Cong Fetish for Muslim Quota Roils Parliament 

On Monday Parliament witnessed uproar after the alleged remarks by Karnataka deputy chief minister DK Shivakumar that the Constitution would be amended to provide reservation for Muslims. He denied those remarks and said that he had “common sense” and that he was misquoted.

That however did not save him or his party from a fusillade at the hands of the BJP in Parliament. Reservations for religious minorities are a touchy subject and have a troubled legacy in Indian history for them to be acceptable to the people of India.

THE CONTROVERSY

The controversy erupted after Shivakumar’s comments at an event on Sunday. While speaking on the 4% reservation for Muslims in public works under the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements (Amendment) Bill, he said that, “There is a big debate around this. Many BJP leaders have criticised it, claiming that Muslims are only fit for fixing tyre punctures or selling meat. But it is our duty to uplift people from all sections of the society. We have given them opportunities and reservation in education and employment but we must also uplift them economically…We wanted to help the Muslim community in a smaller way and make them part of the development process, and hence have them do contract work.”

At that point, Shivakumar was asked a question that the Constitution does not provide reservation on the basis of religion. In response, he said, “I agree, let us wait and watch. Let us see what the courts say. I know people will approach the court. Let us wait for the good day; good day will come. Lot of changes are there and the Constitution will be changing. There are judgements which alters the Constitution also.”

This is the crux of the controversy. While he did not explicitly say the Constitution would be amended to provide reservation for Muslims, the direction he hinted was very clear.

THE CONSTITUTION

It is eerie to watch this “debate” in the 21^st century when it was run for the first time in the 1930s. At that time, when Muslim communalism became entrenched in pre-Independence India’s politics, the debate went along these lines. In the first stage it was accepted that all Indians were alike and religious differences were mere “surface phenomenon.” In the second stage, it was claimed that while all Indians were alike, Muslims and Hindus (and other communities as well) had distinct identities with their own “special interests.” In the third stage, it was asserted—by then with a vehemence that was unknown until then in India’s politics—that these interests diverged and there could be no meeting ground between the two communities unless these differences were recognised and the demands flowing from these claims were conceded first. The end-point of this chain of events is too well-known to elaborate.

As a safeguard, the Constitution put in ample safeguards from that situation emerging again. There are no provisions for separate electorates, reservations and other positive discriminations on the grounds of religion. Instead, there are prohibitions against negative discriminations. For example, the articles 15 and 16 prohibit discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth (Article 15) and equality of opportunity in matters of public employment where such discriminations are outlawed (Article 16).

Over time, the ban on negative discriminations in Article 15 has been transformed into positive discriminations. In 1951, Article 15 was amended to add a new clause—clause 4—for making special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. In 2019, another clause—clause 6—was added to make such positive discriminations in favour of economically weaker sections.

It is worth noting that no such positive discrimination has been made in favour of religious groups—majority, minority or by any other appellation—in the Constitution. The reasons for that are not far to seek: the sheer weight of 1947 when India was partitioned on religious grounds, precludes this. The opprobrium that religious reservations in education and employment would lead to is not lost on any political party.

THE POLITICS

What has changed between 1950, when the Constitution was launched, and now? For one, the size of the Muslim population has grown from 9.8% 1951 to 14.2% in 2011. This percentage is not known for 2021 as the Census was not conducted that year. But going by the decadal trends it is bound to be higher. In absolute numbers this proportion has gone up dramatically: from approximately 35.4 million in 1951 to 172 million in 2011. These are numbers that cannot be ignored politically.

Given the constitutional bar against religious reservations, a backdoor of sorts has been discovered to give benefits that don’t meet the constitutional test. The trick in this case is to declare a community as “backward” and then apply the constitutional provisions.

Something of this kind was done in Karnataka. In September 1994, at the fag end of M Veerappa Moily’s term as chief minister, the categorization of backward classes was carried out. Under this classification, Muslim communities were placed in category IIB of Other Backward Classes (OBCs). Karnataka has multiple categories to classify OBCs: IIA, IIB, IIC and IID. These “fit” various backward groups into different brackets of reservation. On paper, this exercise is “objective” and is on the basis of the “backwardness” of a particular community. But in reality, these classifications are wholly political and are driven primarily by looking at the potential electoral benefits of such classifications. The IIB classification, under which Muslims have been given 4% reservation in public contracts, is on the basis of such a classification. This was on the basis of a survey claimed to have been carried out on the basis of “educational and socio-economic backwardness.” The Congress party claims that this was on the basis of backwardness and not religion.

Similar efforts are being made across multiple states. Almost all are exclusively in Opposition-ruled states.

THE CONTRADICTIONS

These days it is not common to see Opposition parties and activists (who, in any case espouse “secular” politics) to waive the national flag and the Constitution (the red book variant of the Constitution) and say they are trying to save both from the depredations of the BJP. Where do these efforts to sneak in religious reservations into the Constitution—directly or indirectly—leave these claims? In a few words: between a rock and a hard place.

The Opposition’s politics these days is based on the claim that politics should be made subservient to the Constitution. It is a dubious proposition as the Constitution itself is a creature of political circumstances and does not predate the practice of modern politics in India. But even if one keeps aside that lofty claim, religious reservations—by hook or by crook—are extremely damaging to the Constitution. If religious reservations in public contracts or in educational institutions are accepted as normal, then how much time will it take to demand separate electorates on the basis of religion? (One can always smuggle “backwardness” into such claims). It won’t be long before India witnesses the emergence of another “partition cycle.”

Hopefully, matters won’t come to such a pass. But it is late in the day to hope for better sense to prevail. This is the time for rear-guard action to prevent further damage.

CongressdiscussionsDK ShivakumarIndian ParliamentMuslimsreservations