Sundarrajk's Weblog

Archive for the ‘Reservation’ Category

After the post about talk by Mr. Tajamul Hussain read what Mr. R. K. Sidhva, a Parsee, has to say about reservation for minorities. Also in this post is defense of Congress by Sardar Patel.

Shri R. K. Sidhva : Sir, I am very glad that the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar has moved amendment No. 15 and the other amendments relating to backward classes have been dropped. My amendment, as just now stated, related to the deletion of the clause relating to backward classes.
Sir, I have been trying to understand what is the definition of backward classes. In article 301, we have stated that those who are socially and educationally backward would be known As backward classes. Today, in this country, 88 per cent. of the people are illiterate. They do not know even the A B C or the alphabet of their own mother tongue. Only 12 per cent. of the people are literate in this country. Socially also they are backward. Am I to understand that 88 percent of the people are backward ? Article 301, definitely states that those who are socially and educationally backward will come under that article. How can we then say that the whole country, 88 per cent. of the people are to be known as backward classes? My honourable Friend, Mr. Guptanath Singh, went to the length of saying that the peasant belongs to the backward class. He mentioned the illustration of the Brahmin as backward class. I know of an illustration and I shall give it, This was all created for the purpose of getting position and power and nothing else. Some ten years ago, a person wanted to get into the services as a Subordinate judge. The belonged to Pushkar Brahmin community. He set up a theory that the Pushkar Brahmins belonged to the backward classes. He had merely to take the signatures of 500 persons and present it to the chief Judge. The Judge was guided by the signatures and as there was no Pushkar Brahmin in the service as Judge, he appointed him.I may also tell the House that thirty years ago, the Parsees were considered as a backward class by the Bombay Government. You know Sir, that we are a far advanced community. Thirty years ago, 80 per cent. of us were educated; today 99 per cent. are educated. Still, thirty years ago, the Bombay Government declared that the Parsees were a backward class. It is only those people. who want to get into the services that use their influence and class themselves as a backward class. This is what was happening in the British regime. Some people who wanted to get into the services used their influence and classified themselves as backward classes, whereas really the masses of the people who are really the backbone of the country, they are not given any representation in the services. (Interruption).
Shri Guptanath Singh : You talk much but do not know the masses; I know the minds of the masses.
Shri R. K. Sidhva : I do not want to argue with you. What I was saying was that there has been injustice done to a small section of our own people. I know there has been favouritism going on and let me tell you favouritism will go on for ever unless a real Ram Rajya comes into being. Some sort of favouritism will prevail even in the best of Government. So far as the Scheduled Classes are concerned, I have never conceded that the Scheduled Castes are a community. I have considered them as a class of people whom really great injustice has been done in the past by the Hindu community. Therefore, we want to do something to see that they come up to standard of their own brethren. If they were to classify themselves into a separate community, I would oppose it. I do not consider them as separate. So far as the Scheduled Tribes are concerned, they are not untouchables. For instance. there are the Bhils; they are not untouchable. They are only backward. They have also been brought under Scheduled Tribes. These people require attention at the hands of the special officer that is to be appointed.
I do feel that our article 301 is a real stigma on our Constitution. I wish article 301 should go: I do not want backward classes at all to be mentioned in our Constitution. It is a slur upon our intelligence. For those who are educationally backward, we have provided in the Directive policy that within ten years every man, woman or child should be made literate. When educationally every person is advanced, who will call them backward? There will be no backward classes. Socially, they become advanced. If a man is educated, I have seen he improves his position in society and social affairs. Therefore, the fundamental thing is education and we have provided for that in the Directive Policy. I would have wished it to have. come in the Fundamental Rights. Within ten years, there shall not be a single person who shall be illiterate. Of course, there are certain difficulties in the way. I am sure our present Government are’ going to see that every man is made literate within a period of ten years, and we shall be proud that every person can read in his own mother tongue.
I therefore, oppose the amendment proposed by Mr. Guptanath Singh. It has no meaning. It has meaning only when we want to favour somebody and therefore we want to classify them as backward classes. The article as moved by Dr. Ambedkar is sufficient for our purposes. When a time limit is not mentioned, I am quite sure that within a short period these Scheduled Classes will go and they will come up to the level of the other people and we shall see that there is’ no mention of these Scheduled Classes in our Constitution hereafter. With these words, I strongly support the proposition and I oppose any kind of reservation or even the mention to reserve posts in services in the Constitution. We have done away with reservation in the legislatures. With what face shall we say that there should be reservation in the services?
It looks so awkward. Our leader, Sardar Patel, made it very clear the other day when he brought the question of representation in the Legislatures, and today my Friend Sardar Hukam Singh has put in Parsees also that they want special rights. Sir, my community has never asked for special rights in any Legislature or in the services. They have come by merits and I can assure you whatever number they are in the Government of India-there are some Parsees in services of the Government of India-they have come by merit and not by favour. The.; majority community realise it and we leave it to them. We know they can appreciate it. Merit alone should count in our future Constitution and nothing else. I place great stress upon this. This method has been started by the British Government of favouring one community or the other. Sir, we have given our President the power to classify who are the backward classes. Mushroom association in the name of backward class will be formed and the President will he put in an awkward position, many communities will try to influence them. I am sorry that this clause is there but I only expect that article 301 Will remain a dead article in this Constitution and shall never be operated upon. With these words I strongly support the original proposition and oppose all amendments.

