Tags:
Journalism of Courage
In 1959 and then again in 1961, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru urged chief ministers to be more open to recruiting Muslims in different state services. His comments were prompted by the growing alienation of the Muslim community and the recognition that prejudices among communities had been heightened by the post-Partition trauma. This was not the first time that he had advised the Congress to address Muslim concerns and win the community8217;s trust so that it remained a part of the mainstream. Nor was he alone in acknowledging the Muslims8217; historically specific predicament and needs. His approach, however, was distinct: it focused less on recognising differences and more on eliminating discrimination.
Contrast this with the position that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh sketched in his address to the National Development Council recently. While Nehru called upon senior leaders to end discrimination to ensure equal opportunity and treatment to Muslims, Manmohan Singh recommended that Muslims must have 8220;the first claim to resources8221;. Thereby reinforcing the idea that the wellbeing of a community rests upon patronage and partiality. Neither the government nor a community is required to seek the more difficult goal of ensuring equal treatment and equal opportunity. Rather, each group must compete for favours and depend upon the largesse of the government. This impression, or should we say anxiety, remains even after the PMO has clarified that the prime minister is equally concerned about the welfare of other disadvantaged communities.
Special outlays for minorities including a fifteen-point programme have been in place for some time. So, what are the 8216;innovative8217; new schemes that are going to be put in place now for the welfare of Muslims? Besides, if this is a task that needs urgent attention, then why is the responsibility being placed primarily upon states? After all, when it comes to the 8216;welfare8217; of other marginalised groups the Centre is the major contributor to the schemes initiated and implemented by states. Then why not in this case? Questions of this kind eventually reduce the prime minister8217;s statement to a political gesture which the opposition can conveniently label as 8220;appeasement8221;.
The prime minister8217;s comment has come close on the heels of the Sachar Committee Report and its finding that Muslims fare worse than most other social and religious groups in terms of the accepted social and economic indicators. This report needs to be debated publicly, for its findings are more complex than assorted summaries might suggest. The Committee, for instance, points to the lower percentage of graduates among the Muslims but it also shows that the unemployment rate among the Muslim graduates is marginally less than the unemployment among graduates from other religious groups. Hence, the report alone cannot allay the doubts created by the PM8217;s statement.
There is no doubt that there are very few Muslims in the army, police and many other state services. Studies have shown that in many localities few Muslim children go to government schools; parents prefer to send their children to madrasas and other neighbouring religious schools. This complex form of discrimination and disadvantage has over the years been engendered by the experience of communal violence and the attitude of state authorities towards its victims. The near-silence on this larger issue of complicity and/or indifference of state machinery in communal violence and on the role of the latter in creating the present structure of deprivation makes the gestures of the present government inadequate and insufficient.
The PM8217;s remarks may create a feel-good factor that may even help his party to win a few seats in the next elections. But it is difficult to see in them an agenda for improving the life-conditions of Muslims.
The writer is professor, Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
