Thursday, April 24, 2014

What is there in Manifestoes of political parties for the minorities?

What is there in Manifestoes of political parties for the minorities?
By Irfan Engineer,
Election time is season for Manifestoes of major political parties participating in the poll. Manifestoes are seen by some members of the public with cynicism and disinterest as they are observed more in breach by the party voted to power and major promises forgotten. When BSP was voted to power in UP, they did not have a manifesto and in any case given the levels of literacy, how many members of the electorates bother to read manifestoes of the parties is a good question. Large sections of voters in India go more by oral promises of the candidates contesting elections, some vote on consideration of caste, ethnicity, language and religious community, others vote on the basis of local constituency level issues and popularity of the candidate contesting.
Manifestoes are nevertheless important as they are declaration of the political parties as to the governance measures they intend to undertake and their political and economic priorities, even if they go a bit overboard on their promises. In this article, we examine the perspectives of some major political parties on minorities and the programmes for minorities they include. We have examined the manifestoes that were in English and Hindi language.
The vulnerability of minorities is due to their non-dominance and numerical inferiority as these entail absence of political influence in decision making bodies at legislative and executive level. Most countries had earlier policy to assimilate the minorities into the mainstream. This meant that while minorities would be guaranteed protection and security, they were expected to gradually affirm the culture, traditions, language or religion of the majority. If the minority concerned resisted assimilation, they would be vulnerable to the accusation of having subversive tendencies and their case for protection and security would weaken.
UN Sub-Commission acknowledged at a rather early stage that the minority issue demands a double approach, namely the prohibition of discrimination and special measures to enable the members of minorities to preserve and develop their own, separate characteristics. Prohibition of discrimination and minority protection are not identical but are twin concepts. However, we know due to Sachar Committee Report that the minorities are discriminated in opportunities for education, jobs and livelihood schemes, bank loans, government contracts, housing, health services and in extending benefits of welfare schemes and infrastructure like roads and drinking water to areas populated by minorities.
On the issue of security, Sikhs, Christians as well as Muslims have been targeted during communal riots with members of security force either shirking their duties or worst, colluding with the rioters and the guilty having no fear of being brought to justice. Nimesh Commission appointed by the UP Govt. finds that several innocent Muslim youth were arrested under draconian anti-terror laws and incarcerated for years. Innocent Muslim youth were incarcerated for over 6 years accused of bomb blasts in Malegaon in the year 2006 – an offence for which Swami Aseemanand has confessed his guilt. Disproportionate number of innocent youth killed in the name of encounter by police accused of being terrorists are Muslims, be it Ishrat Jehan, Javed Shaikh, Sohrabuddin, Kauserbi, Sadiq Jamal etc.
Therefore, what the minorities need is non-discrimination, security and right to their culture and religion. However, most manifestoes promise separate welfare schemes for allowances and scholarships for education, and loans for livelihood and Higher education, with a ridiculously small budgetary allocation. Bureaucrats read the existence of special schemes for minorities to mean exclusion from general welfare schemes for livelihood, education, housing, infrastructure development and provision of utilities, subsidized foodgrains to the poor, etc.. The discourse in manifestoes on national (or regional culture in case of regional parties) does not take into account the diversity in general and different culture of minority in particular. Being insensitive to the cultural diversities smacks of assimilative expectations and therefore notionally ghettoising the minorities into a pigeon hole. Some manifestoes promise reservations for minorities on the basis of their religion.
The BJP Manifesto:
Cultural nationalism or Hindutva is the core running theme of the manifesto. India’s ancient civilization is described from a supremacist perspective as one going back to several thousand years before the Christian era and unproblematic – with flourishing economy, trade, commerce and culture. The manifesto describes India as having a much bigger role and presence in industry and manufacturing than any nation in Europe or Asia with “a well-developed banking system and equally renowned businessmen, along with its financiers, who were contributing to create a flourishing and progressive economy.” The preface of the Manifesto further states that “India was a land of abundance, prosperity, affluence, a land of sharing and caring living in perfect harmony and peace with the nature”, and then talks of returning to the roots – the “civilizational consciousness of India”, without specifying what are the contours of this civilizational consciousness – is it cry for equality by Sant Kabirdas, Ravidas, Tukaram and other Bhakti and Sufi saints or the rigidity of caste system.
When the Manifesto lists the names of leaders who inspired Indian freedom struggle, there is not a single non-Hindu name is mentioned, not even Bhagat Singh and Jawaharlal Nehru. The Manifesto calls for India as one country and one people without referring to the rich diversity which is its strength. The post Independence leadership of the country (read – Nehru) could not comprehend India’s inner vitality, which was the main force responsible for India’s survival despite several attacks and prolonged foreign rule (read the Sultanate, Mughal and the British) and thus, failed to rekindle the spirit of India. The BJP’s “Ek Bharat, Shreshtha Bharat” thus would assimilate technological advancements (of the west) but discard the British institutional framework of administration (read – Democracy) which, according to the Manifesto is quite alien to the civilizational consciousness of India. What more clarity is needed for one to understand that even in their election manifesto, the BJP pits Ek Bharat, Shreshtha Bharat against the Constitutional framework? Of course in their election manifesto they are promising everything to every section of society. How will they reconcile the conflicting demands under the rubric of “Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas” with the limited means? They would offer the corporate sector develop allocating precious budgetary resources and help all the marginalized sections with subsidies.
Minorities in the BJP Manifesto:
