nt>
Title: Further discussion on the resolution regarding reservation for socially and educationally backward classes moved by Shri E. Ahamad on 18th August, 2000. (Concluded and resolution withdrawn)
16.05 hrs.
MR DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Now, we shall take up Private Members” Business — Reservation for socially and educationally Backward Classes. Shri E. Ahamed to continue.
Hon. Members, whatever time of the Private Members” Business has been taken by the Government Business, that much of time will be added to the Private Members” Business.
SHRI E. AHAMED (MANJERI): Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, while moving my non-official Resolution on August 18, 2000, I had dealt at length the genesis of the Reservation in this country and the evolution of the present Reservation Policy. While, mentioning these facts last time, I had explicitly quoted the interpretation and also the observations with respect to the Article 16(4) A which was incorporated by the 77th Amendment. But stressing the need of the Reservation for the socially and educationally Backward Classes including the Muslims in accordance with proportion of their population notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment of any Court of law to the contrary including ceiling on percentage of reservation, I would like to bring to the notice of this august House the prenatal history of Article 16(4) which is the basis of the Reservation for different classes of people.
Sir, before I just go into it, I would like to quote Article 16(4). It says:
“Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provisions for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. “Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, as I mentioned, the pre-natal history of this article will definitely make the House to come to a conclusion that ”the reservations to different communities are also to be granted.”
I still feel that the pre-natal history of the present Article 16(4) is worth mentioning in this House. It was felt before the Fundamental Rights Sub-Committee. Clause (5) of the Fundamental Rights Sub-Committee Report providing for ”equality of opportunity in matters of public employment” came up for consideration before the Advisory Committee under the chairmanship of no less a person than Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel between 17 and 19 April, 1947. When it came up for discussion, Clause (5) as recommended by the Fundamental Rights Sub-Committee was the most important clause, and it was given due consideration by the Committee. That Committee consisted of stalwarts like C. Rajagopalachari, K.M. Panikkar, Syama Prasad Mookerji, Frank Anthony K.M. Munshi and many such legal luminaries.
Shri C. Rajagopalachari suggested making the provision explicitly for the minorities instead of ‘classes’ as it is provided now. Shri Rajagopalachari told the Committee on a specific clarification about it as to whether it was the classes or minorities who were being given protection. Shri K.M. Panikkar, who was responsible for the initial changed words explained that besides recognising religious minorities there might be many classes amongst the Hindus not adequately represented. According to him, they had also to be given reservation.
In this connection Shri Shyama Prasad Mukherjee suggested the phrasing ‘minorities and other classes’ instead of simple ‘classes’. That was the suggestion made by Shri Shyama Prasad Mukherjee. Again, Sardar Ujjal Singh, who was a Member of that Committee suggested ‘minorities and backward classes’ without any reference to adequate representation. Shri Frank Anthony said that it should be ‘classes and minorities’. This was the discussion that took place in that meeting. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel observed that ‘classes’ included ‘minorities’. So, under article 16(4) of the Constitution wherever ‘classes’ has been mentioned, it includes ‘minorities’. This is what I wanted to bring to the notice of this hon. House.
I also want to quote in this august House what is mentioned in The Framing of India’s Constitution by Dr. B. Shiva Rao. The Advisory Committee was Chaired by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel when the matter was taken up for discussion. The Advisory Committee met for the second day in the Council’s Chamber of the Council House in New Delhi at 10 a.m. on April 22, 1947. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel was in the Chair. When the discussion was initiated, there were a number of observations made by the hon. Members of the Committee like Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Shri Rajagopalachari and others. For the information of the House, I may be permitted to quote verbatim from the proceedings of that Council as reported or compiled by Dr. B. Shiv Rao in his book The Framing of India’s Constitution. It reads thus:
“FRANK ANTHONY: I would like to suggest that the clause should be amended ‘nothing herein contained shall prevent the State from making provision for reservation in favour of minorities or classes.
UJJAL SINGH: It should be ‘classes’ over ‘minorities’.
FRANK ANTHONY: What is the objection to ‘classes and minorities’? ‘Classes’ will refer to the Scheduled Castes.
C. RAJAGOPALACHARI: It is sufficiently described here – ‘those who are inadequately represented’.
FRANK ANTHONY: Why should we fight shy of using a word which has the sanction of law and usage? We can make it more specific.
C. RAJAGOPALACHARI: Just as we do not say, ‘citizens and persons’, if one word is wider, we omit the smaller word.
FRANK ANTHONY: We can put it as ‘classes including minorities.
CHAIRMAN (SARDAR VALLABHBHAI PATEL): ‘Minority’ is included in ‘classes’.