Sardar Patel defending the Congress

The Honourable Sardar Vallabhbhai J. Patel (Bombay : General) :- Sir I had no intention to speak on this article, but when I heard that a definite insinuation was made in this House that because the Congress Party has a majority in this House, therefore it does not care for the promises given to the Sikhs and they are breaking the promises given them- have to speak. I am very sorry to hear this charge from the Sikhs or a representative of the Sikhs. Sardar Hukam Singh made this point. At another place on another occasion I had made it clear to him and yet he seems to have raised the same question. Now I wish only to answer that charge for the other things I do not think I need go into discussion or say anything about it. But when it is alleged that Congress is breaking its promises given to the Sikhs, one after another, I wish to understand the position.
We are-he alleges-breaking the promises-broke the promise given in 1929, one in 1946 and another in 1947. I do not know what promises he refers to. If he refers to 1929 and then again to the Partition of
India and Pakistan, I wish to point out to him that there was not a single Sikh voice against the Partition; on the other hand they are probably in the forefront in demanding partition of the Punjab. After the butchery and the bloodshed that took place in Rawalpindi and Multan, the Sikhs were terribly upset and naturally distressed and they had considerable sympathy from the Congress. At that time there were other tragedies happening in other parts of the country and then came the conflagration in Lahore, Amritsar and other parts of the Punjab. It was at that time with the concurrence of the Sikhs,-unanimously, with one voice they agreed,-we agreed to the Partition of India. Now to turn round and charge us with a breach of faith is a charge which I cannot understand and it is not right for the Sikh community-a brave community like the Sikhs-to fling these charges at us. Who were we to agree to the Partition of India and partition of the Punjab if the Sikhs were opposed ? We could never have done that. Because they also said that it was best in, the interest of India that we should agree to partition on condition that the Punjab was partitioned-that we agreed to it. Now that is about 1929 promise.
Then again he says about 1946. If he refers to the Minorities Committee recommendations, I can understand it. I propose to explain it in detail as to what has taken place. But I do not know what he means by 1946 promise. If I can have any concrete expression of a promise given by Congress Leaders, I might, and if so I do not think there is any one Congressman who will go against that promise. I have not however understood the psychology of the Sikh leaders-some of them-who often charge everybody with breach of faith, and always complain of minorities being ill- treated.
Look at the army. Are they not very heavily over-weighted ? What have we done ? We are under their protection and we trust them and not a single army officer is disloyal to us. Why do you create this feeling for nothing I What is it that you want ?
When the Minorities Committee in the Advisory Committee passed its first decisions, I was appointed Chairman and I took all the minorities with me and the decisions of the Minorities Committee and the Advisory Committee were almost unaimous. This House appreciated the work of these Committees and congratulated me on that. Time went on and the minorities themselves began to feel that we should reconsider our decision and, headed by the great patriotic Christian leader, they brought in a Resolution that they want to give up the reservations. And what reservations?- Not this Petty reservation of minorities in the services-but the big reservations in the Assemblies, both in the Centre and in the provinces.
They agreed to have joint electorates and to have nothing. to do with this communal separatism. When they desired that, I called a meeting of the minorities Committee and the Advisory Committee. At their instance decisions were taken. The Sikh stand has always been that “if all minorities agreed, we are also agreeable. Wo do not want any special arrangement. We do not want any advantage. We are able to stand on our own legs”‘. ‘Mat was their stand throughout, in the Congress and outside the Congress.
When this resolution was brought, and this question was about to be considered, the Sikh representatives of the Punjab came to me and they said that so far as the Scheduled Caste Sikhs are concerned, they should be treated separately and given the same advantage that was being given to the Hindu Scheduled Castes. The Scheduled Castes objected to a man that these art not Scheduled Castes, and if they are Scheduled Castes, then they are not Sikhs. Therefore, they said, “you cannot give them separate treatment. There are forcible conversions being made from the Scheduled Castes to the Sikhs for this purpose”. That was their grievance. On the other side, the Sikhs said that they had converted so many and it was not by force. “They have come to our fold”, they said, “and if you do not recognise these concessions, then they will all go back to the Scheduled Caste Hindus and we will lose.
Now, it was against our conviction to recognise a separate Sikh caste as untouchables or Scheduled Castes, because untouchability is not recognised in the Sikh religion. A Scheduled Caste Sikh community has never been in the past recognised. But as the Sikhs began to make a grievance continuously against the Congress- and against us, I persuaded the Scheduled Caste people with great difficulty to agree to this for the sake of peace. I persuaded the other members of the Advisory Committee on the condition, which is in writing by the representatives of the Sikhs, that they will raise no other question hereafter.
Then in the Advisory Committee, when this question came, Sardar Ujjal Singh raised the question, “What about the Services” ? I said, “Your representatives have given in writing that no other question hereafter is to be raised” Giani Kartar Singh was also in the Advisory Committee, and he got up and said, “No, we will settle it in the Provinces. It is not to be raised here.”
What is the use of charging the Congress with having broken promises ? Do not break the promises that you have given, and do not charge others with breach of promises. If you now say, as Sardar Hukam Singh says, that these people were anxious to serve an advantage for the Scheduled Caste Sikhs and they may have agreed to this, but it is a mistake, then if it is a mistake, reconsider your position, and I shall reconsider mine. Take away that concession and remove it, and you get your pound of flesh, if you want it.
What is it that you get in the Services? Even at present, what do the Sikhs do ? What do other communities do ? So far as the Services are concerned, for all major posts or all posts which go by competitive examinations there is no reservation on communal grounds. They go to the Public Service Commission. You are quarrelling or asking for the minor posts-Chaprasis and clerks. Is it the Sikh position now that we have not got enough Sikh Chaprasis and clerks ? Are you going to raise the community in that manner ? If that is so, tell me, and If you leave what you have got for the Scheduled Castes, I shall persuade the Constituent Assembly to give you what you want, but you will repent afterwards.
You say, in PEPSU it is not the arrangement. But this is not the House to bear that complaint. If there is any such complaint, send it to us. We shall consider about it. But do not go behind, your pledged words and charge people with breach of promises or pledges. We are not the people to pledges. Every sympathy and every consideration will be shown to the Sikh community because it is located in a particular area ; it is a small community, and yet it is brave, virile and it can stand on its own against anybody. Do not break that spirit by continuously saying, “We are injured, we are helpless, we are-in a minority, we are hopeless, we cannot do anything.”
That kind of psychology will injure the community itself and not others, and injuring the community means injuring the nation. It is not as a representative of the majority community that I give this advice, but as a well wisher of the Sikh community, I advise you not to create this atmosphere by saying continually, “we are badly treated, badly treated”. If you do, then it is the Sikh community that will be hurt.
When the Advisory Committee took this decision to give up reservation, we clearly understood the position and all communities clearly understood it. When the decision of the Advisory Committee came before this House for its acceptance, I made it clear that this Constitution of India, of free India, of a secular State will not hereafter be disfigured by any provision on a communal basis. It was accepted with acclamation.
It is said that if you make any arrangements in the Provinces, then the provisions of the Constituent Assembly with regard to fundamental rights will come in the way. Let me tell you, nothing comes in the way where arrangements are made by mutual agreement, and without mental reservations. That provision in the fundamental rights is provided for an individual who is injured But if you make domestic arrangements in the Punjab between community and community for the small posts, then who is going to question that ? But first create an atmosphere for adjustment of such ‘things in your Province. It is tile continued atmosphere of quarrel between two communities that has created distrust among them, and that creates difficulties. You will have our support and sympathy continuously in that Province because that Province has suffered most. It is injured and the wounds have not yet healed. It is for us all, and for you particularly, to help us in healing the wounds. Therefore, let us make a united effort to raise the morale of that Province, the strength of that Province, which really is at the top of India, where the border is. Then you will have no complaint at all.
After all, what is the Sikh community backward in ? Is it backward in trade ? Is it backward in industry, or commerce or in anything ? Why do you consider yourselves to be backward ? Therefore, forget that psychology. If there is any injustice done, then come to us, we will see that no injustice is done.