The Manifesto uses a lot of platitudes as far as minorities are concerned but has nothing to concrete to offer in terms of economic benefits or institutional framework to ensure that minorities enjoy security and the Constitutional right to equality. While in the past BJP would oppose any half hearted special measures to enable the members of minorities to preserve and develop their own separate characteristics and dub it as separatist tendencies within minorities, in their Manifesto the BJP promises that they will “curate their rich heritage and culture;” (by claiming Babri Masjid and 3000 other mosques?), “maintenance and restoration of heritage sites;” (claiming Taj Mahal to be a Shiv Mandir, ABVP members vandalized the Taj Mahal and since when heritage sites were divided into minority and majority?) “digitization of archives;” (which one? Even archives conceived to be majority and minority?) “preservation and promotion of Urdu” (Hindutva cadres were involved in anti-Urdu agitation in Bihar in 1967 leading to riots in Ranchi-Hatia and riots in Banglore over broadcast of news bulletin by AIR in Urdu). It is ironical that while the section on minority talks of “curating” rich culture, the section on “Cultural Heritage” promises “Uniform Civil Code”! The section on “Cultural Heritage”, unlike to one on Minorities promises to provide appropriate resources for the maintenance and restoration of all national heritage sites, and to prevent their vandalisation in any form. Note that minority heritage is just described as that while other heritage sites are described as national! That is Hindu nationalism. What is Hindu is national and what is non-Hindu belongs to minorities and in its election magnanimity, the manifesto promises “curating” of such sites without promising appropriate resources or to prevent vandalization.
The Manifesto sheds crocodile tears on the backwardness of the Muslim community and borrows from the Congress programmes which are often violently opposed by the BJP – National Madrasa modernization and enable Waqf Boards to remove encroachments.
Congress Manifesto:
Congress Manifesto promises implementation and continuation of the same old programmes that were poorly implemented or remained unimplemented paying lip services to the minorities. It promises to “focus on accelerating concrete, sustainable and long term plans for the welfare of the Nation’s minorities” which include scholarships for children belonging to the minority community, higher education support through Maulana Azad Education Foundation and effective management of Waqf properties and a law providing clear guidelines to prevent the usurpation and mismanagement of Waqf properties. The Congress would continue to focus on ‘Priority Sector Lending’ disbursement for minorities and “to ensure that members of the minority communities have easy access to credit and other incentives like tax rebates etc., to encourage entrepreneurship.” The Manifesto once again promises that “The Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill, 2013, which was drafted and introduced by the Indian National Congress will be passed as a matter of priority” without explaining why the legislation was not enacted in the previous two terms.
The Manifesto also promises that the Party would pursue with the courts matter regarding reservation for backward minorities in educational institutions and in government employment and ensure that the policy is implemented through proper legislation.
Samajwadi Party:
Samajwadi Party Manifesto claims proposes to address industrial backwardness, poverty, illiteracy and unemployment, which it mainly attributes to the policies of the Central Government. We here look at the 2012 UP Assembly Manifesto as well as 2014 Manifesto for Lok Sabha elections as practically the same promises continue. The SP Manifesto does not use the term minority but names the community it wants to benefit from its governance and programmes. SP admits that status of Muslims is worst than dalits and they need special protection and opportunities. SP Manifesto promises implementation of Sachar Committee and Ranganath Mishra Commission reports and implement those recommendations. It demands that the entire Muslim community should be declared as extremely backward and should be extended benefits of reservations on the basis of their population on the lines of SCs. The Party promises to establish educational institutions in districts which are dominated by the Muslims.
The Manifesto promises to release, compensate and ensure justice to the innocent Muslim youth who have been jailed under the pretext of anti-terror action. It also promises to take action against the guilty officials.
It promises to establish Urdu medium primary, middle and high schools in the districts dominated by Muslims and ensure jobs. It is unfortunate that Urdu language is being linked to Muslims. There will be special budget for technical education in Madrasas. There will be special provision to recruit Muslims in state security forces and camps will be organised to ensure their recruitment. A special budget will be provided for construction of boundaries of “kabristans” (Muslim cemeteries) to pre-empt illegal occupation of the land. There will be a special package for development and security of all dargahs in the state through legislation. Why the development of the dargah is mentioned in the section on minorities is an enigma as more non-Muslims frequent dargahs than Muslims. On all Government commissions, boards and committees, at least one member of minority community will be nominated. Illegal possession of waqf property would be removed and a Waqf Board would be established through legislation and property restored to the Waqf Board. Waqf properties would be outside the pale of Land Acquisition Act. The industrial areas where minorities dominate, e.g. handlooms, handicraft, carpet, bangles, lock, scissors, jari, jardosi, bidi, will be given Government subsidies and encouraged. For weavers of handloom sector, there would be waiver on interests and penal interests on arrears of electric bills. ITIs would be established to supply skilled workers for small scale and household industries. Grant of Rs. 30,000 would be given to the girls who pass SSC exams for higher studies or for their marriages. Those Muslim educational institutions which qualify to be recognized as universities, would be given the status of university. Poor weavers would be provided free electricity like peasants. All legal obstacles for Mohammed Ali Jauhar University would be removed and a deemed university. A Medical college would be established with adequate funds. It also promises to eliminate communal riots from the UP state.
The Muslim community could be either included in various measures of governance and ensure their fair share and non-discrimination or special measures targeted only to Muslims could be promised. The Constitution does not permit the latter approach unless special conditions are met to overcome certain inherent disadvantages. Implementation of such provisions, even if sincere, would meet the Constitutional and legal roadblocks. The latter approach also invokes ire of non-Muslims and strengthens communal forces in the majority community. The SP Manifesto embraces the latter approach and their measures remain on paper unimplemented and un-implementable.


