“This Court’s mind is not free from doubt that the said community has been treated as a commodity for political ends. This is clear from the chain of events that led to the classification of the 77 Classes as OBCs and their inclusion to be treated as a vote bank. Identification of the classes in the aid community as OBCs for electoral gains would leave them at the mercy of the concerned political establishment and may defeat and deny other rights”. –The Calcutta High Court, in the judgement delivered in the case Amal Chandra Das vs State of West Bengal on May 22, 2024
As soon as the election season is around the corner, Congress and its secular gang start the rant of ‘Constitution in danger’ and ‘reservation for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Other Backward Classes (OBCs)’ would be withdrawn by the ‘Hindutva ideology’. Things do not stop at naming the Bharatiya Janata Party, but Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) would be invariably brought into a political discussion. The recent judgement by the Calcutta High Court on the Muslim reservations to 77 groups under the OBC categories is a tight slap on the face of these fear-mongers and exposed their game of taking away the reservations of the backward castes to favour their favourite vote bank of Muslims. For the serious debate on who is undermining the Constitution and who is trying to take away the reservations of backward and scheduled castes, we need to analyse this judgement in the light of the Constituent Assembly debates.
When the Constituent Assembly debated about the reservations and, again, on minority rights, it was very categorical that religion could not be the basis for giving representation, either political or otherwise. Naziruddin Ahmad, who himself represented a Muslim reserved Constituency from West Bengal, made two critical points in the Constituent Assembly – firstly, he argued that ‘Muslim reservation is psychologically linked up with separate electorates, which led to so many disasters’, where he was referring to the partition and communal riots. Secondly, he believed that ‘reservation of Muslim seats would be harmful to the Muslims themselves’ as it would be detrimental to Hindu and Muslim relations. S Nagappa, who represented a Scheduled Caste voice in the debate, differentiated the backwardness based on caste and a religious community and made a bold statement that by giving away the communal reservation, the Muslim community is not doing any favour to the country. The Constituent Assembly unanimously agreed to abolish the reservations based on religion.
In various judgements, our courts also defined the rationale behind the reservations as ‘affirmative action to promote the idea of substantive equality’, which is outcome-based for genuine equality. While achieving this, as Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar reminded while discussing the preamble of the Constitution, the spirit of fraternity is equally important for the nation. In various judgements, the courts have nullified attempts by various governments to introduce communal representations.
In 1956, the Kerala Government was the first one to play this trick of adding Muslims to various reserved caste categories. Successive Congress and other Governments led by the regional parties tried to openly introduce the Muslim reservations, which the courts struck down. Taking benefit of the term ‘Community’ in the OBC reservations, Kerala, West Bengal, and Karnataka governments included the maximum number of Muslims in this category shamelessly. Exempting so-called minority institutions from reservations and applying the Right to Education (RTE) has been another trick Congress has followed. The Muslim leaders perpetuate the narrative of being rulers of this country for more than 500 years and the absence of caste-based differences as the rationale behind religious conversion and still demand caste-based reservations based on backwardness. There cannot be a more stark contradiction than this. The secularists, to appease Muslims, conveniently take away the rights of actual backward castes and classes and introduce new categories to treat Muslims as a vote-bank and a commodity for political ends’ as remarked by the honourable High Court. The Court has also rejected the argument of Sachar Committee or Rangnath Mishra Committee recommendations as the sole basis of such actions, as none of those reports have Constitutional sanctity.
The blatant defiance of the verdict by Mamata Banerjee and the Congress and its I.N.D.I. alliance partner’s continuous promise to ensure reservations for Muslims is the fundamental blow to the Constitution and reservations provided to the SCs, STs and OBCs. Such a ‘communal’ approach in the name of ‘secularism’ is nothing but encouraging separatism, repeating the British tactics to govern the country. Instead of questioning Hindutva, which stands for equal treatment and policies for all while working for ‘substantive equality’, these secularists should exposed for their double standards and consistent attempts to undermine the spirit of the Constitution.
Comments