If these acts continue, we don’t need anything else that would stoke a strong reaction. Justice Sachar committee report talks about taking an affirmative action for Muslims in India. It was set up, as secularists of the country say, to bring Muslims into the mainstream. And what did it recommend? The much awed report recommends hundreds of administrative amendments to the way this country has been running. What has been shunned for others, as the report indicates, has become central for Muslims of the country. Report lists series of measures that will further alienate this ‘cornered community’. For instance, it recommends recognition of the degrees from madrassas for eligibility in competitive examinations such as the civil services, banks, defence services and other such examinations. It talks about ‘provision of equivalence’ to Madrassa certificate for subsequent admissions into institutions of higher education. Separate data from banks on the transactions done by Muslims, and submission of such data to Reserve bank of India. It also talks about creating a separate government fund to encourage NGOs run by Muslims. It goes on to add ‘it should be made mandatory to furnish information in a prescribed format once in three months and also to post the same on the website of the government departments’. It also makes disbursement of funds to Muslims an obligation for banks. It recommends that the qualification for admission to ITIs be lowered for Muslims who come from madrassas. It says incentives should be given to builders, private sector employees, educational institutions that engage Muslims in their ‘diversity index’.
“If Muslims carry the perception of being aggrieved, swift action should be taken to the full satisfaction of the Muslims”, it says. Data related to the schemes announced by the government should be available so as to analyse whether the community is happy with the scheme.
To do away with the social separateness of the Muslims, report recommends administrative separation. The recommendation lists what arguably is best for the community. It essentially talks about creating a parallel bureaucratic set up to run this wish list. I have only listed few recommendations of the committee. If one takes the implementation of these recommendations into consideration, one easily calculates how many more government employees will be needed to fulfill these wishes. How much infrastructure will be needed to see these recommendations coming into effect? This manifests what kind of implementation mechanism will have to be put in place to fulfill Justice Sachar’s recommendations. Even if the government agrees to implement half of what has been recommended, it will keep defeating its own unforgettable records of fiscal discipline.
Report that sets entire administrative structure of the country after one job- "to satisfy Muslims to the fullest". Anything falling short of that satisfaction should invite penalty, it says. “But look at the marginalization of the community, they lack education, health, houses”, secularists wake up again. Their job is limited to making the very Muslims- who come out to vote in elections, feel protected. By offering protection, secularists buy the community's loyalty. But what kind of Protection is this? From who?
This very study was being sold as Quran to Muslims, as the only master plan that will not only fetch them into the mainstream, but will also share with them fruits of India’s 9% growth. It was said, in no uncertain terms, that the report will be implmentated the moment it is submitted. Four years on, no implementation is being talked about. Upon realising that too many provisions have been suggested in the report, that these recommendations can put government under unending administrative pressure, government decided to talk about the sudden discovery of ‘anomalies’ in the report. “But this is just a study, not Quran”, our secularists reason.
What follows is the fashionable assertion these days about communal forces devising a plan to oust Muslims from the country. “Our aim is to keep the communal forces out”, a usual one liner of secularists. Reasserting the names of same old factions, who have been brandished by these secularists, as enemies of Muslims.
And what does Sachar say about Muslims in these "communal states"? It ranks Gujarat above West Bengal. It goes on to talk about pathetic state of Muslims in 'fully secular' state run by our very own secular comrades.
Thus, obvious question hits us. What qualifies as communal?
Here, thought is lost, and any attempt to regain it qualifies as taking sides. And if the side being taken is of anyone against such policies, ‘communal’ is the tag hurled without losing a second. None of “our worthies” has made any meaningful presentation about the implementation of the recommendations of Sachar report. Setting up a committee to look at the condition of Muslims cannot qualify as having acted against the ailments of that community.
But the belief of our secularists, in the welfare of Muslims, is only rhetoric for Iftaar parties. Functions organised by minorities commission is the play ground for these empty assertions. Recall our Prime Minister’s statement on minorities having first right on national resources. If he cannot guarantee regular rights, how will this claim of ‘first right’ on national resources be executed? The expectation, so developed, with which these poor fellows vote, remains an expectation only. And there is no shortage of quotes from constitution of the party. Citations of historical decisions during struggle for independence. But those quotes are only to be quoted, not to be applied.
A new front, a new commission, a new scheme, a new approach. Nothing brings a new life that Muslims desperately seek. Recall the jibe of decades: ‘the Hindu rate of growth’. Our growth was held down to 3-4 per cent, it was dubbed — with much glee — as ‘the Hindu rate of growth’. Today, we are growing at 9 per cent. And, if you are to believe the nonsense in Sachar’s report, the minorities are not growing at all. So, who is responsible for this higher rate of growth? The Hindus! How come no one calls this higher rate of growth ‘the Hindu rate of growth’? It is easy to understand. Dubbing the low rate as the Hindu one establishes you to be secular; not acknowledging the higher one as the Hindu rate establishes you to be secular! Will the sluggish Indian growth rate, the growth below expectation becomes Muslim growth rate? Why only concessions, and no answer on the outcome of those very concessions?