अल्पसंख्यकों के लिए क्या है राजनैतिक दलों के घोषणा पत्रों में

इरफान इंजीनियर

चुनावों के पहले लगभग सभी मुख्य राजनैतिक दल अपने-अपने घोषणापत्र जारी करते हैं। कुछ लोग इन घोषणापत्रों में कोई रूचि नहीं लेते और ना ही उन्हें कोई महत्व देते हैं। उनका यह मत है कि पार्टियां अक्सर सत्ता में आने के बाद उनके द्वारा किए गए वायदे भूल जाती हैं। बसपा ने उत्तरप्रदेश विधानसभा के जिस चुनाव में सत्ता हासिल की थी, उसके पहले उसने कोई घोषणापत्र जारी नहीं किया था। वैसे भी, हमारे देश में साक्षरता की दर को देखते हुए यह कहना मुश्किल है कि कितने लोग पार्टियों के घोषणापत्रों को पढ़ और समझ पाते होंगे। अधिकांश लोग नेताओं द्वारा जनसभाओं में किए जाने वाले जुबानी वायदों को अधिक महत्व देते हैं। अधिकांश मतदाता, पार्टियों के घोषणापत्रों के आधार पर नहीं बल्कि जाति, नस्ल, भाषा, धर्म आदि के आधार पर वोट देते हैं। कुछ लोग लोकप्रियता व छवि के आधार पर अपनी पसंद का उम्मीदवार चुनते हैं।

इस सबके बावजूद, घोषणापत्र महत्वपूर्ण हैं क्योंकि वे राजनैतिक दलों की राजनैतिक और आर्थिक प्राथमिकताओं का दस्तावेज होते हैं। इस लेख में हम कुछ प्रमुख राजनैतिक पार्टियों के घोषणापत्रों का इस दृष्टिकोण से अध्ययन करेंगे कि उनमें अल्पसंख्यकों के लिए क्या है और क्या नहीं है। हमने केवल उन्हीं घोषणापत्रों का अध्ययन किया है जो अंग्रेजी या हिन्दी भाषाओं में हैं।

चूंकि अल्पसंख्यकों की आबादी कम होती है अतः फैसले लेने वाली संस्थाओं, जिनमें कार्यपालिका व विधायिका शामिल हैं, में उनका प्रभाव व उपस्थिति कम होती है। चंद दशकों पहले तक, शनैः शनैः अल्पसंख्यकों को राष्ट्र की मुख्यधारा में मिला लेना, कुछ देशों की नीति थी। इसका अर्थ यह था कि जहां अल्पसंख्यकों को सुरक्षा की पूरी गांरटी होगी वहीं उनसे यह अपेक्षा की जाएगी कि वे धीरे-धीरे बहुसंख्यकों की संस्कृति, परंपराओं, भाषा, धर्म आदि को अपना लें। अगर वे इस प्रक्रिया का विरोध करते थे तो उन पर अलगाववादी होने का आरोप लगाया जाता था और सुरक्षा पाने का उनका हक कमजोर हो जाता था।

संयुक्त राष्ट्रसंघ ने समय-समय पर यह कहा है कि अल्पसंख्यकों के मामले में दो नीतियां अपनाई जानी चाहिए। पहली यह कि उनके साथ किसी भी प्रकार के भेदभाव पर प्रतिबंध होना चाहिए। और दूसरी यह कि उन्हें उनकी विशिष्ट संस्कृति को सरंक्षित रखने व उसका विकास करने के पर्याप्त मौके व स्वतंत्रता दी जानी चाहिए। जहां तक भारत का प्रश्न है, सच्चर समिति की रपट से यह साफ है कि अल्पसंख्यकों के साथ शिक्षा, नौकरियों, जीविकोपार्जन संबंधी योजनाओं, बैंक कर्जों, सरकारी ठेकों, आवास, स्वास्थ्य सेवाओं व कल्याणकारी योजनाओं आदि के मामले में भेदभाव किया जाता रहा है।