FRANK ANTHONY: This is my amendment. I move in favour of ‘classes and minorities’.
UJJAL SINGH: ‘Minorities and backward classes’.
CHAIRMAN (SARDAR VALLABHBHAI PATEL): This is simple English. ‘Class’ includes ‘minorities’. This is absolutely unnecessary. It is as clear as daylight.”
“The Committee has come to the unanimous conclusion and we also feel classes include minorities. There is no need to suspect. The whole basis of the provision is minorities. You say the State will exclude minorities? ”
This is what Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel asked the Committee when Article 16(4) was under discussion of the Advisory Committee. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel had taken the stand that the classes would include minorities. He was in a very enraged mood. He said that there was no need to suspect and that the whole basis of the provision is minorities. Again I would like to quote:
“Frank Anthony: We are not suspecting the present leaders. We do not know who the future leaders would be.
Chairman: No leader would be so stupid as to interpret that classes do not include minorities. ”
I am only bringing to the notice of the House, the observation made by no less a person than Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. He said that classes would include minorities. This is, according to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel who was the Chairman of the Advisory Committee which has finally presented it to the Drafting Committee. I am only quoting this for the purpose of this House. I would insist on that quote and continue:
“Frank Anthony : We are not suspecting the present leaders. We do not know who the future leaders would be.
Chairman : No leader would be so stupid as to interpret that classes do not include minorities.
Frank Anthony : We have used the words elsewhere.
Chairman : Anybody will say that ”classes” is a wider term. It is better to use a wider word.
C. Rajagopalachari : I would appeal to him that according to the ordinary interpretation if you introduce the word minority, the question whether a class is a minority will become justiciable. Classes will be interpreted in the sense of minority. The use of the general term ‘classes’ is followed by the phrase ‘not adequately represented’ and the opinion of the State finally determines it. I think, this is the best way of solving it.
K.M. Munshi : In Section 153A, the term ‘class of His Majesty’s subjects’ has been used. ‘Classes’ have been interpreted as minorities or religious communities also. Nobody has ever interpreted it as not meaning minorities. ”
This is what Shri K.M. Munshi observed. Therefore, Article 16(4) is only with respect to the rights and privileges, and reservation for minorities, that is, treating Muslims as backward classes. In my Resolution also I said like that. I quote:
“This House urges upon the Government to bring forward a suitable legislation to make provision for reservation in appointments and posts in services and for admission into educational institutions in favour of socially and educationally backward classes including Muslims ….”
‘Social and educational backwardness’ are important criteria to be determined for which on their under-representation or inadequate representation should also be taken into consideration. Therefore, if somebody says that Article 16(4) stands in the way of Constitution for providing reservation to Muslims, I would say that the pre-natal history of Article 16(4), the decisions and the views given expression to by our founding fathers of the Constitution are amply clear on that casual matter. There is nothing wrong in providing reservation to different communities and there would no unconstitutionality either.
Therefore, if somebody says that already there are backward classes and now, Muslims are also being included – Mandal Commission has included Muslims in backward class – then I would say that I do admit that in States like Kerala, the entire community like Muslim. Ezhavas has been taken, as backward classes.
Because they are socially and educationally backward and they are not adequately represented. As a community, they have the right to be given the reservation in the matter of appointment. As a matter of fact Mandal Commission also had mentioned about the percentage of reservation given to other backward classes. According to Chapter IX of Mandal Commission Report,
“From the information supplied by the Central Government Ministries and Departments, it is seen that Other Backward Classes constitute 12.55 per cent of the total number of Government employees, whereas their aggregate population is 52 per cent. Their representation in Class-I post is only 4.69 per cent. That is less than one-tenth of their proportion to the country’s total population.”
When their aggregate percentage is 52 per cent, their representation is only 12.55 per cent according to the observation made by the Mandal Commission. The Mandal Commission has also mentioned about certain judgements. Ceiling OBC quota to 50% I would like to quote that also. According to last Chapter, para 12; 2.2,
“The population of OBC, both Hindus and non-Hindus is around 52 per cent of the total population. Accordingly, 52 per cent of the posts should be reserved for them. But this provision may go against the law laid down in a number of Supreme Court judgements wherein it has been held that the total quantum of reservation under article 15 (4) and 16 (4) of the Constitution should be below fifty per cent. In view of this, the proposed reservation for the OBCs would have to be pegged at a figure which when added to 22.5 per cent of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, remain below fifty per cent. In view of this legal constraint, the Commission is obliged to recommend a reservation of 27 per cent even though their population is almost twice this figure.”
