Dark destiny looms as Bengal, other states lavish OBC quota on Muslims

Politics can paint a zebra in the colours of a kingfisher, but it can’t make it go fishing or fly. Bending the Constitutional guarantee of Article 15.1 that “the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them”, a provision was created within OBC (Other Backward Classes) of reservation for Muslims. In this context, Article 15.4 is important: “Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.” Now, the Constitution does not clearly define “Backward Classes”. Instead, it floats it in the river of ambiguity to refer to educationally and economically underprivileged individuals compared to other social groups. In 1993, the Congress government under PV Narasimha Rao took this further by forming the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC), a statutory organisation under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. So far, it all seemed innocuous and well-meaning. It meant to address Sachar Committee findings that Muslims had remained socially and economically backward as a group and needed affirmative action. Until the same NCBC recently discovered that 118 of 179 groups in the Bengal OBC list were Muslims! In the Most Backward Class category, of 81 communities 73 are Muslim and only eight are Hindu. Of the 98 communities in Category B, 45 are Muslim and the rest Hindu. The state’s Muslim population on last count (2011) was 27 per cent. How can one-fourth of the overall population snatch three-fourth of OBC benefits? Clearly, what sneaked in as affirmative action for a backward section has emerged as a full-blown scandal to appease Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee and her party TMC’s biggest vote bank. What is more, illegal immigrants from Bangladesh and Myanmar’s Rohingya had made their way into the beneficiaries list depriving thousands who deserved it, revealed NCBC chairperson Hansraj Gangaram Ahir. He said state officials initially said these were Hindus who had later converted to Islam. When asked for proof, they could not provide it. They were lying. He said many states including Bihar, Rajasthan, Punjab and West Bengal were violating the reservation policy to hire for government jobs. Such brazen misuse for electoral reasons poses a seminal question for the nation: who should get the benefits under OBC quota and how should it be decided? The Supreme Court verdict in M Nagaraj & Others vs Union Of India & Others of October, 2006, had laid down some method to rein in the madness. The Constitution bench of the Supreme Court under CJI YK Sabharwal concluded: “…the main issue concerns the “extent of reservation”. In this regard the concerned State will have to show in each case the existence of the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency before making provision for reservation. As stated above, the impugned provision is an enabling provision. The State is not bound to make reservation for SC/ST in matter of promotions. However if they wish to exercise their discretion and make such provision, the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment in addition to compliance of Article 335. It is made clear that even if the State has compelling reasons, as stated above, the State will have to see that its reservation provision does not lead to excessiveness so as to breach the ceiling-limit of 50% or obliterate the creamy layer or extend the reservation indefinitely.” The moot and clear point here is that governments will have to “collect quantifiable data” and have “compelling reasons” to give a group a certain proportion of benefits. Even armed with those reasons, they cannot breach the reservation ceiling. In the Supreme Court judgement overturning Maratha reservation (Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v Chief Minister, Maharashtra), the court said that the state failed to lay out an “extraordinary situation” in the social and economic condition of the Marathas to justify making an exception and give the community reservation. The Bench also held that the 102nd Constitutional Amendment did take away states’ powers to identify backward classes. The 102 Amendment factors in Article 342A, which empowers the President of India to define the socially and educationally backward classes of a state or Union territory. Also, it makes parliamentary approval mandatory when adding or removing any community from the list of backward classes. All this makes the ‘OBC-Reservation-for-Votes Bazaar’ an issue of immediate national importance. It needs to be investigated, the guilty punished, and the cynical quota distribution to win elections crushed. Otherwise, the consequences would be grave. It makes a mockery of helping the genuinely needy, rewards parasites and legitimises them, incentivises conversions to avail benefits, and ultimately begins to change demographics. When the demography changes, destiny follows. Read all the Latest News , Trending News , Cricket News , Bollywood News , India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.