जहां तक सुरक्षा का सवाल है, सांप्रदायिक दंगों के दौरान, सिक्खों, ईसाईयों व मुसलमानों को निशाना बनाया जाता रहा है। उत्तरप्रदेश सरकार द्वारा नियुक्त निमेश आयोग का यह निष्कर्ष है कि कई निर्दोष मुसलमान युवकों को आतंकवाद-निरोधक कानूनों के अंतर्गत गिरफ्तार कर, वर्षों सलाखों के पीछे रखा गया। सन् २००६ में हुए मालेगांव बम धमाकों के सिलसिले में बड़ी संख्या में मुस्लिम युवकों को छःह से अधिक वर्ष जेलों में बिताने पड़े। बाद में स्वामी असीमानंद ने यह कुबूल किया कि इन धमाकों के पीछे उनका हाथ था। जिन लोगों को आतंकी होने के आरोप में फर्जी मुठभेड़ों में सुरक्षाबलों द्वारा मार गिराया जाता है, उनमें मुसलमानों की बहुसंख्या होती है। इशरत जहां, जावेद शेख, सोहराबुद्दीन, कौसर बी, सादिक जमाल आदि फर्जी मुठभेड़ों के शिकारों में शामिल हैं।

यह आवश्यक है कि अल्पसंख्यकों को सुरक्षा प्रदान की जाए, उनके साथ भेदभाव न हो और उन्हें उनकी संस्कृति व धर्म की संरक्षा का अधिकार हो। परंतु अधिकांश घोषणापत्रों में अल्पसंख्यकों के लिए ऐसी कल्याणकारी योजनाएं चलाने का वायदा किया गया है, जिनके अंतर्गत उन्हें पढ़ाई के लिए वजीफे, जीविकोपार्जन व उच्च शिक्षा के लिए कर्ज आदि उपलब्ध करवाए जाएंगे। इन योजनाओं के लिए जिस बजट की घोषणा की गई है, वह आवश्यकता से बहुत कम है। घोषणापत्रों में भारत की विविधवर्णी संस्कृति और विशेषकर अल्पसंख्यकों की विशिष्ट संस्कृति का संरक्षण करने का वायदा नहीं किया गया है। इससे ऐसा लगता है कि राजनैतिक दल यह चाहते हैं कि अल्पसंख्यक अंततः, देश की तथाकथित ‘मुख्यधारा’ को आत्मसात कर लें।

भाजपा का घोषणापत्र

इस घोषणापत्र की मुख्य थीम है सांस्कृतिक राष्ट्रवाद या हिन्दुत्व। इसमें भारत की प्राचीन सभ्यता का प्रभुत्वशाली वर्ग की दृष्टि से महिमामंडन  किया गया है। ऐसा बताया गया है कि भारतीय सभ्यता, हजारों वर्ष पुरानी है और प्राचीनकाल में इसकी अर्थव्यवस्था, व्यापार-व्यवसाय व संस्कृति अति विकसित थी। यह भी कहा गया है कि यूरोप व एशिया के किसी भी राष्ट्र की तुलना में, भारत, उद्योग व विनिर्माण के क्षेत्र में कहीं आगे था। घोषणापत्र की भूमिका में कहा गया है कि भारत ‘‘प्रचुरता, समृद्धि व सम्पन्नता की भूमि था, जहां लोग एक-दूसरे की फिक्र करते थे, संसाधनों का न्यायपूर्ण बंटवारा होता था और लोग प्रकृति के साथ सामंजस्य बिठाकर शांतिपूर्ण जीवन बिताते थे।’’घोषणापत्र में उन नेताओं की सूची दी गई है जो भारतीय स्वाधीनता संग्राम के प्रेरणास्त्रोत थे परंतु इनमें एक भी गैर-हिन्दू का नाम नहीं है-यहां तक कि भगत सिंह और जवाहरलाल नेहरू का भी नहीं। घोषणापत्र, भारत को एक देश व एक राष्ट्र बताता है परंतु इसमें भारत की उस समृद्ध विविधता की चर्चा नहीं की गई है, जो उसकी ताकत थी और है। घोषणापत्र कहता है कि स्वतंत्र भारत का नेतृत्व (अर्थात नेहरू) भारत की आंतरिक जीवनशक्ति को नहीं पहचान पाया-वह जीवनशक्ति, जिसके कारण भारत अनेकों हमलों और लंबे विदेशी शासन (अर्थात सल्तनत, मुगल व ब्रिटिश) के बावजूद नष्ट नहीं हुआ और यह नेतृत्व भारत की आत्मा को पुनःप्रज्वलित नहीं कर सका। भाजपा का ‘एक भारत, श्रेष्ठ भारत’ पश्चिम की तकनीकी को तो अपनाएगा परंतु वह प्रशासन के ब्रिटिश सांगठनिक ढांचे (अर्थात प्रजातंत्र) को स्वीकार नहीं करेगा। घोषणापत्र के अनुसार, यह ढांचा भारतीय सभ्यता की आत्मा के अनुरूप नहीं है। क्या किसी को यह समझने के लिए अन्य किसी प्रमाण की आवश्यकता है कि भाजपा का ‘‘एक भारत, श्रेष्ठ भारत’’, भारतीय संविधान के विरूद्ध है।