When the population of the OBCs is growing, how can the Supreme Court put a ceiling on it? It was not the population of 1980 or 1990. In 2000 also their population, according to all these legal and other documents, is growing. While their population is increasing, how can the Supreme Court say that it shall not go beyond a limit? The court can not put a cap on it. This is not correct. When there are more backward classes, you must reserve more seats. If it is less, then less number of seats should be provided. That is why in my Resolution I have mentioned,
“…. Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgement of any court of law of the country including ceiling on percentage of reservation …. ”
It is imperative in democratic country where people of different religions and different classes, like minorities and backward classes, are living should be given proper representation in administration. Unless the Government makes such an effort, it is a failure on their part to discharge the democratic, constitutional and other moral duties. In this connection, I would like to say that Muslims should also be given reservation. What is the representation of Muslims in this country? I would like to bring to the notice of the House the facts already made known to this country by various sources.
Representation of Muslims in administration, Government services, may I say is abysmally poor. In this connection, I would like to bring to the notice of the House the findings of the National Sample Survey conducted in 1998. Even though the Muslim population is more than 12 per cent of the total population, the representation of Muslims in IAS is only 2.86 per cent. The largest minority and the second largest majority population in this country the Muslims have only 2.86 per cent representation in IAS. In IPS, their representation is 2 per cent.… (Interruptions)
डॉ. रघुवंश प्रसाद सिंह :आप अपने रैजोल्यूशन पर कितनी देर बोलेंगे?
SHRI E. AHAMED : I am the mover of this Resolution. Moreover, I am speaking for the hapless community. For Class-I posts, the representation for Muslims is 3.3 per cent. In the nationalised banks, the Muslim employees are only 2.18 per cent. In total, the Muslim engineers are 2 per cent and doctors are 2.5 per cent. This is some indication to show how Muslims are grassly under-represented in the Government services.
I would like to bring to the notice of the House some performance indicators. According to the social groups, compiled by Prof. Dalip Swamy primary school children population are 16.81 per cent as compared to 63.19 per cent of the total population. Involvement of the Muslims in primary classes is 12.39 per cent. Survivors in Class-V is 8.05 per cent. Class-X school going population is 18.25 per cent. The enrolment of Muslim children in Class-X is 16 per cent and the success rate is only 4 per cent. Similarly, at the graduate level the enrolment is 6.21 per cent and the success rate is 3.20 per cent. This is the present state of affairs of the Muslim community in this country. Post-graduate enrolment is 9.11 per cent and the success rate at this level is 6.98 per cent. Placement in jobs of the Muslim population through employment exchanges is 2 per cent; in private sector companies it is 8.16 per cent out of which executive class is 1.5 per cent, clerical class is 8.28 per cent and workers is 7 per cent. This is the present situation of the minority Muslim community. The percentages with regard to the State Government officials are also like that. As per the income level, the poorest is 10.90 per cent and poor is 41.40 per cent whereas in other communities, it is 28.43 per cent. Muslim population above poverty line is 26.6 per cent. The richest section of the Muslim population is 3.87 per cent.
Therefore, this is not community of rich people. It is a community of the poor people. The poorest of the poor is in the Muslim community. They have been denied admission in education institutions. They have been denied representation in the Government services and other services. In this connection I would also like to bring to the notice of the House as to what happened in 1997.
In the year 1997, there were 449 Directors in the public sector undertakings, out of which, there were only 21 Muslims. It comes to 4.2 per cent. Out of 13,900 senior officers in public sector, only 321 are Muslims. It constitutes 2.32 per cent among the judicial officers, their percentage is less than seven. In the Reserve Bank of India, which is the highest body of this country, there is not even a single member in the Board of Directors. Only two Executive Directors are there out of 60. This is the position. In nationalised banks, there are 2.18 per cent Muslims. There is no Muslim among five Board members of LIC. It is the biggest financial institution of the country. Hundreds and lakhs of rupees have been given as loan by this institution but this community has been denied even the directorship of this institution. There is not a single Director from this community. Their number is less than 3 per cent in Police and para-military forces. As regards poverty alleviation programmes of banks, they constitute 9.41 per cent of the people who have taken loan. The amount of loan taken by them is only 3.73 per cent. I am bringing all these matters only to make the Government understand that it is only a legitimate demand of the Muslims and other backward classes to have special reservation. If that reservation is not given, they will never be able to get representation in the Government service.
Sir, everybody has supported it. For example, I will tell you the view taken by the former Prime Minister.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Ahamed, you had taken 26 minutes earlier and now you are speaking for the last 30 minutes. There are many other Members who want to participate and the Minister would also reply.
