Syed Khalique Ahmed
NEW DELHI—The decision of the Karnataka government to scrap the four percent quota for Muslims in government jobs and admission to higher educational and technical institutions and distribute them equally between the politically influential communities – Vokkaligas and Lingayats – besides being politically motivated, is unconstitutional also.
The decisions seem to be motivated by politics because the scrapping of Muslim reservations and the announcement of elections in the state came one after the other in quick succession. While the Muslim quota was scrapped on March 26, assembly election dates were announced on March 29. The Karnataka assembly elections will be held on May 10 and the results will be declared on May 13.
Union Home Minister Amit Shah, while hailing the scrapping of Muslim reservations by his party’s government in Karnataka, remarked that the reservations given to Muslims were against the Constitution and his party’s government in Karnataka had only corrected an unconstitutional action of the previous Congress and Janata Dal (Secular) governments intended for Muslim appeasement.
But the question is: What was the Karnataka BJP government doing on this issue for the last four years? Did it not know during all four years that the Muslim reservation was unconstitutional? Why did it not initiate action earlier? And on what ground has the state government distributed the 4 percent Muslim quota between Vokkaligas and Lingayats who were already covered by reservation? Vokkaligas had 5 percent and Lingayats 4 percent reservations. With the scrapping of the Muslim quota and distributing it equally between Vokkaligas and Lingayats, their quota would go up to 7 percent and 6 percent, respectively. Vokkaligas and Lingayats accounting for 15 percent and 17 percent of the state’s population, are politically very influential class. The two communities control schools, colleges, and medical and technical institutes all over the state.
Bengaluru-based political analyst and educational expert Syed Tanveer Ahmed says the BJP appears to show open to the public that it is anti-Muslim. And this is undoubtedly intended to polarize the majority community in its favour on the eve of assembly elections. This is nothing but majority appeasement. Such an attitude, he says, is not good for democracy. “By practising such politics, you can’t be a democratic party. Appeasement of majority will kill democracy,” comments Mr. Ahmed.
Muslims have now been adjusted within the economically weaker sections (EWS) quota of 10 per cent, with Brahmins, Jains, and other castes educationally the state’s most advanced group. So, there will be no level-playing field for the Muslims who are educationally not at par with Brahmins and Jains. So, the chances are that Muslims will not benefit under the EWS quota where there will be very intense competition. “Reservations are a part of providing social justice to underprivileged groups. By putting Muslims with Brahmins and others under the EWS quota, the state government has tried to kill the soul of social justice,” points out Mr. Ahmed.
We may recall that the BJP government in Maharashtra scrapped the 5 percent Muslim quota in 2015 that the Congress government gave. In both the cases – Karnataka and Maharashtra – BJP has tried to show that these were instances of minority appeasement of the Congress and other non-BJP parties based on religion. But the fact is that in both states, Muslims were given reservations based on recommendations of the state backward commissions through scientific study. Moreover, neither in Maharashtra nor in Karnataka the state minority commissions recommended for withdrawal of the Muslim quota. On this ground, the actions of the BJP governments in Karnataka and Maharashtra are entirely unconstitutional. How can the government on its own decide that Muslims do not belong to the backward class? The two state governments should have asked the state backward commissions in their respective states to conduct studies to find if Muslims come under the OBC category or not and then decide. However, they did not follow the constitutional process of removing the Muslim quota. The present action of the Karnataka state government and the earlier decision of the Maharashtra BJP government without the recommendation of the state backward commissions indicate the two state government’s discriminatory attitude towards Muslims. Does this not amount to appeasement of the majority community, which is nothing but based on religion?
The decisions of the governments in Karnataka and Maharashtra will further push Muslims towards backwardness. They were already highly under-represented in state government services. Scrapping the quota will further exclude them from government employment and higher and technical educational institutions. Is this social justice by a party with the slogan “sab ka saath, sab ka vishwas, sab ka vikas?” All the commissions and panels appointed by various governments at different levels, including the most popular Sachar Committee, have found Muslims educationally and financially among the most backward. Does excluding Muslims, who are economically and educationally backward, bring the development of the Muslim community? Does it help create trust in the Muslims about BJP and its government?
Mr Ahmed and Bidar-based journalist Qazi Arshad Ali, who have jointly penned a book – Karnataka Muslims and Electoral Politics – say that all the committees and panels appointed since the days of Maharaja of Mysore have placed Muslims in the backward classes. They say that the Miller Committee appointed by Maharaja of Mysore in 1918 included Muslims in the backward classes list. On this basis, Muslims were given reservations in government jobs in erstwhile Mysore state.
After the reorganization of states, the Karnataka government set up Dr. R. Nagan Gowda committee. In its report in May 1961, the Gowda committee declared all sections of Muslims as backward and eligible for reservations.
The first Karnataka State Backward Commission set up under the chairmanship of retired high court judge L G Havnur in 1972 considered Muslims as a special group based and recommended six per cent reservation separately for them. In its order in 1977, based on the Havnur commission report, the Karnataka government included all Muslims in the backward classes. This was challenged in the Karnataka High court. However, the court upheld the order, clarifying that the religious minority tag of Muslims does not prevent them from being included in the backward classes.
The high court order was challenged in the Supreme Court. On the order of the apex court, the state government formed another backward commission to review the backward classes list of 1977. Headed by T. Venkatswamy, the commission in March 1986 recommended considering all Muslims as backwards for the purpose of reservations. However, the Ramkrishna Hegde government rejected it because the report had excluded Lingayats and Vokkaligas from the backward classes list.
The state government then set up the O. Chinnappa Reddy commission in 1990. The Chinnappa Reddy commission also recommended the inclusion of all sections of Muslims in the backward classes list. It declared Muslims educationally, socially, and economically a backward community. Based on this recommendation, the state government in 1994 included Muslims in the backwards classes category and gave them four percent reservation which continued till now.
So, it is highly unjustified to say that the reservations to Muslims were appeasement. Instead, this was based on scientific studies conducted by various commissions.