भाजपा के घोषणापत्र में अल्पसंख्यक

घोषणापत्र अल्पसंख्यकों के बारे में बहुत कुछ कहता है कि परंतु उनकी आर्थिक बेहतरी के लिए कोई ठोस वायदा नहीं करता और ना ही वह किसी ऐसे सांगठनिक ढांचे की स्थापना की बात कहता है जिससे यह सुनिश्चित किया जा सके कि अल्पसंख्यकों को सुरक्षा मिलेगी और वे समानता के अपने संवैधानिक अधिकार का इस्तेमाल कर सकेंगे। अब तक भाजपा किसी भी ऐसे कदम का विरोध करती आई है, जिसका उद्देश्य अल्पसंख्यकों को उनकी विशिष्ट संस्कृति को संरक्षित करने का अधिकार या मौका उपलब्ध करवाना हो। वह ऐसी मांग करने वालों को अलगाववादी बताती रही है। परंतु अपने घोषणापत्र में भाजपा यह वायदा करती है कि वह अल्पसंख्यकों की ‘‘समृद्ध विरासत और संस्कृति को संरक्षित करेगी’’ (क्या बाबरी मस्जिद और ३००० अन्य मस्जिदों पर अपना हक जता के?)। वह यह वायदा भी करती है कि ‘‘अल्पसंख्यकों के प्राचीन स्मारकों और इमारतों का रखरखाव व पुनरूद्धार किया जायेगा’’ (क्या ताजमहल को शिवमंदिर बताकर? अभाविप के सदस्यों ने कुछ समय पहले, ताजमहल में तोड़फोड़ की थी। प्रश्न यह भी है कि प्राचीन स्मारक कब से अल्पसंख्यक व बहुसंख्यकों होने लगे हैं?)। वह प्राचीन अभिलेखों के डिजीटाईजेशन का वायदा भी करती है (क्या अब प्राचीन अभिलेखों का भी अल्पसंख्यकों व बहुसंख्यकों के बीच वर्गीकरण होगा?) वह उर्दू के संरक्षण और उसे बढ़ावा देने की बात भी कहती है (हिंदुत्ववादियों ने बिहार में १९६७ में उर्दू विरोधी आंदोलन चलाया था जिसके नतीजे में रांची में दंगे भड़क उठे थे। बैंगलोर में आकाशवाणी द्वारा उर्दू में समाचार बुलेटिन प्रसारित करने पर दंगा हुआ था)। यह विडंबनापूर्ण है कि जहां घोषणापत्र में समृद्ध संस्कृति के संरक्षण की बात कही गई है वहीं ‘सांस्कृतिक विरासत’ वाले खंड में समान नागरिक संहिता लागू करने का वायदा भी किया गया है। घोषणापत्र, मुस्लिम समुदाय के पिछड़ेपन पर मगरमच्छी आंसू बहाता है और कांग्रेस सरकार के उन्हीं कार्यक्रमों को लागू करने का वायदा करता है, जिनका भाजपा अब तक विरोध करती आई है। इनमें शामिल हैं मदरसों का आधुनिकीकरण और वक्फ संपत्तियों को अतिक्रमण से मुक्त करना।

कांग्रेस का घोषणापत्र

कांग्रेस का घोषणापत्र उन्हीं पुराने कार्यक्रमों और योजनाओं को जारी रखने और लागू करने का वायदा करता है जो कांग्रेस के पिछले शासनकालों में या तो लागू की ही नहीं गईं या आधे-अधूरे ढंग से लागू की गईं। उसमें यह वायदा किया गया है कि पार्टी ‘‘राष्ट्र के अल्पसंख्यकों की भलाई के लिए ठोस व दीर्घावधि के कल्याणकारी कार्यक्रम चलाएगी’’। इनमें शामिल हैं अल्पसंख्यक समुदायों के बच्चों के लिए छात्रवृत्तियां और उनकी उच्च शिक्षा के लिए मौलाना आजाद शिक्षा फाउन्डेशन के जरिए मदद उपलब्ध करवाना। इसमें यह वायदा भी किया गया है कि वक्फ संपत्तियों का उचित प्रबंधन किया जायेगा और उन पर कब्जा करने या उनसे अनुचित लाभ उठाने की प्रवृत्ति पर रोक लगाने के लिए कानून बनाया जायेगा। कांग्रेस सरकार, ऋण वितरण के मामले में अल्पसंख्यकों को प्राथमिकता देगी और यह सुनिश्चित करेगी कि उनमें उद्यमिता को प्रोत्साहित  किया जाये। घोषणापत्र में एक बार फिर यह वायदा किया गया है कि ‘‘सांप्रदायिक व लक्षित हिंसा विधेयक २०१३, जिसे भारतीय राष्ट्रीय कांग्रेस द्वारा संसद के समक्ष प्रस्तुत किया गया था, को प्राथमिकता के आधार पर पारित किया जायेगा।’’ घोषणापत्र इस संबंध में कुछ नहीं कहता कि यूपीए-१ व यूपीए-२ सरकारें इस विधेयक को कानून में क्यों नहीं बदल सकीं। 

