[Reader-list] Muslim SC/ST

[S. Jabbar]

Unconstitutionally Yours
by Guest Post <http://indianmuslims.in/author/guest/>  on May 21, 2010 in
Guest Article <http://indianmuslims.in/category/event/guest-article/>  | 0
Comments <http://indianmuslims.in/unconstitutionally-yours/#comments>



By Md. Aziz Haider,

Do you know that the mammoth exercise of Census 2011 being carried out by
the Government has no column for your religion, linguistic background and
whether you are an OBC but demands to know if you are SC/ST, with an
explicit remark that SC/ST can only be a Hindu, a Sikh or a Buddhist.

The entire exercise thus becomes a mockery and a serious rebuke to the
demand of the Muslims and right-thinking secular individuals from all
religions to include SC/STs who have converted to Islam under the privileged
category just as SCs/STs who have converted to Sikhism or Budhism are
enjoying the benefits of reservation. Muslims have been demanding that it is
unconstitutional and unjustified that a Muslim dhobi is kept out of the
SC/ST purview but a Hindu, Buddhist or Sikh dhobi is given the benefits of
being a SC/ST. Likewise with other professions! It is clear that the Muslim
SC/STs are being kept out of the reservation only because of their religion
and it is time and again being told to Muslims that the Constitution of
India has no provisions for granting reservations on the basis of religion.
We agree that our great Constitution has no provisions for granting
reservation on the basis of religion, but nobody has cared to tell whether
it has a clause for exclusion, on the basis of religion.

It appears therefore that the Government is not serious at all of giving
Muslim SC/STs their due share and the removal of the Œreligion¹ column is
also aimed at ensuring that no true count of Muslims will henceforth be
available, leave alone the count of SCs/STs among them. Among the Hindus,
while there is a separate column for SCs/STs, ŒOBCs and others¹ have been
clubbed together, thus ensuring that the count of OBCs too cannot be known
through this census. Government employees carrying the survey are either
ticking in the SC/ST column (in case the family is a SC/ST adhering to
Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism) or are ticking in the ŒOBC or others¹
column¹ thereby raising a question as to why the column of ŒOBC¹ has been
clubbed together with Œothers¹; as if the Government is not concerned about
knowing their number.

Life Watch has been giving reports from certain states, particularly Uttar
Pradesh, wherein Mayawati government has more or less finalized the decision
to give separate reservation for Muslim OBCs in Government jobs. Congress¹s
decision not to count the OBCs is certainly aimed at denying this privilege
to the Muslims.

The Census 2011 is unique on many accounts. The sheer magnitude of the
survey itself makes it a unique exercise. Secondly, from the outset, it
appears that a very detailed survey is being undertaken wherein information
regarding whether you live in your own accommodation or rented one, number
of rooms, whether there is a separate kitchen, sever connection, whether
possessing cycle, scooter, car, TV, radio, mobile, etc. is sought in detail
besides detailed information regarding number of people in family, their
age, place of birth, parentage, etc. is demanded.

But eyebrows are bound to raise when such a mammoth exercise with such a
detailed survey form does not bother to know the religion you adhere to, the
language that your mother speaks and also attempts to count the SCs/STs but
leaves OBCs outside the purview of the survey.

The True Count

For years since Independence, the true count of Muslims in India has always
been kept under veil. While the Government kept on insisting for a long time
that the Muslims were between 10 and 12 per cent, self-assessment done by
Muslims and several social organizations was of the opinion that their
population was anywhere between 15 and 20%. This was also reflected in the
large-scale upheavals that the Muslims were able to bring about whenever
they voted en mass.

Succeeding Governments had an inkling that the Muslim population was far
more than they were certifying it to be. As the Muslims came out of the
trauma of partition and started becoming aware, it was not possible to keep
away a chunk of the population from the Census. That is why the subject of
Muslims producing large number of children was raised time and again. This
was despite the fact that several independent surveys have revealed that
number of children in Muslim families are same if not less than the number
of children in Hindu families; the only difference is the difference in
their social and economic status. The number of children in similar social
and economic conditions is same for Hindus and Muslims. But since greater
percentage of Muslims is illiterate and live in slum-like conditions, the
average percentage rise of Muslims is more even if their Hindu brethren
living in same slums and subscribing to same mode of life are producing
equal number of children.

Solution therefore is education and social upliftment of Muslims, which
successive governments have continued to ignore, and not religion. Sacchar
Committee and Rajinder Mishra Commission, who attempted to reach at the root
of the problem, too have concluded that the only solution is to bring back
the Muslims in social mainstream through education and economic upliftment.

If such a grand exercise was being carried out, the Government must have
ensured that the survey form was so designed that all the essential
information gets available through the Census. Even if Muslims are really
producing more children, as claimed by few, the Census would have revealed
the percentage of their rise since the last census so that proactive
measures can be undertaken to know the reason and find solutions to keep
their population under check.

It is time the Government gives a clarification to all the Muslims, the OBCs
and all right-thinking secular people of the country regarding the reasons
for these gross omissions.

­
Md. Aziz Haider, Editor-in-Chief of Life Watch newspaper. This article was
published in May 1-15 issue of Life Watch.