The silence of the lambs

IN Opinion | 22/05/2005

You don`t say!

Darius Nakhoonwala

 
The government, or more properly the ministry of Human Resources Development (HRD), did an extraordinary thing last week -- and except for three of the major newspapers, the rest ignored the decision although it must rank as perhaps one of the most retrograde decisions since 1947.

And what was this decision? The minister, Arjun Singh, decided (apparently without discussing it in Cabinet) to provide for 50 percent reservation for Muslims in post-graduate and professional courses in the Aligarh Muslim University. A protest followed from some sensible people in the University, whereupon he denied that it was his decision. In fact, however, on Saturday a NDTV India report showed that he had approved the change as far back as February 16, 2005. On May 16, that approval was given effect.

Going by past record on such secular/communal topics, I expected a shrill howl of protest from the usual quarters. But except for the Times of India, the Indian Express, and naturally, The Pioneer, the rest held their tongues. The loudest silence came from that champion of secularism, The Hindu.

It cannot be an excuse that the meek will roar next week. There was time enough this. The dog that doesn`t bark on time is no good. As a poodle it may be fine, but as a watchdog, sorry. As the Times put it, "Arjun Singh seems to have turned his detoxification drive on its head. The decision has been taken with an eye on the Muslim votebank." By the way, Mr Singh had played a crucial role in advising Rajiv Gandhi on the Shah Bano issue as well.

The Indian Express pointed out that "Aligarh was exemplary in its refusal to discriminate on religious grounds. It is particularly odd that a university that, for the better part of a century tenaciously hung to this sound principle, should abandon it in 2005. This despite the fact that a substantial number of its eminent faculty is opposing the decision." It then went on to point out how this sort of thing helps the Hindutva forces.  They "have always thrived on the sentiment that minorities get special privileges and refuse to integrate into the mainstream. The political force of this charge depends, not on its truth as a general statement, but its ability to latch on to what are considered visible concessions.  It is precisely what was considered the politics of minorityism that first paved the way for the BJP`s rise. It is still too early to be confident that that kind of politics will not rear its ugly head again."

For the Pioneer, with its strong BJP preferences, this was a tailor made issue. It raised the pitch to an altogether silly level by calling its edit `Separate nation?` "The presiding high priest of secularism has demolished one of the very few remaining dykes that kept Muslim separatism  in post-independence India within manageable limits." Well, not really. Killing Muslims, that too with the support of the State, also makes for separatism.

It then waxed eloquent on the principles of secularism. "A sound principle in keeping with the lofty ideal of separating the temporal from the spiritual should be the cornerstone of any modern republic." Well, yes, except that the BJP doesn`t seem to subscribe t this view when it comes to the Hindus. And then it made an awful factual error: it said that Sir Syed Ahmed Khan had set up this institution in 1920. Actually, the date was 1883.

But, to its credit, it was the only paper to discuss the constitutional aspects. "Disingenuous protagonists of the new communal reservation policy will be quick to point out that Article 30(1) of the Constitution enables Muslims (as much as it does any other minority community in the country) the right to "establish and administer educational institutions of its choice". Articles 25 to 30 are clearly out-of-tune with modern day republican values and should have been deleted decades ago."

Quite so. These articles have no place in a genuinely secular country. 

ends