R. K. Sidhva again

Shri R. K. Sidhva : Then I move my amendment, Sir. As the President may on receipt of the report of a Commission appointed under clause (1) of article 301 of this Constitution by order specify and” be deleted.
Sir, I do not want to speak at length because I have touched upon this point in my previous amendment. I know there is the article 301 which specifies backward classes. I am not quite sure that it will be easy for the President to find out who are the backward classes. I do feel that this backward classes article will remain a dead article, because I know that people who will come in the name of the backward classes will come only for their own personal position and personal aggrandisement to insert themselves as backward classes to win their own personal ends I know people would come in the name of the backward classes only to get a few posts, leaving the poor masses of that community in the lurch. I am therefore strongly opposed to the inclusion of the term ‘backward classes’. Article 301 says investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes”. Now, What does that mean ? 80 per cent. of our people are illiterate. Are they all backward ? Sometimes people who are illiterate have a far better sense of argument than the literate people.
Therefore, Sir, I contend that there is no such class as a backward class. The Britishers wanted to dub many as backward classes and then play them up to the whole world and say that India consists of so many backward classes and so they do not deserve freedom. I do not want this term “backward ,classes” perpetuated in our Constitution. The sooner we do away with this, the better for our country, the ‘better for our position in the world. Beyond the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, I do not want any kind of reservation for anybody. If there is any class which feels that their interests have not been justly represented in the services, they should go to the proper authorities and find the remedy. After hearing Sardar Patel, I do not think there will be any injustice to any class people who really deserve some kind of sympathy and justice. If there is any injustice,, then our leaders are there who will look after their interests. With these few words, I commend my amendment for the acceptance of the House.