समाजवादी पार्टी

समाजवादी पार्टी, औद्योगिक पिछड़ेपन, गरीबी, निरक्षरता व बेरोजगारी की समस्याओं से निपटने का वायदा अपने घोषणापत्र में करती है और इन समस्याओं के लिए केन्द्र सरकार को दोषी बताती है। पार्टी के २०१२ के उत्तरप्रदेश विधानसभा के घोषणापत्र व २०१४ के लोकसभा चुनाव घोषणापत्र में लगभग एक से वायदे किए गए हैं। समाजवादी पार्टी के घोषणापत्र में अल्पसंख्यक के स्थान पर मुसलमान शब्द का इस्तेमाल किया गया है। पार्टी यह स्वीकार करती है कि मुसलमान, दलितों से भी अधिक पिछड़े हुए हैं और उन्हें सुरक्षा व प्रगति के अवसर उपलब्ध करवाने के लिए विशेष उपाय किए जाने की आवश्यकता है। पार्टी के घोषणापत्र में यह वायदा किया गया है कि सच्चर समिति व रंगनाथ मिश्र आयोग की सिफारिशों को लागू किया जाएगा। उसमें मांग की गई है कि संपूर्ण मुस्लिम समुदाय को अतिपिछड़ा घोषित किया जाना चाहिए और मुसलमानों को उनकी आबादी के अनुपात में उसी तरह आरक्षण प्रदान किया जाना चाहिए जिस तरह अनुसूचित जातियों को प्रदान किया जाता है। घोषणापत्र में यह वायदा भी किया गया है जिन निर्दोष मुसलमान युवकों को आतंकवाद निरोधक कानूनों के अंतर्गत जेलों में रखा गया है, उन्हें रिहा किया जायेगा और यह सुनिश्चित किया जायेगा कि उन्हें मुआवजा और न्याय मिले। उनके साथ हुए अन्याय के लिए दोषी अधिकारियों को भी सजा दी जाएगी। घोषणापत्र में मुस्लिम-बहुल जिलों में उर्दू माध्यम के प्राथमिक, माध्यमिक व उच्चतर माध्यमिक स्कूलों की स्थापना का वायदा भी किया गया है। यह दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण है कि उर्दू भाषा को मुसलमानों से जोड़ा जा रहा है। घोषणापत्र कहता है कि कब्रिस्तानों की चहारदीवारी के निर्माण के लिए विशेष बजट प्रावधान किए जायेंगे ताकि कब्रिस्तानों की भूमि पर बेजा कब्जे न हो सकें। दरगाहों की सुरक्षा व विकास के लिए विशेष पैकेज दिया जायेगा। दरगाहों के विकास की बात अल्पसंख्यकों से संबंधित खंड में क्यों की गई है, यह कहना मुश्किल है क्योंकि दरगाहों पर मुसलमानों से ज्यादा हिन्दू जाते हैं। यह भी वायदा किया गया है कि सभी सरकारी आयोगों, बोर्डों व समितियों में अल्पसंख्यक समुदाय का कम से कम एक सदस्य नियुक्त किया जायेगा। वक्फ संपत्तियों पर अतिक्रमण हटाये जायेंगे और एक कानून बनाकर वक्फ बोर्ड की स्थापना की जाएगी, जो कि सभी वक्फ संपत्तियों की देखरेख करेगा। वक्फ संपत्तियों को भूमि अधिग्रहण अधिनियम से बाहर रखा जायेगा। जिन उद्योगों में बड़ी संख्या में मुसलमान कारीगर हैं जैसे हैण्डलूम, हैण्डीक्राफ्ट, चूडी़, ताला, कैचीं व गलीचों का निर्माण, जरी, जरदोसी, बीड़ी उद्योग आदि को सरकारी अनुदान मिलेगा और इन्हें प्रोत्साहन दिया जायेगा। बुनकरों को बिजली के बकाया बिलों का भुगतान करने पर ब्याज और दंड की राशि नहीं देनी होगी। मुस्लिम समुदाय की जो लड़कियां उच्चतर माध्यमिक परीक्षा पास करेंगी, उनके विवाह या उच्च शिक्षा के लिए ३०,००० रूपए का अनुदान दिया जायेगा। ऐसी मुस्लिम शिक्षण संस्थाएं, जो इसके लिए पात्र हैं, को विश्वविद्यालय का दर्जा दिया जायेगा। यह वायदा भी किया गया है कि उत्तरप्रदेश को दंगामुक्त प्रदेश बनाया जायेगा। मुस्लिम समुदाय की बेहतरी के दो तरीके हैं। पहला यह कि उन्हें सभी क्षेत्रों में उनका वाजिब हक मिले, ऐसा सुनिश्चित किया जाए और यह भी सुनिश्चित हो कि उनके साथ कोई भेदभाव नहीं होगा। दूसरा तरीका यह है कि केवल मुसलमानों के लिए विशेष प्रावधान किए जाएं। संविधान, मुसलमानों के लिए विशेष प्रावधान किए जाने की इजाजत नहीं देता क्योंकि उसमें धर्म के आधार पर आरक्षण देने की कोई व्यवस्था नहीं है। आरक्षण का आधार केवल पिछड़ापन हो सकता है। जाहिर है कि अगर इस तरह के कदम उठाए भी जाते हैं तो उन्हें लागू करने में संविधानिक व कानूनी अड़चनें आयेंगी। ऐसा करने से गैर-मुसलमानों में रोष उत्पन्न हो सकता है और बहुसंख्यक वर्ग की सांप्रदायिक ताकतें मजबूत हो सकती हैं। समाजवादी पार्टी के घोषणापत्र में इसी दूसरी राह पर चलने की बात कही गई है जिसका नतीजा यह होगा कि अगर कोई विशेष प्रावधान किए भी गए तो उन्हें लागू करना संभव नहीं होगा।

 (मूल अंग्रेजी से अमरीश हरदेनिया द्वारा अनुदित) अगले अंक में जारी……..  

