‘Congress walks in Jinnah’s shoes’

The government has no intention or will to implement any of the Sachar Committee’s recommendations. It only wishes to divert attention from its failures and, in the process, is endorsing separatist and divisive trends.

By Arif Mohammed Khan

I saw Jinnah smiling. I saw him smiling all day on November 24 when the Sachar Committee Report was laid on the table of Parliament. He is happy that something has happened that can offset the setback his ideological legacy had received in 1971 after the creation of Bangladesh. The country he founded could not keep the myth of “Muslims being one nation” intact, but at least in India a committee appointed by the government has restarted the process of looking at the religious communities as socially cohesive groups.

Members of any one religious community subscribe to a particular set of beliefs and practices and, in that sense, enjoy commonality. But the Sachar Committee holds that this religious commonality makes their secular interests—which are social, educational and economic—not only “common” but also different and distinct from the secular interests of other religious communities, and has coined a new term, “Socio-Religious Category” (SRC). The lead came from the government notification itself, which said that “there is lack of authentic information about the social, economic and educational status of the Muslim community of India, which comes in the way of planning, formulating and implementing specific interventions, policies and programmes to address the issues relating to the socio-economic backwardness of this community”.

The whole struggle between the Congress and the Muslim League right from 1936 was focused on the role of religion in the secular domain. The Muslim League under Jinnah asserted that similarity of religions creates not only similarity of secular interest but that these interests are hostile to the interests of other religious communities: therefore, he declared Muslims to be a separate nation entitled to a homeland. On the other hand, the Congress leadership recognised and accepted diversity of religious belief, but said that religion is the private affair of each individual and has nothing to do with state affairs, particularly in a pluralistic society. Since these two positions became irreconcilable, the standoff finally led to the Partition of the country in the hope that at least in a truncated India, we can hope to build a modern nation where the government will do nothing with respect to the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Each and every person is guaranteed freedom of religion, but religious belief will have nothing to do with the affairs of state.

Now, half a century after Partition, we have again started talking in terms of the social, educational and economic interests of religious communities. On page 237, the Sachar Committee says: “This report probed the question of whether different socio-religious categories (SRCs) in India have had an equal chance to reap the benefits of development with a focus on Muslims in India.” The report further says: “It was stated at the outset that the minorities have to grapple with the issues relating to identity, security and equity. It was also recognised that these three sets of issues are inter-related.” This language and terminology is a total negation of the spirit of the Constitution and the national movement, and will heighten community consciousness, which will give a fillip to the politics of communalism.

Equity and security are the brightest stars in the Indian Constitutional constellation. One provision after another prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, and place of birth. One fails to understand how equity and security can be linked to identity. Identity must not be confused with freedom of religion, which is a sacred right. In fact, the bogey of identity is always raised to usurp special rights and privileges, which are not available to others. Can anybody object if a campaign is launched to put an end to caste discriminations among Muslims, since Islam prohibits birth-based inequities, or if a demand is made to ensure that Muslim women get their share in property as per Islamic law?

But what is sought to be protected in the name of identity is the legal right to divorce at will or, as in the Shah Bano case, to deny a destitute Muslim woman protection under Section 125 of the CrPC, whereas this protection remains available to every other Indian destitute woman. It is, indeed, ironic that this inequity, under the cover of identity, is being linked to equity and security. In fact, the issue of “separate identity” has nothing to do with religion: it is only a euphemism for “separate nation”, a term that became politically incorrect after 1947.

The constituent unit of the Indian nation is the individual citizen, not religious communities. The obligation of the Indian State is to direct its policy to secure “that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood”; likewise, the duty to provide free and compulsory education to all children between six and 14 years of age; and several other provisions to ensure better living standards. If these Constitutional directives are honoured, they will benefit everybody, including Muslims, without provoking any communal tension or mistrust. But the government appears keen on specific interventions only because it is incapable of doing general good.

Even for Muslims, the government has no intention or will to implement any of the Sachar Committee’s recommendations. It only wishes to divert attention from its failures and, in the process, is endorsing separatist and divisive trends. From Jinnah’s standpoint, it has been a significant endorsement—made possible, it must be said, because people at the helm of affairs have either forsaken the values and legacy of our freedom struggle, or simply know not what they are doing.