SHRI E. AHAMED: Sir, I will conclude in five minutes.
Sir, on the occasion of National Convention on Reservation for the Muslims held in October 1994, Shri V.P. Singh, who was the champion of Mandal Commission Report said:
“The question now only arises whether the amount of reservation for the Muslims should be separately quantified; and second whether all the Muslims should be entitled to reservation.
As far the first proposal, the answer is that if the actual working of the Mandal Commission Report does not ensure adequate representation, then there is a strong case for providing separate reservation for the Muslims. Objections on the ground that then each social section will have to be provided separate quota does not hold because Muslims are large social section comprising of more than 15 crore people. The most backward classes among the backward classes have been given separate representation in certain States on the ground that they are sizeable group requiring separate safeguard.
As far the second proposal being the rate of drop out of the Muslims in educational institutions, a fresh determination is necessary than what has been done hitherto. I am sure if this is done Muslim brothers would come under the socially and educationally backward classes.”
This is the view taken by Shri V.P. Singh while arguing for the reservation of the Muslims in this country.
Again Sir, once late Rajiv Gandhi, who was the Leader of Opposition of this august House made an observation in this regard. I would just like to bring the extract from the speech made by him on 6th September, 1990 in this House. He said:
“I should go not only to such under-privileged groups and many others like them, but the people from all religions who are under-privileged and this is where I have a great difference with what the Government is bringing in. We are looking almost entirely at castes. Not only that, they have not included very large sections of the minority who should be included. If you look at the Muslims, the vast majority of the Muslim community in India is backward educationally, socially, economically, everywhere. It is true for almost every religion as groups who are socially and educationally backward. Why should they not be included? I would request Raja Saheb to expand the definition of castes first by including socially and educationally backward classes or the backward groups, whatever you want to call it, from other castes, from within the Hindu religion and then expanding it to socially and economically backward groups from other religions namely the Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsis and others.”
This is the view given expression to by Shri Rajiv Gandhi, the then Leader of the Opposition. The present Government which honour the wordings of great leaders like Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel should also follow it in practice. The Opposition which is even now following the ideals of Shri Rajiv Gandhi should also put it to practice.
I would also like to bring in two very prominent personalities who are social scientists in this country and apprise the House of what they have observed about reservation for Muslims. The first one is Prof. A.M. Khusro who was the Chairman of the Finance Commission till recently and who was also the Vice-Chancellor of the Aligarh Muslim University. While addressing the Second National Convention for Reservation of Muslims he said:
“Muslims cannot clear the backlog and backwardness unless given reservation. Though efficiency is a problem area in reservation, the community particularly needs the crutches to come up in the field of development.”
Another social scientist of this country who also spoke in a convention was Prof. Rajni Kothari. He said:
“Muslims being an integral part of India”s composite culture must be given equal representation at every level.”
Therefore, public opinion is also changing. It is a fact that the Muslims in this country are educationally backward, socially backward and also very much poor in their representation in the Government, public undertakings and other fields. Their representation in services is abysmally poor. It is the duty of the Government to come forward to accept this fundamental truth and to provide reservation for educationally and social backward communities.
I am sure, my friends in BJP would agree to it because they consider Muslims as blood of their blood and flesh of their flesh. So, when the blood of their blood and flesh of their flesh is suffering in such humiliation, in such backwardness, in such deprivation, I am sure, Shrimati Maneka Gandhi will come forward and accept this proposition. This is a legitimate case. This is a case of constitutional reality in this country to which nobody can close one”s eyes.
I take only one minute to give percentage of different population groups in this country. The Scheduled Castes are 15.5 per cent; and the Scheduled Tribes are 7.5 per cent. So, together they make it 22.26 per cent of the total Indian population. Whereas the Muslims are 11.19 per cent, the Christians are 2.16 per cent, the Sikhs are 1.67 per cent, the Buddhists are 0.67 per cent and the Jains are 0.47 per cent. Totally all these groups of non-Hindu religious communities form only 16.69 per cent.
When this 16.16 per cent of people are denied their legitimate right to represent themselves in the Government as public servants, how can there be equality before law and equal treatment for all segments of people? Therefore, it is the principle for democracy of this country, a country which is having unity in diversity, which is multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and multi-religious. Therefore, I urge upon this Government and also the hon. Minister to accept this Resolution and give a good message to the entire people of this country. Words will not do anything. Only deeds will have some effect.
