Whether bowing to the persistent demand of some opposition parties or owing to its own political calculations, the UPA government has tabled the Ranganath Misra Commission report in the Parliament. While submitting the report to the House, Minister of Minority Affairs, Salman Khurshid said that no ‘action taken’ report was required as it was not mandatory. Some secular opposition parties, however, suggested that an “action taken” report would have served the purpose in a more meaningful manner.
The tabling of the Misra report was long overdue. Well, many of its contents were leaked to the media long ago and, therefore, were well known. But tabling the report in the Parliament on 18th December means that the government was serious about implementing its recommendations.
But perhaps it would not be an easy ride for the government. For, the Misra Commission report is not merely about giving reservations to the Muslims within the 27% OBC quota. In fact, any impression if the Misra report was pro-Muslim would not only be misplaced but also dangerous. The report contains many things some of which may disturb the champions of OBC reservation as well. The report, for example, has criticized the government’s failure to purge the list of OBCs of those castes that have moved forward in life and can not be considered as backward any longer. As a result the list of OBCs has not only become fat but has also been defeating the very purpose for which the reservation was originally sought: improving the conditions of the poor among the backward castes. The ‘forward among the backward’ make maximum utilization of the opportunities offered by the OBC reservation leaving little space for the poor of their class to strive for improving his lot. This purging should have taken place in 2003 but the government could not muster enough courage to fulfil its constitutional obligations; instead it added a few more relatively rich castes to the OBC list.
The present OBC leaders, such as Lalu and Mulayam, have ostensibly welcome the tabling of the report in the Parliament. But there may be others, or they may emerge, to oppose it because it has proposed 8% reservation for minorities within the 27% OBC quota. Of the 8% two per cent will be for non-Muslims and 6% for the Muslims because they constitute an overwhelming majority among the minorities. The Misra panel’s argument is that the Muslims have very poor representation in government jobs and therefore they need reservation.
It is obvious that the BJP and its patron, RSS as well as their numerous affiliates would oppose the Misra report condemning it as minoritism and Muslim appeasement. But the Sangh Privar’s allegation holds no water. In fact, the Misra panel, sensing the prospective opposition, has sought to explain the reasons for adopting this policy of reservation within reservation. The panel feels that although large numbers of Muslims are already included in the OBC list but they are unable to compete with their relatively more prosperous and educationally advanced Hindu counterparts. But more than this argument what would silence the OBC leadership from voicing opposition to the recommendations of the Misra panel is their fear of losing the Muslim vote bank. This is the beauty of democracy that various considerations, pulls and pressures bring about balance in people’s thinking and approaches and pave the way for reason to prevail over blind and raw passions.
Another reason for not opposing the ‘quota within quota’ policy is that it has already been implemented in Kerala, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. The Centre would surely adopt this Southern example or pattern to counter political as well as judicial challenges if any. The UPA leadership seems to have done its home work well; the result is that no one, barring the BJP, is opposing the Misra panel’s report tooth and nail.
The Sangh Parivar’s biggest problem is perhaps not the ‘quota within quota’ for Muslims but the Misra Commission’s recommendation to give the reservation benefits to Christian and Muslim Dalits. These are the Dalits who have become Christian or Muslim and thus forfeited their right to caste-based reservation, for there is no caste system in Christianity or in Islam. The Misra panel, while taking note of the theological reality, has advanced the argument that practically caste system operates both among Christians and Muslims. Moreover, conversion from one religion to another one does not necessarily results in economic or educational advancement of the convert. Thus the convert, by remaining backward educationally and economically, should continue to benefit from the reservation policy till he/she becomes forward or advanced on these counts.
Obviously the Sangh Parivar would not be impressed by such arguments. Their spacious argument is that extending the benefits of reservation to Christian and Muslim Dalits would encourage conversion. But why they do not realize that denying them the benefits of reservation on account of their having become Christian or Muslim would amount to state coercion to keep them within the Hindu fold.
Well, economic or any other material benefit, should not be the basis for leaving one religion for the other but, at the same time, it should not be used to make any one captive of a particular religion. Moreover, the Sangh Parivar must realize that many rich Dalits also embrace Islam and Christianity, hence material inducement can not be the reason for their conversion. It is probably their perpetual, unchangeable low status that compels them to change their religion.
[December, 2009]
No comments:
Post a Comment