 |
||
|
||
|
||
One reason for the recurrence of riots is discrimination between communities. For the intelligentsia, for instance, it is difficult to imagine how bitterly the Haj subsidy is resented in cities where a significant number of Muslims reside. Muslims continuing to be allowed to marry several spouses is another issue. It is true that not many men can afford to have more than a wife. Nevertheless, in popular perception, - in a country where over-population is a serious problem -, this freedom is viewed as Government sanction for a section of people to multiply. Especially in the light of an appeal to others to be satisfied with, earlier 2 children, and lately only 1 child.
The question of minority rights as enshrined in Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution belongs to the same species. It is reassuring to know that a full bench of the Supreme Court is currently hearing a case on this subject. Thus, it is to be hoped that the stand taken by the Solicitor General, Mr Harish Salve, wherein those minority educational institutions which receive special aid from the Government should cease to have reserved seats on religious lines, would be accepted by the Supreme Court.
In the short run, members of minority who derive satisfaction from the privileges granted to them by the two constitutional provisions, seldom realise its adverse effects. Thus, communal riots are one such expression of the accumulated animosity. Of course, it is not widely known that Articles 29 and 30 owe their origin to communalism. The Constituent Assembly was elected in January 1946. On December 13 of the same year, Jawaharlal Nehru, as the head of the interim Government, moved, what was called an Objective Resolution, in order to appease the Muslim League, hoping it would not press for Partition. As it happened, the endeavour to appease the League failed, and the country was divided.
It is useful to recall that the Constituent Assembly had been elected on the basis of Muslim constituencies, then called separate electorate, and 85 per cent of the voters had voted for the League whose single-point manifesto then was Partition. Evidently, all the Muslims in the Assembly were beneficiaries of this 85 per cent vote.
What is extraordinary is that the Objective Resolution and the resulting Articles continued to be debated as if nothing had happened on August 15, 1947. In other words, what was proposed to placate the League and thereby avert Partition was enshrined in the Constitution despite the creation of Pakistan. In the words of Jawaharlal Nehru, spoken in the Assembly on November 8, 1948, "Nearly two years ago, we met in this hall and on that solemn occasion it was my high privilege to move a resolution which has come to be known as the Objective Resolution... It tried to embody the spirit that lay behind the Indian people at the time. It is difficult to maintain the spirit of a nation or a people at a high level all the time... Nevertheless, I hope that it is in that spirit that we have to approach the framing of this Constitution... always using that resolution as the yard measure with which to test every clause and phrase of this Constitution". (Pages 317-318, Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. VII, Lok Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi, 1999.)
Articles 29 and 30 were described in the resolution as safeguards provided for minorities. In the process, considerable discrimination was introduced in the educational system. A school is either run by Government or aided by State. In either case, the Government has the final say in the policies of the school. If, however, a school happens to be run by members of a minority, the Government does not interfere in its running. In effect, a school run by Hindus either accepts Government aid and faces interference or abstains from the aid.
In spite of this background, the Constituent Assembly, on November 8, 1948, patiently heard ZH Lari, a Muslim Leaguer from UP who had got elected on a pro-Partition ticket. While pleading for reservation as well as special rights for Muslims, Lari said: "We never said that Muslims in these parts are going to migrate to Pakistan. We are the children or the soil and as such we claim the rights of citizens of India."
Vishwambhar Dayal Tripathi, another
member, shot back: "What did your leaders do in Pakistan"? Prof KT Shah,
yet another member, tried to insist that no expenditure on any private
institution should be defrayed from the public purse. Yet, Jawaharlal Nehru
and his Government ignored the exhortations, and went on to enshrine in
the Constitution financial burdens which most states are now finding difficult
to bear. For the simple reason, that the combination of a subsidy and freedom
of management has led to proliferation of madarsas. The common man may
be unfamiliar with the constitutional provisions but the mushrooming of
madarsas he can certainly see. Did he not know the heavy price that the
country had paid by way of Partition? To persevere with these concessions
was like paying an eternal penalty on top of the price.
|
||
|
||
|
||