Friday, February 1, 2013

Six years after Sachar report, Muslim lot no better

Six years after Sachar report, Muslim lot no better

Difficulty in implementing schemes, owing to conceptual confusion at multiple levels: Khurshid
External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid on Sunday attributed the difficulty in administering and implementing welfare programmes for Muslims to conceptual confusion evident at multiple levels — from courts through policymakers and social scientists and experts.

Mr. Khurshid, who previously held charge of the Ministry of Minority Affairs, said a Supreme Court interim stay had facilitated the implementation of four per cent reservation for Muslims in Andhra Pradesh. Yet the Centre had earned a reprimand from the court for its decision to provide a sub-quota for Muslims within the OBC reservation.

“I had an altercation with the Election Commission because I spoke of the government’s commitment to implement reservation for Muslims. When this conceptual confusion takes place, you are called communal.”

Mr. Khurshid said the confusion extended to the ministries with madrasas and Haj coming under the jurisdiction of two different ministries — the Human Resource Development Ministry and the External Affairs Ministry respectively.

The Minister was speaking at a seminar organised to review the progress made in Muslim welfare programmes since the 2006 Rajinder Sachar Committee placed the socio-economic and educational status of Muslims below that of the Scheduled Castes. The highpoint of the seminar was the presentation of a paper, “Six Years After Sachar: A Review of Inclusive Policies in India,” by economist and chief scholar at the U.S.-India Policy Institute Abusaleh Shariff.

The paper said there was no perceptible improvement in the status of Muslims since the Sachar Committee made its recommendations: “Despite the government’s publicised support for the Sachar Committee Report’s recommendations to increase diversity in public spaces and to ensure the minorities’ proportionate benefits from mainstream institutions, the government’s record is notably lacklustre.”

Institutional reforms

Mr. Shariff’s paper noted that the rate of growth of education at all levels had remained the lowest for Muslims between 2004-05 and 2009-10. Matriculation-level enrolment was the least among both the OBC and general category Muslims in both rural and urban areas, and lower than the enrolment for the SCs and the Scheduled Tribes. At higher levels of education, the distribution was even more skewed in favour of the Hindu general population and other minorities. The paper said this level of Muslim exclusion could only be addressed through institutional reforms and not via “pro-Muslim policy statements and even Muslim-focused programmes.”
The paper said Muslims had almost no presence in the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and they continued to be excluded from formal development credit regimes despite specific guidelines and circulars from the Reserve Bank of India.

The paper was critical of the functioning of the Ministry of Minority Affairs. It said allocations for the much-publicised Minority Concentration Districts [MCDs] aggregated to a total of Rs. 37,800 crore until March 2011. Yet even this “meagre” allocation was underutilised: “It was shocking to note that only Rs. 856 crore [which is 22.8 per cent of central allocation] had reached the districts. Much lower amount was found to have been taken to the grassroots…”

Further, “The MCD schemes have hit hurdles which appear insurmountable! Close to the end of the 11th Plan period, just about 3.46 per cent of all allocated funds have reached the intended beneficiaries either at the level of individual or communities or geographic areas.”

Coordinating body

Mr. Shariff recommended the establishment of a coordinating body under the Prime Minister’s Office to monitor implementation of socially inclusive development programmes. He also controversially argued that socially inclusive development efforts needed to move away from special purpose vehicles — such as the National Commission for Minorities and the National Minorities Financial Development Corporation — so that they could be integrated into mainstream ministries. The suggestion was strongly opposed by participants who felt this would amount to “snatching away” whatever little Muslims got by way of welfare. The research for the paper was partially funded by the Institute of Objective Studies.

Sunday, May 6, 2012

Do India's Muslims need to be represented by Muslims?

HILAL AHMED


In articulating its social or political demands, the community does not appear to be addressing its own elites.
The serious (and not so-serious) claims and counter-claims made by Azam Khan, a senior Samajwadi Party (SP) leader and the so-called Shahi Imam of Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, Ahmad Bukhari, on “Muslim representation” in post-election Uttar Pradesh can be interpreted in two possible ways. One may argue, in fact quite justifiably, that these polemical comments simply reflect the post-poll tussle between two rival Muslim elites to secure a wider acceptability in the SP dominated U.P. politics.

