[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

ARTICLE : And now, reservations for all Muslims

Title : And now, reservations for all Muslims
Author : Varsha Bhosle
Publication : The Observer
Date : September 29, 1996

And why am I, yet again, haranguing Muslims and  reserva-
tions?  Because, like all the other perpetually hurt  and 
oppressed,  I see demons everywhere and can't stop  whin-
ing.

At its first national convention, held in Delhi on August 
29,  the  All-India Muslim OBC  Sangathan  has  demanded, 
among other things, the extension of reservations for all 
Muslim  OBCs, funding for small entrepreneurs and  -  get 
this  --- restoration of Concessions  to  scheduled-caste 
Muslims which were withdrawal in 1984.

Now  if  you're confused, it ain't my  fault:  after  the 
Sangathan chairman categorically refuted the existence of 
Muslim castes to one newspaper, Praful Bidwai's column on 
the  convention  reports the exact opposite.  Thus,  here 
goes my new take:

The Sangathan estimates that, OBCs from over 90 per  cent 
of  all Muslims, while the uppercase ashraf (Sheikhs  and 
Sayyads)  are a mere two to four per cent. Meaning,  from 
the  total number of Muslims, remove the ashraf, add  the 
OBC,  add the SC - which should give us a neat 96  to  98 
per cent eligible for reservations.

The  Sangathan admits what has always been  denied:  that 
caste  distinctions  are  practised  by  Indian  Muslims.  
Meaning  that though they may not shave a  widow's  head, 
they  do  snicker at their nais and chamaars.   Some  115 
Muslim backward castes, based on occupational  divisions, 
have been identified in Maharashtra alone.

This  acknowledgement  of a  Hinduism-like  caste  system 
since it comes from Muslims themselves instead of the VHP 
- makes our modernist intellectuals have kittens over its 
"progressiveness". Bidwai perceives it as a step  towards 
"a trans-religious solidarity" which would make vote bank 
politics  redundant.  Meaning, a  trans-religious  caste-
based vote bank is preferable to the communal vote bank - 
since the latter nearly put Hindus in power.

Since  the  Sangathan pleads that social  structures  and 
caste  hierarchies  transcend religious  identities,  I'd 
like  to know: why can't a national identity, too,  tran-
scend  the  religious identity?  When mazhab  is  twisted 
where  intra-Muslim  equality is concerned, why  does  it 
become  an omnipotent block for, dare I say it, the  uni-
form civil code?

Apart from being supported by non-Muslim politicos, what' 
so secular about the nature of the Sangathan, Mr  Bidwai?  
Is  its name the All-Religious SC/OBC  Association?   Why 
would  a secular organisation make demands for the  needy 
or only Islam?  Unless it was a front - as in facade  and 
in political lobby.

And what, pray, is progressive about using any method  to 
gain  one's  ends? I, too, can admit to being a  teli  if 
that  will  reserve  jobs for my kin.  Not  only  do  our 
secularists  present Muslims  with the  motive-cake,  but 
will have us hand-feed them, too.


That there's no.such thing as a casteless Indian  Muslim, 
(or Christian), all us fascist Hindus have always  known.  
That  they've had to admit it, induces a yawn.   That  PC 
intellectuals  should call it progressive, is in  keeping 
with their peculiar, jaundiced logic.

Bidwai  writes that "the BJP, which is untouched by  mod-
ernist rationality, follows Muslim communal  stereotypes" 
and  is  thus  hostile to the  Sangathan.  Meaning,  when 
Muslims  reject  the Islamic criminal code but  keep  the 
personal  law, they aren't hypocrites - but  when  Hindus 
notice that, they can be typed 'as communalists.

If weeding out illegal immigrants is criminal, then  that 
idol of our PC police, the US, is the worst.  If  Wanting 
a clause in the Constitution to be implemented is regres-
sive, then why don't we simply junk the entire tome?   If 
wanting to pray in one's ancient temple is fascism,  then 
what  does  it make those who refuse to cede  it?   Since 
they  affect Muslims, perfectly valid and  lawful  issues 
are given the stigma of communalism.

The PCs say the Ayodhya movement was wrong. I can see it, 
you  may feel it --unfortunately, both of us aren't  real 
temple-goers, are we?  We sit in the city, frequent  pubs 
and  clubs - and then rule on how the pious Hindu  should 
also feel.  And puh-lease, don't tell me that the  entire 
mob which brought down the Babri held the BJP party card.  
If mazhab is a force of sentiments, so's dharma.

If the Sangathan's motives are secularism and pan-religi-
ous unity, why doesn't it also address those issues which 
sunder the communities?  Will it convince the over 90 per 
cent to give up their right to polygamy like Hindus  did?  
Will it admit to other hypocrisies which incense  Hindus, 
who then strengthen the BJP?

If not, what kind of entente can it achieve?  Has it made 
the  oh-so-noble  admission of caste without  an  eye  on 
materialistic  returns? I, for one, already know  they're 
just  bidding  for more concessions - and never  mind  an 
anti-Hindu solidarity.

The  thing is, in the Muslim deal, it's all take  and  no 
give.   And  in PC-speak, "modernist  rationality"  means 
that  we must believe Muslims to be poor and  persecuted, 
kept from development and employment, their religion  and 
culture  stifled,  their language killed - and  that  the 
Hindus,  who did all this in the first place,  must  bend 
over backward to atone for it.

What a load of crap.  If there's one thing to believe in, 
it's  that  nobody can keep a good man down.   Those  who 
remain in the ghetto are in it because of their  mentali-
ty.  Those with a different vision, leave - on their  own 
steam.   It's  another matter that even  then,  they  may 
chuck  TVs  from top floors because it's a  tool  of  the 
devil.

I've  always wondered, why aren't other  non-Hindus  like 
Parsees, Sikhs and Jains in ghettos, too?  What sets them 
apart?   Sheer toil?  Not rubbing their differentness  in 
everybody  else's face, perhaps? Or maybe,  not  thinking 
that the majority should have some sort of moral  obliga-
tion to perpetually yield to them.  Whatever.


The PC police keep harping on majoritarianism as if  it's 
the  evil.  Well, if it is, then so is  democracy.   For, 
only when the majority rules is it a democracy.  When  it 
doesn't,  you  get  civil unrest and,  sooner  or  later, 
bloody revolutions, so simple.

As a footnote, the PM has hinted at a further 10 per cent 
quota  to those not covered by provisions so far....  Get 
ready to encounter more teachers/doctors in  governmental 
institutions who'll really be on top of their jobs.  It's 
an  ideal plan for the upliftment of a nation and  to  be 
expected from parties with no agenda except that of being 
fevicoled to the chair.

There's a theory that everybody loves to repeat: that the 
Hindu  is a mild and gentle animal.  The way  things  are 
going,  a testing seems to be in the cards, and  perhaps, 
even desirable.
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.