:उपाध्यक्ष महोदय, माननीय पुराने विद्वान सदस्य श्री ई.अहमद ने जो गैर सरकारी संकल्प, मुसलमानों को आरक्षण देने के संबंध में रखा है, यह बहुत सैंसटिव इश्यु है। यह आरक्षण विरोधी सरकार है। इनके सामने इतनी किताबें दिखा रहे थे। हमारी समझ में नहीं आता कि जो आरक्षण है उसे ये लोग खत्म करने में लगे हुए हैं, परंतु और आरक्षण को कह रहे हैं। माननीय सदस्य ने जो प्रस्ताव किया है, हम उसका समर्थन करते हैं। उन्होंने संविधान, पुराना इतिहास, सारे कागजी सबूत, सारे अंक, प्रतिशत, सामाजिक स्थिति, आर्थिक स्थिति और शैक्षणिक स्थिति आदि को दिखाया और पूरा विचार करके उन्होंने इसे रखा है। उनका मन नहीं था कि कोई इसका समर्थन करे, वह दो-तीन घंटे और बोलते, अगर हम नहीं टोकते। लेकिन उन्होंने इसे बड़े ही तर्कसंगत तरीके से यहां रखा है। अपने देश में जो मुस्लिम आबादी है, जो सोशियली बैकवर्ड है, जो संविधान बोलता है एजूकेशनली, इकोनोमिकली बैकवर्ड और आरक्षण का प्रथम सिद्धांत है कि जिनका सरकारी सेवाओं में एडीक्वेट रिप्रेजेन्टेशन नहीं है, उनका रिप्रेजेन्टेशन होना चाहिए। इन्होंने साबित किया है कि उनका एडीक्वेट रिप्रेजेन्टेशन नहीं है, इसलिए उन्हें आरक्षण न मिलने का कोई औचित्य नहीं है। लेकिन हमें लगता है कि सरकार की तरफ से जवाब आयेगा चूंकि संविधान में धर्म के आधार पर आरक्षण नहीं लिखा है, इसलिए हमें ऐसा करने में कठिनाई हो रही है। इसलिए यह गैर सरकारी संकल्प लाये हैं। इसके मुताबिक इसके लिए संविधान संशोधन की आवश्यकता होगी। इसलिए इसमें संविधान संशोधन कीजिए और सोशियली, एजूकेशनली और इकोेनोमिकली सभी द्ृष्टिकोण से जो भी समूह पिछड़े हुए हैं, दबे हुए हैं और जिनका सरकारी सेवाओं में एडीक्वेट रिप्रेजेन्टेशन नहीं है, कहीं-कहीं इन्होंने शून्य कहा है, इसलिए इनका आरक्षण होना चाहिए। इसलिए हम इसका पूरा समर्थन करते हैं।
उपाध्यक्ष महोदय, अभी जो प्रावधान है उसमें इनका गैर सरकारी संकल्प पारित हो जाए, लेकिन ये लोग इसे पारित नहीं होने देंगे। हम समझते हैं कि इन लोगों ने विचार किया हुआ है कि ये किसी हालत में पारित न होने दें। लेकिन इन्हें इसका बुरा परिणाम भोगना पड़ेगा। दूसरी ओर ये इस पर संविधान संशोधन लाये और संविधान संशोधऩ लाकर इस संवेदनशील मामले का निष्पादन करें। अभी संविधान में जो प्रावधान है, उसमें सोशियली, एजूकेशनली बैकवर्ड लोग और आम तौर से मुसलमानों में, इस्लाम के सिद्धांत के हिसाब से जाति व्यवस्था नहीं है। लेकिन हिदुंस्तान में हम देखते हैं कि मुसलमानों में भी जाति व्यवस्था है। लेकिन उसमें जो वंचित वर्ग हैं उन्हें शेड््यूल्ड कास्ट्स की श्रेणी में रखा जाना चाहिए था, लेकिन उन्हें इस श्रेणी में नहीं रखा गया। जैसे नट है, नट हिंदू भी होता है और मुसलमान भी होता है। लेकिन उसकी क्या स्थिति है, वह सभी तरह से दबा हुआ है। लेकिन शेडयूल्ड कास्ट््स में उसका नाम नहीं है। जब संविधान संशोधन होगा, तब उन जातियों को जो हरेक द्ृष्टिकोण से पिछड़े हुए हैं, जिनकी समाज अध्ययन संस्थान ने अनुशंसा की है और राज्य सरकारों ने भी अनुशंसा की है, उन जातियों को शेडयूल्ड कास्ट्स में रखना चाहिए। जो मुस्लिम कम्युनिटी में दबे हुए लोग हैं उनमें पचासों जातियां हैं जैसे डफाली, कलाल और अंसारी आदि हैं, इन सब जातियों को शेडयूल्ड कास्टस में रखने की जरूरत थी।