However, there could be another plausible approach to interpret this debate. We may problematise these statements to raise a few very significant issues such as: do Muslims actually vote for a particular party because they are “instructed” by religious elites such as the Imam to do so? Or, do Muslims vote for a party because they follow the “advice” given to them by elected Muslim representatives? If we go beyond these first level questions, we might also ask two larger conceptual questions: do Muslims need to be represented by Muslims? If yes, what could be the appropriate relationship between the acts of Muslim representatives and aspirations of Muslim communities? The Bukhari-Khan controversy, in my view, can help us in unpacking these complicated questions. In the first week of April 2012, Bukhari, who had already campaigned for the SP in the U.P. Assembly elections, quite unexpectedly withdrew his son-in-law's candidature for the U.P. Vidhan Parishad. In a much publicised open letter, he accused the SP leadership of not providing “adequate Muslim political representation” at various levels. He said: “The rights of Muslims cannot be satisfied by giving a seat to my son-in-law. If you do not give a fair share to Muslims in administration and power, I turn down the offer made for my son-in-law.”

Two sets of claims

According to Azam Khan, Bukhari actually wanted a Rajya Sabha seat for his younger brother and cabinet slot for his son-in-law. Questioning the political reputation of Bukhari, Khan said: “His son-in-law, Umar Ali Khan, who contested on a SP ticket from the Behat seat of Saharanpur… lost his deposit. This clearly indicates the credibility of Bukhari. He should now realise the status he “enjoys” amongst the Muslims…these peshwas have done little for the betterment of the community. Instead of seeking political favours, clerics should stick to their job.”

One can identify an interesting interplay between two sets of claims here: (a) Muslims of U.P. constitute a political community because they are fully aware of and adhere to a set of issues that could be called “Muslim issues,” and (b) religious/social leaders and representatives of this political community are entitled to take short-term and long-term decisions in favour of Muslims. Azam Khan, it seems, shares the first assumption with Bukhari. He does not make any comment on the Muslim political homogeneity that Bukhari evokes. In fact, his assertions also originate from the premise that the Muslim community is a political entity of a specific kind. However, Khan's criticism of Bukhari's leadership claim is quite significant. Khan, in this sense, makes a clear distinction between the domain of actual politics and the domain of religiosity — a distinction that has dominated modern south Asian Muslim politics for a long time.

Let us look at some concrete evidence to evaluate the first set of arguments that revolves around the notion of Muslim political homogeneity. The recent U.P. election is quite relevant in this regard. According to official figures, 29.15 per cent votes went to the SP. If we deconstruct this official data by comparing it with the CSDS-Lokniti post-poll data based on sample survey, a few very interesting findings come up.

We find that although the SP enjoyed sizeable Muslim support (39 per cent), the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) also performed well among Muslims. It received around 20 per cent votes. Even the Congress manages to get 18 per cent Muslim votes. These figures demonstrate the fact that the “Muslim vote” was highly diversified. The Muslim caste configuration is also relevant here. Our data shows that around 41 per cent upper-caste Muslim (Ashraf) votes went to the SP. Also significant recipients of Ashraf support were the Congress (26 per cent) and the BSP (12 per cent). Although the SP also got 38 per cent non-Ashraf votes, the performance of the BSP is quite noticeable among non-Ashrafs. It secured 26 per cent non-Ashraf Muslim votes, while the Congress managed to get only 11 per cent non-Ashraf votes. This shows that the inclination of upper-caste Muslims towards the SP and the Congress is higher when compared to lower-caste Muslims. This Muslim political diversity, I suggest, exposes the emptiness of the Muslim homogeneity argument that Bukhari and Azam Khan propose.

The 2006 State of the Nation survey by CSDS-Lokniti on India's Muslims can help us in assessing the second set of issues that the Bukhari-Khan controversy raises. For the sake of clarity, let us look at three kinds of questions: what are the Muslim issues? Who is responsible for the present crisis of Muslims? And, what could be the way out?

We find that poverty and unemployment are identified as the most important Muslim issues (69 per cent). Instead of Hindu communalism or lack of religious freedom, a majority of the respondents (60 per cent) feel that the government is responsible for the present situation of Muslims in India. In fact, 16 per cent Muslims say that Muslims themselves are responsible for the present predicaments of the community. Affirmative action policies are considered as the possible way out to get rid of socio-economic backwardness. A majority of Muslims strongly support the view that Muslims must have some kind of reservation in educational institutions (72 per cent) as well as in Parliament and State Assemblies (82 per cent).

Interestingly, these overtly socio-political demands are not addressed to Muslim elites. In fact, the question of Muslim leadership was not at all given any considerable importance. Only four per cent of respondents find that the “lack of the right kind of Muslim leadership” has been a problem for Muslims in this country. On the basis of these findings, it would suffice to suggest that the question of Muslim leadership is not a fundamental issue for Muslims at all. On the contrary, Muslims, like other deprived and marginalised sections of society, seem to recognise the State as a reference point for making political claims.

Can we, therefore, say that Muslims in India do not want to be represented by Muslim political and/or religious elites? I do not think that this complicated question can be answered merely on the basis of evidence/data we have discussed here. It requires a systematic exploration of a different kind by which we can make sense of the contextual placing of Muslim elites in the socio-cultural universe of Muslim communities. Yet, we can certainly argue that Muslim participation in different forms of politics should be taken seriously to understand the multiplicity of the political representation debates. If we continue to pose the question of Muslim political representation in the present form, it would be very difficult for us to move away from the kind of arguments people like Azam Khan and Bukhari make.

(The writer is an Associate Fellow, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi.)