As elections come close, senior most leader of the party starts feeling the need to offer protection to Muslims. This time, Muslims refuse to pay 'hafta' for protection; secularists move one step further towards creating more separateness. The announcement of a separate quota is made just before those ‘concentrated populace’ are to vote. People, who claim to have been following Islam without questioning it, suddenly start calculating the benefits to be accrued from this quota. They are never short of quotations from the holy book to back their assertions. Now they ignore the same book. Quran emphasizes 'the importance of equality before Allah' at great length. But the custodians, upon learning about the proposal, put Quran on hold. "It is the need of the hour", they reason. What has been propounded, and sold as election promise, suddenly acquires centrestage. Everyone, claiming to be the sole representative of the community, jumps into the fray. After all the credit line, from where such ideas are born, becomes crucial. Who will reap the benefit is the question that engages these custodians. Race for projection, as the sole guardian, starts.
None is concerned if there is any alternative to such non-feasible master plan. None is talking about the consequences of this quota. Aren't we heading in the direction that Britishers wanted to take us, and we almost proved them right? Separate Muslim electorate for Muslims wasn’t a welfare scheme to uplift the community. It was to emphasize ‘the separateness'.
M F Hussein, an artist in his own right, His depictions of Hindu goddesses have been in the news: he has painted them in less than skimpy attire. Well, in the case of an artist, that is just inspiration, say the secularists. The question that arises then is: How come in the seventy-five years Husain has been painting, he has not once felt inspired, not once, to paint the face of the Prophet? It doesn't have to be in the style in which he has painted the Hindu goddesses. How come he has never felt inspired to paint women revered in Islam, or in his own family, in the same style as the one that propelled his inspiration in regard to Hindu goddesses? Immediate reaction from the intelligentsia is to defend the artist. ‘In painting the goddesses, he was just honouring them,’ a secular intellectual remarked. ‘It was his way of honouring them.’ What can be a bigger service to the almighty? Put your talent to the service of god. We all can agree without argument. But how come this heavenly artist never but never thought of honouring the Prophet by using the same priceless skill?
As elections are round the corner, 'these worthies' start campaign of justification. Be it a fatwa that demands blocking an author’s visit to the country, or a fatwa that blocks Yoga- treated as science everywhere. When in doubt, talk about the so-called larger picture. If that picture has any larger dimensions, these secularists are not concerned.
I assume the figures, as compiled in Sachar report, to be correct. There is no argument that the Muslims in India do need attention. But why Muslims are called Muslims? Why not call them Indians? I possess limited understanding to come up with a mechanism for the true welfare of this community, but it is not difficult to understand that the way things are being taken forward is not what the community will wish to live with. Separateness can not be dealt with by creating provisions that require further separateness. It remins me of what Jawaharlal Nehru had once said, in different context though- This way lies not folly, but disaster.
“If Muslims carry the perception of being aggrieved, swift action should be taken to the full satisfaction of the Muslims”, it says. Data related to the schemes announced by the government should be available so as to analyse whether the community is happy with the scheme.
To do away with the social separateness of the Muslims, report recommends administrative separation. The recommendation lists what arguably is best for the community. It essentially talks about creating a parallel bureaucratic set up to run this wish list. I have only listed few recommendations of the committee. If one takes the implementation of these recommendations into consideration, one easily calculates how many more government employees will be needed to fulfill these wishes. How much infrastructure will be needed to see these recommendations coming into effect? This manifests what kind of implementation mechanism will have to be put in place to fulfill Justice Sachar’s recommendations. Even if the government agrees to implement half of what has been recommended, it will keep defeating its own unforgettable records of fiscal discipline.
Report that sets entire administrative structure of the country after one job- "to satisfy Muslims to the fullest". Anything falling short of that satisfaction should invite penalty, it says. “But look at the marginalization of the community, they lack education, health, houses”, secularists wake up again. Their job is limited to making the very Muslims- who come out to vote in elections, feel protected. By offering protection, secularists buy the community's loyalty. But what kind of Protection is this? From who?
This very study was being sold as Quran to Muslims, as the only master plan that will not only fetch them into the mainstream, but will also share with them fruits of India’s 9% growth. It was said, in no uncertain terms, that the report will be implmentated the moment it is submitted. Four years on, no implementation is being talked about. Upon realising that too many provisions have been suggested in the report, that these recommendations can put government under unending administrative pressure, government decided to talk about the sudden discovery of ‘anomalies’ in the report. “But this is just a study, not Quran”, our secularists reason.
What follows is the fashionable assertion these days about communal forces devising a plan to oust Muslims from the country. “Our aim is to keep the communal forces out”, a usual one liner of secularists. Reasserting the names of same old factions, who have been brandished by these secularists, as enemies of Muslims.
