Prime Minister Narendra Modi had asked his Cabinet ministers to prepare an “actionable, measurable and clearly defined” plan and present it in the meeting of the Council of Ministers on March 3, 2024. He had asserted that he has already begun preparing a roadmap for his third term and has received suggestions from over 15 lakh people. In the spirit of “Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas, Sabka Prayas”, it was clear that Modi 3.0 was going to be more inclusive in building consensus, and more accommodating in acting than ever before.
When the announcement of portfolios for the Council of Ministers was announced, it was clear that pro-people policies in Modi 3.0 will touch new heights. The new entrant in the cabinet JP Nadda, as the Minister of Health and Family Welfare made announcements of Ayushman Bharat coverage to individuals above 70 years and implement the pan-India roll out of the U-WIN portal for digitising routine vaccinations as part of the 100-day agenda for the Union Health Ministry. PM Modi-led cabinet also approved Government assistance for constructing 3 crore rural and urban houses under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY). Under PMAY, total of 4.21 crore houses have been completed for the eligible poor families under the housing schemes in the last 10 years.
The idea behind adding one example to the other to bring home a simple point. Will the Ayushman Bharat coverage or PMAY discriminate the labharthis (beneficiaries) based on their caste, creed, community, or religion? The answer is a resounding no! Then why does many New Delhi-based commentators and communicators always seek identitarian factors in exercises of national interest, such as portfolio allocation in the cabinet of the Union Government?
Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas
The 71 Union ministers who were sworn in alongside PM Narendra Modi include 10 Dalits, 27 from the Other Backward Classes (OBCs), 21 from the ‘upper’ castes, five from tribal groups and five representing religious minorities. As from the gender perspective, the seven women have made it to the council of ministers, including two cabinet ministers — Nirmala Sitharaman and Annapurna Devi. The five ministers from minority communities in Modi 3.0 include Hardeep Singh Puri, Ravneet Singh Bittu, George Kurian, Kiren Rijiju and Ramdas Athawale. While Puri and Athawale are Rajya Sabha MPs and Rijiju won the Lok Sabha elections from Arunachal Pradesh, Bittu lost the elections from Punjab and Kurian, a Kerala BJP general secretary, did not contest.
There are also five ministers from tribal groups, same as the 2019-2024 term. Jual Oram from Odisha, who had also served as a minister in the Atal Bihari Vajpayee cabinet and has won the Lok Sabha elections six times, has been elevated to the position of a cabinet minister. Arjun Munda, another prominent tribal leader from the party, lost the election this time. Sarbananda Sonowal, Savitri Thakur and Durga Das Uikey are other ministers from tribal groups.
Be it regional balance, or the balance of the caste, community, minorities, and others, it seems that from the very beginning Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), especially under PM Modi, has gone ahead of these identitarian divisions to create a new unity for new Bharat. There is no North-South divide, nor any “Upper”- “Lower” caste fragmentation, neither any minority-majority push nor pulls. In the light of these facts, one is compelled to ask why certain commentators in the media and civil society are always fixated on the Muslims?
Where Are the Muslims?
A comparative perspective might be helpful here. After scoring a zero in the Lok Sabha polls, Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) president Mayawati said that despite the party gave it a “proper representation” in elections, the Muslim community is not able to understand the BSP. The BSP had fielded 35 Muslim candidates, the maximum, in the latest general election, but it didn’t work for the party. In Lok Sabha, 2024 polls, 78 Muslim candidates were in the fray out of which 15 Muslim candidates won, including former India cricketer Yusuf Pathan, who defeated Congress veteran Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury in Baharampur. Those who have an eye for counting Muslims as the only indicator of the health of Indian democracy must also answer how a Gujarati speaking Yusuf Pathan defeated a Bengali veteran like Chowdhury in a Mamata Banerjee-led West Bengal where “Maa Mati Manush” is the call of the day?
The Constitution of India through its various provisions, recognises; (i) religious minorities (ii) linguistic minorities (iii) cultural minorities and (iv) minorities possessing a script of their own. Moreover, the Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, Jain and Zorastrians (Parsis) have been notified as minority communities under Section 2 (c) of the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992. When the term minorities itself is such a diverse and differentiated social category, how is it possible that the term “Minority” has become synonymous with “Muslims” alone?
Let us look at the question historically. The Ministry of Minority Affairs is the Ministry in the Government of India which was carved out of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and created on January 29, 2006. After that AR Antulay, Salman Khurshid, and K Rahman Khan became ministers under the UPA-II with PM Manmohan Singh. In 2014, Modi Government, perhaps under the pressure of the convention, continued with Muslims ministers like Najma Heptulla and Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi. It was only between July 2022 and June 2024 that Smriti Irani was given the charge of the Ministry, and she brought the diversity question to light. How should Mrs Irani as the daughter of a half-Punjabi, half-Maharashtrian Hindu father and a Bengali Hindu mother, and a wife of a Parsi identified?
The whole question of minorities is a socio-political and legalist construction. It is done under the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992. Only those belonging to the communities notified under Section 2(c) of the 1992 law are regarded as minority citizens. Therefore, bypassing a balanced and all-encompassing representation of such diversity of people under a united framework in Modi 3.0 cannot be questioned and challenged because one community does not find a place in the union cabinet. Most of the others did, and it is time when we start thinking about the unity in diversity in its right spirit, rather than paying a lip service to the call by pressing for larger identitarian divisions.
Comments