Unfortunately all the predictions of Mr. R. K. Sidhva “other than the fact that Article 301 will be a dead article” have come true. Today everybody is vying to be classified as a Backward Class for their own personal gain any by including the words “minorities” and “backward class” our constitution has ensured that we continue to be disunited.

In trying to blog about the reservation demand by Patels I came across this very interesting arguments posed by Mr. Tajamul Hussain and Mr. R. K. Sidhva during the formation of the Constituent Assembly. It came as a welcome surprise to see such words spoken.

Mr. Tajamul Hussain had this to say during the discussion of if the minorities should be granted special status in terms of electoral and other types of reservations. Please take the trouble to read through. Do not put this in the tl;dr category. It is something every Indian should read. At least pay attention to the highlighted words. It shows how enlightened the person was.

“Mr. President, Sir, reservation of seats in any shape or form and for any community or group of people is, in my opinion, absolutely wrong in principle. Therefore I am strongly of opinion that there should be no reservation of seats for anyone and I, as a Muslim, speak for the Muslims. There should be no reservation of seats for the Muslim community. (Hear, Hear). I would like to tell you that in no civilised country where there is parliamentary system on democratic lines, there is any reservation of seats. Take the case of England. The House of Commons is the mother of parliaments. There is no reservation of seats for community there. No doubt they had reservation of seats for the universities but even that has been abolished. What is reservation, Sir? Reservation is nothing but a concession, a safeguard a protection for the weak. We, Muslims do not want any concession, do not want protection, do not want safeguards. We are not weak. This concession would do more harm than good to the Muslims. Reservation is forcing candidates on unwilling electorates. Whether the electorates want us or not, we thrust ourselves on them. We do not want to thrust ourselves on unwilling electorates. The majority community will naturally think that we are encroaching upon their rights. We do not want them to think that. We must expert ourselves. Separate electorates have been a curse to India, have done incalculable harm to this country. It was invented by the British. Reservation is the offspring of separate electorates. Do not bring in reservation in the place of separate electorates. Separate electorates have barred our progress. Separate electorates have gone for ever. We desire neither reservation nor separate electorates. We want to merge in the nation. We desire to stand on our own legs. We do not want the support of anyone. We are not weak. We are strong. We are Indians first and we are Indians last. (Hear, Hear). We know of no other country, no other nation. We are all Indians and will remain Indians. We shall fight for the honour and glory of India and we shall die for it. (Applause). We shall stand united. There will be no divisions amongst Indians. United we stand; divided we fall. Therefore we do not want reservation. It means division. I ask the members of the majority community who are present here today: Will you allow us to march shoulder to shoulder with you? Will you allow us to share your sorrows grief and joy? If you do, then for god’s sake keep your hands off reservation for the Muslim community. We do not want statutory safeguard. As I said before, we must stand on our own legs. If we do that, we will have no inferiority complex. We are not inferior to you in any way there is no difference between you and me. Because we worship the same God by different names, in a different way, that is no reason why we should be considered a minority. We are not a minorities. The term `minority’ is a British creation. The British created minorities. The British have gone and minorities have gone with them. Remove the term `minority’ from your dictionary. (Hear, Hear). There is no minority in India. Only so long as there were separate electorates and reservation of seats there was a majority community and a minority community.
I ask the majority community not to distrust the minorities now. The minorities have adjusted themselves. I will give you a concrete example. You remember the Hyderabad incident; you remember that before you took police action against Hyderabad, what happened. The majority community were afraid that there would be rioting of the Muslims if action was taken against Hyderabad. I was first man to speak about it about a year and half ago in the Central Legislature. I criticised the Government of India. I am sorry Sardar Patel was not present at that time when I was dealing with his portfolio, but my honourable Friend Mr. Gadgil was in charge. I criticised their action of the Government, I told them that they were absolutely mistaken in thinking that the Muslims would rise; they would adjust themselves. I said to them: “You march an army against Hyderabad and with in couple of days, you would take the whole of Hyderabad.” I made a long speech and after my speech was over, there was a reply by the Honourable Minister in charge, Mr. Gadgil. He never spoke a single word about it and he never replied to my criticism, but I asked him: “You have replied to everybody’s criticism. Why not mine? I asked you to march an army against Hyderabad; you would take Hyderabad within a couple of days and there would be no rioting.” Mr. Gadgil said: ” You are perfectly right and we will do it.”
I appeal to all minorities to join the majority in creating a secular State. In the new state of things, I want that every citizen in India should be able to rise to the fullest stature and that is why I say that reservation would be suicidal to the minority. I want the minorities to forget that they are minorities in politics. If they think they are minorities in politics, they will be isolated. If they are isolated, the feeling of frustration will cripple them. I do not want to remain minority. Do the minorities, I ask, expect to form part of the great nation and have a hand in the control of its destinies. Can they achieve that aspiration if they are isolated from the rest of India? The minorities if they are returned as minorities, i.e., by reservation of seats can never have an effective voice in the affairs of the country. They can never form a Government. Disraeli could never have formed a Government and could never have become the Prime Minister of England had there been reservation of seats for the Jews in England. I want the minorities to have an honourable place in the Union of India. National interests must always be placed over group interests. The minorities should look forward to the time when they could take their place not under communal or racial labels, but as part and parcel of the whole Indian community.
