evaluate the benefits that are accruing to the minorities from
each programme and activity...
This is the programme that every secularist
who is in government is demanding that the government implement forthwith.
And every secularist outside - the ever-so-secular CPI(M), for instance -
is scolding the government for not implementing swiftly enough. What splendid
evolution! Not long ago, unless you saw a Muslim as a human being, and not
as a Muslim, you were not secular. Now, if you see a Muslim as a human being
and not as a Muslim, you are not secular!
Consequences
The first consequence is as inevitable as
it is obvious: such pandering whets the appetite. Seeing that governments
and parties are competing to pander to them, Muslims see that they are doing
so only because their community is acting cohesively, as a vote bank. So,
they act even more as a bank of votes.
For the same reason, a competition is ignited
within the community: to prove that he is more devoted to the community than
his rival, every would-be leader of the community demands more and more from
governments and parties. When the concession he demanded has been made, he
declares, 'It is not being implemented'. And he has a ready diagnosis: because
implementation, he declares, is in the hands of non-Muslims. Hence, unless
Muslims officers are appointed in the financial institutions meant for Muslims...
With demand following demand, with secularist upon secularist straining himself
to urge the demands, the leader sets about looking for grievances that he
can fan. When he can't find them, he invents them...
Governments make the fatal mistake, or - as
happened in the case of the British when they announced separate electorates
for Muslims - they play the master-stroke: they proffer an advantage to the
community which that community, Muslims in this case, can secure only by being
separate - whether this be separate electorates in the case of Lord Minto
or separate financial institutions in the case of Manmohan Singh.
The community in its turn begins to assess
every proposal, every measure, howsoever secular it may be, against one touchstone
alone: 'What can we extract from this measure for Muslims as Muslims?'How
current the description rings that Cantwell Smith gave in his book, Modern
Islam in India, published in the 1940s, of the effect that the British stratagem
of instituting separate electorates for Muslims had had on the Muslim mind.
The separate electorates led Muslims, as they had been designed to lead them,
he observed, 'to vote communally, think communally, listen only to communal
election speeches, judge the delegates communally, look for constitutional
and other reforms only in terms of more relative communal power, and express
their grievances communally.' [Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Modern Islam in India,
Second Revised Edition, 1946, reprint, Usha Publications, New Delhi, 1979,
p. 216]. Exactly the same consequence will follow from implementing the Sachar
proposals - and the reason for that is simple: the essential point about the
proposals is the same - that is, the Muslims can obtain them by being separate
from the rest of the country.
The reaction cannot but set in. 'As Muslims
are being given all this because they have distanced themselves from the rest
of us, why should we cling to them?' the Hindus are bound to ask. 'On the
contrary, we should learn from them. Governments and political parties are
pandering to Muslims because the latter have become a bank of votes. We should
knit ourselves into a solid bloc also.'
Do you think they need a Pravin Togadia to
tell them this? The genuflections of governments and parties write the lesson
on the blackboard. And the abuse hurled by secularists drills it in: by the
excellent work that Narendra Modi has done for development, he had already
made himself the pre-eminent leader of Gujarat; by the abuse they have hurled
at him, the secularists, in particular the media, have enlarged his canvas
to the country.