And what does Sachar say about Muslims in these "communal states"? It ranks Gujarat above West Bengal. It goes on to talk about pathetic state of Muslims in 'fully secular' state run by our very own secular comrades.
Thus, obvious question hits us. What qualifies as communal?
Here, thought is lost, and any attempt to regain it qualifies as taking sides. And if the side being taken is of anyone against such policies, ‘communal’ is the tag hurled without losing a second. None of “our worthies” has made any meaningful presentation about the implementation of the recommendations of Sachar report. Setting up a committee to look at the condition of Muslims cannot qualify as having acted against the ailments of that community.
But the belief of our secularists, in the welfare of Muslims, is only rhetoric for Iftaar parties. Functions organised by minorities commission is the play ground for these empty assertions. Recall our Prime Minister’s statement on minorities having first right on national resources. If he cannot guarantee regular rights, how will this claim of ‘first right’ on national resources be executed? The expectation, so developed, with which these poor fellows vote, remains an expectation only. And there is no shortage of quotes from constitution of the party. Citations of historical decisions during struggle for independence. But those quotes are only to be quoted, not to be applied.
A new front, a new commission, a new scheme, a new approach. Nothing brings a new life that Muslims desperately seek. Recall the jibe of decades: ‘the Hindu rate of growth’. Our growth was held down to 3-4 per cent, it was dubbed — with much glee — as ‘the Hindu rate of growth’. Today, we are growing at 9 per cent. And, if you are to believe the nonsense in Sachar’s report, the minorities are not growing at all. So, who is responsible for this higher rate of growth? The Hindus! How come no one calls this higher rate of growth ‘the Hindu rate of growth’? It is easy to understand. Dubbing the low rate as the Hindu one establishes you to be secular; not acknowledging the higher one as the Hindu rate establishes you to be secular! Will the sluggish Indian growth rate, the growth below expectation becomes Muslim growth rate? Why only concessions, and no answer on the outcome of those very concessions?
As elections come close, senior most leader of the party starts feeling the need to offer protection to Muslims. This time, Muslims refuse to pay 'hafta' for protection; secularists move one step further towards creating more separateness. The announcement of a separate quota is made just before those ‘concentrated populace’ are to vote. People, who claim to have been following Islam without questioning it, suddenly start calculating the benefits to be accrued from this quota. They are never short of quotations from the holy book to back their assertions. Now they ignore the same book. Quran emphasizes 'the importance of equality before Allah' at great length. But the custodians, upon learning about the proposal, put Quran on hold. "It is the need of the hour", they reason. What has been propounded, and sold as election promise, suddenly acquires centrestage. Everyone, claiming to be the sole representative of the community, jumps into the fray. After all the credit line, from where such ideas are born, becomes crucial. Who will reap the benefit is the question that engages these custodians. Race for projection, as the sole guardian, starts.
None is concerned if there is any alternative to such non-feasible master plan. None is talking about the consequences of this quota. Aren't we heading in the direction that Britishers wanted to take us, and we almost proved them right? Separate Muslim electorate for Muslims wasn’t a welfare scheme to uplift the community. It was to emphasize ‘the separateness'.
M F Hussein, an artist in his own right, His depictions of Hindu goddesses have been in the news: he has painted them in less than skimpy attire. Well, in the case of an artist, that is just inspiration, say the secularists. The question that arises then is: How come in the seventy-five years Husain has been painting, he has not once felt inspired, not once, to paint the face of the Prophet? It doesn't have to be in the style in which he has painted the Hindu goddesses. How come he has never felt inspired to paint women revered in Islam, or in his own family, in the same style as the one that propelled his inspiration in regard to Hindu goddesses? Immediate reaction from the intelligentsia is to defend the artist. ‘In painting the goddesses, he was just honouring them,’ a secular intellectual remarked. ‘It was his way of honouring them.’ What can be a bigger service to the almighty? Put your talent to the service of god. We all can agree without argument. But how come this heavenly artist never but never thought of honouring the Prophet by using the same priceless skill?
As elections are round the corner, 'these worthies' start campaign of justification. Be it a fatwa that demands blocking an author’s visit to the country, or a fatwa that blocks Yoga- treated as science everywhere. When in doubt, talk about the so-called larger picture. If that picture has any larger dimensions, these secularists are not concerned.
I assume the figures, as compiled in Sachar report, to be correct. There is no argument that the Muslims in India do need attention. But why Muslims are called Muslims? Why not call them Indians? I possess limited understanding to come up with a mechanism for the true welfare of this community, but it is not difficult to understand that the way things are being taken forward is not what the community will wish to live with. Separateness can not be dealt with by creating provisions that require further separateness. It remins me of what Jawaharlal Nehru had once said, in different context though- This way lies not folly, but disaster.