Now, Sir, with your permission, I want to say a few words with regard to the speeches made against the motion of Sardar Patel. I take first Mr. Muhammad Ismail of Madras. He wants separate electorate. I appeal to him not to ask the charity. Asking for separate electorates is nothing but asking for charity. I tell him that the consequences will be terrible. The majority community will never trust you then. You will never be able to exert yourself. You will be isolated, you will be treated as an alien and your position will be the same as that of the Scheduled Caste. You are not poor like the Scheduled Castes, you are not weak, you are not uneducated; you are not uncultured; you can always support yourself. You have produced brilliant men. So do not ask for protection or safeguard. You must get into the Assembly by open competition. The times have changed. Adjust yourself. You admitted yesterday in your speech that the atmosphere is better now. I appeal to you, do not spoil that atmosphere. Improve it, but do not spoil it an if you insist on separate electorate, you will spoil atmosphere very badly. If you get separate electorates, it will again become as bad as before. Say to yourself, Mr. Ismail, that you are an Indian first and an Indian last. Then you will forget all about separate electorates. You will never think of it again.
I will tell you, Sir, that when I had sent in my amendment to clause 292 that it should be deleted, that there should be not reservation of seats, then several Muslim friends to mine, who were for reservation of seats asked me. “Do you realize that the mentality of the Hindus is such at present that if there were no reservation of seats for the Muslims, the Muslims can never succeed?” That honourable gentleman for whom I have got great esteem told me: “Look at us. We have always been with the Congress; we have been to jail and all that. No doubt we will get a ticket from the Congress; many Muslims will get tickets from Socialists and Communists and from other organisations, but what about the electorates? They will never elect you and they will never elect us. So, if there is no reservation, no Muslims will get in because of the mentality of the Hindus.” I told him, Sir, what I am telling you now. I said that I entirely agreed with him that the mentality of the Hindus is such at present. I say to Mr. Ismail also that as long as there is reservation of seats or separate electorate the mentality of the Hindus will never change. You do away with these two things and the mentality will automatically change. I do not want to go into the history of this mentality. I am not going to apportion blame as that will take a long time and you have allotted me a short time and I want to be brief and finish my speech within the time. You all know how the mentality of the Hindus became such, but we have to live in this country, we must change their mentality and it is our duty to change their mentality and the only way the mentality can be changed is to become a part and parcel of the Indian Union. You should say that they are no longer our enemies and then they will be like brothers to us.
Now, Sir, with regard to Mr. Lari, he does not want separate electorates; he does not want reservation of seats; he has condemned both the systems and he says that both the systems are dangerous. He has said that, and I entirely agree with him. He has always opposed separate electorates, reservation of seats and the partition of the country. He is right. But he wants cumulative voting, that is, proportional representation by means of a single transferable vote, or something like that. My honourable Friend, Mr. Saksena has told us that it is a very cumbrous system of mathematical calculations; I am not dealing with that now. The only thing I want to say is that Mr. Lari wants to get into the Assembly by the back door. For example suppose there is a constituency that has to elect four candidates for the House or the People, and there are five candidates. One will be defeated and four will be elected. Out of these five, four are Hindus and one is a Muslim. The votes of the Hindus will be divided among the Hindus and there will get elected. The Muslim will get in on the Muslim votes. Again separate electorates, again reservation of seats. I should like to say to my honourable Friend Mr. Lari if I may say so, that is worse than separate electorate, as the method is not clean. It is not straightforward. I quite understand Mr. Mohamed Ismail’s view when he asks for separate electorates. That is a straightforward method. What is this back-door method of Mr. Lari. I do not understand. I am sure the Muslims do not like these crooked methods they want a straight, honourable fight. In spite of the fact that Mr. Lari has always openly opposed Pakistan, separate electorates and reservation of seats he still inferiority complex. I would ask his to shed this inferiority complex. The country will change for the better.
Last of all, I come to the speech of my honourable and esteemed friend, for whom I have very great regard, Sir Saadulla, the Ex-Premier of Assam. He complains before us that the majority of the Muslim members of the Advisory Committee on Minorities Fundamental Rights etc., did not support the resolution that there should be no reservation of seats for the Muslims. I have already told you, Sir, that I have very great esteem and regard for the Ex-premier of Assam, but I am afraid I must differ from him on this point. I sent my resolution to the Committee to the effect that there should be no reservation of seats. My resolution was discussed under the Chairmanship of the Honourable Sardar Patel. I spoke on my resolution. Begum Aizaz Rasul supported me. Maulana Azad was present there; he did not oppose me. The only person who opposed me was my honourable friend Jafar Imam, from Bihar. There too, I had a majority: Begum Aizaz Rasul. Maulana Azad and myself as against one. The meeting could not be finished and was adjourned sine die. Then it was held on the 11th of this month. I wanted to attend