Author: KR Phanda
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: November 23, 2006
India is perhaps the only country in the world
where political leaders openly pursue divisive and anti-national policies
and yet they are not prosecuted. The latest case in point is the demand for
reservation for Muslims in Government jobs.
About 100 years ago, on October 1, 1906, eminent
Muslims led by Sir Aga Khan had asked Lord Minto, the then Viceroy of India,
at Shimla for a separate electorate and reservation of jobs for Muslims. This
demand ultimately led to the partition of the nation on religious basis in
1947.
How many people in India are aware that between
1885 and 1940, Muslims used the minority card and extracted all concessions
from the British colonial Government. Then suddenly, in 1940, Muslims declared
themselves as a separate nation. Now, once again they are demanding 'concessions'
as a backward religious minority. When will this farce end? How long will
Hindus pander to such Muslim demands?
The ongoing demand for reservation of Government
jobs for Muslims is unconstitutional. The Constitution does not provide for
reservation based on religion. Further, the Supreme Court had struck down
in 1951 a notification of Madras Government issued in 1949, which provided
for appointment of munsifs in the subordinate judicial and civil services
on religious lines. The then Government of Madras had reserved 83 posts of
munsifs in the following manner: Harijans-19, Muslims-5. Christians-6, backward
Hindus-10, non-Brahmin Hindus-32 and Brahmins-11.
The apex court had inter alia declared, "The
petitioner may be far better qualified than a Muslim or a Christian or a non-Brahmin
candidate and if all the posts reserved for those communities were open to
him, he would be eligible for appointment, as is conceded by the learned Advocate
General of Madras. Nevertheless, he cannot expect to get any of those posts
reserved for those different categories only because he happens to be a Brahmin.
This ineligibility created by the Communal Government order does not appear
to be sanctioned by Article 16(4) and it is an infringement of the Fundamental
Rights guaranteed to the petitioner as an individual citizens under Article
16(1) and (2). The communal Government order, in our opinion, is repugnant
to the provisions of Article 16 and is as such void and illegal."