that meeting, particularly because my resolution was there I wanted to move it again. But I never received notice of the meeting. The notice was lying in Delhi; it never reached me. If I had got notice of the meeting. I would have attended it. When I came to Delhi, I learnt that there was the meeting that day. I was happy to learn that the substance of my resolution had been accepted though I was absent. I sent a statement to the Press why I could not attend the meeting that day and it was published in all the papers. Sir Saadulla could not attend the meeting; I do not know why. That meeting was attended by four honourable members: Maulana Azad, Maulana Hifizur Rahman, Begum Aizaz Rasul and Mr. Jaffar Imam. Maulana Azad and Maulana Hifizur Rehman did not oppose my resolution that there should be no reservation of seats. Every member of this House does not speak. If he opposes, he opposes. If he does not speak, but says “I vote for it”, then he is with it. Maulana Azad was present. If he wanted to oppose, he would have opposed. The two Maulanas did not oppose Begum Aizaz Rasul supported my resolution in substance. It was the same as my own. Begum Aizaz Rasul supported it. My honourable Friend Mr. Jaffar Imam opposed it. If the Maulana were not with my resolution, they would have sided with Jafar Imam. They said nothing. Votes were taken. There was a clear majority. The Honourable Sardar Patel, I understand, declared that the Muslims were in favour of the motion in spite of the two Maulanas remaining silent. It means that they were with me: three to one voting: there was a majority.
I have here a list of all the members. Briefly it shows that there are 31 members from the Provinces and 2 from the States, making a total of 33 Muslims. Out of these, 4 are from Madras and I must say that many of the members are permanently absent. As they have migrated to Pakistan, especially all the members from the Punjab, they have gone, and out of the 5 from Bengal 3 have migrated. Now, coming to the list, 4 from Madras are for separate electorates. There are only 23 member on the roll of the Constituent Assembly. 4 are of separate electorates, 4 for reservation of seats, 1 for cumulative voting, 1 unknown and 13 entirely for joint electorate, with no reservation of seats. If you add those who are not with me, they will come to only 10 and we are 13, and if I add Mr. Lari who too is not for reservation of seats or separate electorates, our number would be 14. Actually today there are 15 members present. And of them, 4 are for reservation of seats, 3 for separate electorates and the rest 8 are with me. Even then I have a majority.
Sir, I am finishing now. I only want to add this, I would ask the majority community, not to thrust reservation on the Muslims. If you honestly and sincerely believe that it is a wrong thing, for god’s sake, do not give us reservation. You knew that separate electorate was a wrong thing for the Muslims and for India, and you never consulted the Muslims. Sir Saadulla did not raise the objection that the Muslims were not consulted, and he accepted it, and why? Because honestly it was believed to be a bad thing for the country. We now say,”do not make us a minority community. Make us your equal partners, then there will be no majority or communities in India.”
Now, finally I may be permitted to say one thing and that is a very serious thing which I have not spoken yet on the floor of this House. But I feel there are some people strongly and vehemently opposed to me, and therefore I must give a warning. As you know, Sir, among Muslims there are two sections, call them sub-communities if you like, they are Shias and Sunnis. Out of the 31 members from the Provinces, I have the honour to be the sole Shia in this House. Out of the 2 members from the States, it is fifty, fifty, as one comes from one State and he is Shia and the other is a Sunni. And I would like to tell you that throughout the Shias have been opposing separate electorates, and have been opposing reservation of seats. They have always been nationalists. I was president of the Bihar Provincial Shia Conference for ten years, and throughout we have consistently said that we want joint electorate, pure and simple. Recently on 31st December 1948, there was the All India Shia Conference, the 35th session in Muzaffarnagar in U.P. which was presided over by Sir Sultan Ahmed, whom everybody knows. And the resolution was unanimously passed there that there should be no separate electorates and no reservation of seats. I went from her to attend the conference, and I will read out just a portion from the Presidential Address :- “The Draft Constitution provides that Reservations of Seats for Minorities will continue for ten years from now, by way of allowing handicap. It has been conceded in a kindly spirit of tolerance and fellow feeling and according to current principle of safeguarding the rights of minorities.” From this point of view is it perfectly intelligible. But to my mind it appears that the disease of separation is thereby suffered to be prolonged and the germ will continue to be at work for these ten years, with all its after-effects, however mildly it may operate. This reservation in a sense is a measure of dealing softly with a long standing prejudice and curing a trouble as imperceptibly as possible and avoid creating any impression of lack of sympathy on the part of the majority legislators. Could we however not take courage in both hands and abolish even separation of seats along with its greater evil the separation of electorates? Let no separation linger in any form, however innocent. Let us grow into a full bloom of trustfulness and oneness, allowing no speak of, no suggestion whatever of separatism and uncompromising in the past. We should wake up once for all in the glowing dawn of a great living and the historic atmosphere of a new freedom and fellowship may well be expected to give us the boldness to accept a complete code of co-operative life.
There is another ground why this speck of separatism should not be perpetuated. Other minorities will also be encouraged to demand it. Minority within a minority must be logically entitled to it and thus, far from adding and aiding unity, it will only serve to promote separatism and create sectional strife, leading to untold religious, social and political complications. Reservation carries with it as a corollary the maintenance of a communal political organisation and this must be avoided at all costs.

What a brilliant foresight. We can see that happening today. Mr. Tajamul Hussain was from Bihar, and today from the state of Bihar, we have Mr. Lalu Prasad Yadav and Nitish Yadav and the likes. What contrast. What a fall it has been for our country.

It is unfortunate that our leaders chose to ignore such sensible talk and made reservation part of our constituent assembly. It has now stuck like a barnacle and is spreading its tentacles like a multi-headed hydra out to destroy the very fabric of our nation. To use a medical term is has de-differentiated and threatens to destroy our country. Time to wake up and fight against this demon.

Here is some background about about the Patels. They are landholders and leaders. If the immigration of UK and US are to be believed “hoards” of Patels have migrated to these two countries. The American Consulate has notice boards in Gujarathi and have officers who can interview potential immigrants in Gujarathi.

Who would have guessed that these Patels would be socially backward, suppressed and exploited (in India).This is what Mr. Hardik Patel is trying to convince everybody.

It is ironical that when the constituent assembly was being drafted another Patel, Sardar Vallabhai Patel, was responsible for removal of reservation of seats for minorities which included at that time Muslims, Parsees, Sikhs and few others. He spoke with these leaders and convinced them to give up their special privileges and continue as “Indians”. See

Given that Sardar Patel, a respected leader of the Indian freedom movement, nay an icon of the Indian freedom movement, one who is regarded as the sole person responsible for one India today, advocated that reservation should not be given based on minority status of a person, it is ironic that another Patel is demanding vociferously that Patels be declared as belonging to Other Backward Community and they be given special privileges like the others. We can now expect Hardik Patel as the next Chief Minister in waiting of Gujarat. The way Lalu in Bihar and Mulayam and Mayavati in Uttar Pradesh have ridden the caste wave to become power centers one can expect the same happening with Hardik.

The movement of appeasement of people to win elections is going to be the downfall of India. It has already started manifesting itself in many forms and the downward spiral will continue till it ends in a civil war. Unlike many nations this civil war will not be a bi-party, but a multi-party civil war. The only way to prevent this is to do away with the words “caste”, “religion”, “minority” from the constitution and declare that Indian citizen is an “Indian” and there are no further classifications. At the same time ensuring the rights of the person to worship and marry as they seem deem fit. No coercion to marry or not to marry, worship or not to worship should be tolerated. The individuals should have the right to decide by themselves once they have reached their age of maturity. Similarly any kind of discrimination based on gender, caste, religion should be condemned and the person accusing others of doing this should provide proof of merit based on which she is claiming the discrimination otherwise it will turn out to be a weapon used for vendetta against others.

Hope the Patels realize their foolhardiness and retract their demand to be classified as OBCs. One would be very glad if they fought for abolishing Other Backward Communities.

It the Patels have any sense they should read the deposition of Mr. R. K. Sidhva and Mr. Tajamul Hussain in the posts listed above and summarized in
Mr. Tajamul Hussain on reservation
Mr. R. K. Sidhva on reservation

We as a society seem to think that reservation is the panecea for all inequivalities. Here is a editorial from The Hindu, which urges the government to pass the reservation for women in the assembly.
Nobody is bothered that we do not get quality legislators. All that we seem to be bothered about is that there are not proportional female legislators. Nobody is fighting for getting good legislators but we seem to be fighting for legislators from the ‘Backward Communities’ and from the ‘Fairer Gender’.
Why this attraction towards reservation, even after we have seen it fail to uplift the ‘Backward Communities’ after more than half a century of independence?
We rejoice at a K.R. Narayanan becoming the President of India. Why? Was he made the President because he was from the backward class? or was he made the President because he deserved to be one? Even if we elected him without bias it still is not a matter to rejoice for two reasons:
1. We should have done it in any case.
2. His daugther went on to become IFS using her caste credentials and not her capabilities.
So do we want incapably administrators, just because we have reserved 33.33 percent of the seats for women? or do we want legislators who are good, irrespective of whether they are men, women or neither?
If today women are suppressed why are they so? Is it because it is a society dominated by men? Yes to a great extent it is true that the situation today is because our society has been male dominated for eons.
So what is the solution. Did the women in the US need reservation to come up? Did the women in any other country need reservation to come up? No. What is needed is education. Women need to see that they should get elected because of their abilities. Today very few legislator’s are elected because of their ability. They are elected only because they have the muscle power or because they belong to a particular caste.
We are continuing to use caste as a means to divide ourselves. The British did that and we are continuing the hegemony. A hegemony which has led to lots of bloodshed, and lot of burnt hearts.
We do not wish to take an educated, unbiased, objective view at the situation. If we do, we will realize that only Education and objective outlook will help us redeem the situation for the women and also for the ‘Backward Castes’.

Its surprising as to how prejudiced that a mind can be. One needs to read the following two articles to understand this.
The first is this by Andre
and the second is this, which has been written as an rejoinder to the earlier article.

People need to understand that while the “so called” upper class agrees that there is still discrimination of the so called “lower class” in rural areas, the urban area is relatively free of this problem. One hardly bothers as to what it the caste of the person with whom one is studying. There is not talk to say, look he is a OBC, or SC/ST and that is why he/she is failing to clear.

One has to only see how a child in the city is brought up. They are not taught about the caste from homes. The only thing they are probably told distinguishing them and us is that they eat meat and we do not eat meat. And this is not a scenario now, but this was even when I was in school in the early seventies. Never did we speak about a shudra or caste of a person. Even religion was not spoken with contempt.

The first time my encouter with caste came when I realized that my admission to higher studies after HSC would become difficult as I was from the “upper caste” and so I am eligible for only a part of the seats that are available. Till that time I was least aware or bothered about the caste system. In the class in which we studied there were both so called “brahmins” and “non-brahmins”. But never was I asked not to mix with “non-brahmins”, neither did I see this tendency with any of the other boys in the class. (I can speak only for boys as during that age we were segregated into classes based on gender during the growing stage.) I had friends from different backgrounds and used to move about with all of them with no difference. All of us used to have a game of cricket with balls made of rubber bands tied around a paper (as we couldn’t carry bats to school and we used our palms to hit the ball.) There was absolutely no grouping when it came to playing.

The first and foremost problem that we face today is that we do not respect labour as much as we should. Today any manual labour is considered to be menial job. This attitude has to change. If a person can do a manual job with skill and with honesty then why should we not pay him his due and appreciate him for his skills. If we can admire M.F. Husain for his weird (for lack of more euphemistic word) works, then why not appreciate the artists in Rajastan for the intricate paintings that they come out with or the artisans from anywhere else. Why is there no means of livelihood for these people? Has the government asked itself why is education taking such a precedence over other vocational activities which can provide livelihood and which can push people up the economic scale. Is education the only way of progress? Yes some education is required, but it need and should not be the only means of economic and/or social growth.

Here are some suggestions to the Government if they are listening to advancing the social status of the “backward classes”.
1. Remove the term caste, and religion from the constitution.
2. Declare that everybody living in India is an Indian and there will be no discrimination (positive or negative) between one an the other.
3. Remove the middlemen in various business, starting with agriculture and make it possible for the producers to directly market their goods.
4. Change the education pattern so that everything is not based on rote learning.
5. Bring in vocational courses to supplement the regular subjects. Let somebody who is good at drawing get his certification with drawing as primary and somebody good at maths get his certification based on maths. Let it not be said that everybody needs to master logarithms and derivatives to get certification.
6. Last but not least forget about vote banks and RULE with a gentle but firm hand.

That should solve most problems.

Everybody seems to want to add his/her two pennies to the Reservation Quagmire. In todays Times of India one idoit (thats the least of words that I can use for this person) has said that the Private Sector’s opposition to the Reservation is equivalent of saying that the “Other Backward Classes” (OBCs) do not have merit and only the upper classes have merit.

How much can a person make a fool of himself? If as the author wishes to imply, the OBCs were meritorious then why at all do they need reservation. What Mr. Azim Premji and others in the industry indicated that they are opposed to reservation and will recruit only based on merit. So why should anybody oppose that if they believe that everybody is equally meritorious.

I do not wish to imply that the OBCs are not meritorious and because of that I oppose reservation.

What is needed is that the people should stop looking at the Caste and Religion of the people and go by the merit. That will solve all problems.

Kudos to Ratan Tata for speaking about his reservations against reservations in the premier institutes in India. Hope the other industrialists too speak up. We should request them to come together and serve as an example of how not reservation is the solution, instead it how we teach our children to respect everybody else without any bias for or against based on his/her religion, caste, gender, education.

It is high time we had a social revolution. We have not understood Mahatma Gandhi’s attempt at starting this revolution. By being with Harijans and other so called “low caste” people Gandhi wanted to set an example that be at peace with everybody, but we seem take perverse pride in misinterpreting it as shun the so called “high caste” and align with the “low caste”.

We never reasoned if we should have the differentiation based on religion, caste, sect etc in the constitution. We do not seem to have thougth about the implications that legalising religion, caste and sect will have on the people of this land. We have to first remove these distinctions from the Constitution.

The next step should be to educate the people (read children) to respect everybody and not teach them about distinctions between caste and religions. We should teach them the common brotherhood underlined in every religion and how.

For this we need a set of dedicated teachers without bias. This may be difficult to find, but it needs to be done.

Unless this change comes about no amount of reservation or positive action as it is politely called will have any impact on the living conditions of the “socially backward”.