Sachar Committee Report Uncovered Backwardness of India’s Muslims, Part 4
26 Apr, 2009
- On March 26, 1940, the leaders of the Muslim League, the political front of Indian Muslims, raised the issue of creation of Pakistan as a separate Muslim homeland; and on August 14-15, 1947, the partition of India into two independent states, India and Pakistan, became a reality. At that time, the Muslim population in undivided India was 23 percent, but Pakistan received 32 percent of the land area. The most appropriate step after the partition was to carry out population exchange, or send the entire Muslim population of the divided India to Pakistan and bring all Hindus and other non-Muslims from Pakistan to India. This exchange of population, a logical part of the partition, was included in the original Pakistan proposal by the Muslim League. Most importantly, after communal riot in Bihar, M A Jinnah requested the Government of India to carry out population exchange as early as possible. But it could not be undertaken due to staunch opposition of M K Gandhi, particularly because there were large number of Muslims scattered all over India. He termed it an absurd and impractical proposal, for the sake his of politics of Muslim appeasement.
Viceroy Louis Mountbatten, the then Governor General of India, Dr
B R Ambedkar and many other nationalist leaders of the Congress
Party were staunch supporter of the said population exchange and
advised Jawaharlal Nehru to carry out the same without delay. But
Nehru submitted to Gandhi's will. As a result, except for those who
willingly migrated, a large number of Muslims happily stayed back in
India, while a much smaller of Hindus stayed behind in Islamic
Pakistan. Nonetheless, most of the Hindus who stayed back were
gradually kicked out of Pakistan over the years. It is needless to
say that had the said population exchange been carried out, many of
India's major problems of today would have been averted. Firstly,
the politics of Muslim appeasement would not have arisen in today’s
India and secondly, there would not have any need to appoint the
Sachar Committee to asses the social, educational and other
conditions of Muslims.
M K Gandhi, the prophet of nonviolence, was indeed the father of
politics of Muslim appeasement in India, as will be reveled in
following examples. It is well known that whenever the Muslims
attack a Hindu settlement, they, in addition to killing, looting and
setting their houses on fire, rape the Hindu women. Gandhi's
appeasement of these horror acts of Muslims was simply mindless. In
the 6 July 1926 edition of Navajivan, Gandhi wrote that “He
would kiss the feet of the (Muslim) violator of the modesty of a
sister” (Mahatma Gandhi, D Keer, Popular Prakashan, p.
473). As Muslims began raping the Hindu and Sikh women in large
numbers in the course of the partition, Gandhi advised that if a
Muslim expressed his desire to rape a Hindu or a Sikh lady, she
should never refuse, but cooperate with him. She should lie down
like a dead with her tongue in between her teeth. Thus the rapist
Muslim would be satisfied soon and leave her. (D Lapierre and L
Collins, Freedom at Midnight, p. 479).
Being the most trusted and loyal stooge of the British Empire, it was not possible for Gandhi to demand India’s independence and to hoodwink the common people, he imported a vague and mysterious concept called swaraj (self-rule), for which he was fighting. And Hindu-Muslim amity was the most fundamental precondition for his swaraj. And the so-called Hindu-Muslim amity, his mindless Muslim appeasement became indispensable. Hindus were supposed to make every sacrifice and endure all the oppressions and heinous crimes of Muslims without protest for the sake of Hindu-Muslim amity. The legacy of this Gandhian politics of Muslim appeasement is now, under the garb of secularism, is being carried forward by the Congress Party.
Muslims Trail in Education, Employment and Land Holdings
From this discussion, it becomes evident that the Muslims have no
legal, moral and ethical right to stay in India. They should have
immediately shifted to Pakistan, the Muslim homeland they created in
1947 at the cost of immense bloodshed. Obviously, it is the
generosity and liberality of Hindus that allowed them to live on in
India. Yet, they have little sympathy or respect for India. Instead,
being led by the jihadi teachings of the Koran, they are preparing
themselves to conquer India for Islam and turn it into a
dar-ul-Islam as soon as possible. We have seen above, how this
jihadi mentality and their reluctance to join co-operate with the
mainstream Indians is pulling them from behind in the race of
progress and advancement. India is progressing, Hindus and all other
non-Muslim communities of India are progressing, while Muslims—handicapped
by their Islam, Allah and Koran—are
trailing behind all other communities.
It has been pointed out earlier that Muslims trail behind, not only the Hindus categorized under Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST), but also the Hindus coming under the category of Other Backward Castes (OBCs), the lowest stratum among the Hindus in education. So, it becomes evident that Muslims as a community are trailing in education behind the most backward group amongst Hindus.
The Sachar Committee Report has revealed that they also significantly trail behind the OBCs Hindus in other features: in the board education, employment, poverty level and land holdings. It should be mentioned here that like Hindu OBCs, most backward Muslims are also categorized as Muslim OBCs (for example Noniya, Dhuniya, Chirimar, Bhistis etc). Moreover, these OBCs Muslims constitute nearly a half of the Muslim population (although this share is disputed one). The Sachar Committee has disclosed that these OBCs Muslims are worse off than the Hindu OBCs. The Table I below shows the plight of Muslims in general and the Muslim OBCs in the above fields:
Table- I
Matriculation Graduates & Above
Workers Formal Sector
Poverty Land holdings
Hindu OBCs
-5%
-30%
+ 5%
-15%
-10%
+20%
Muslim (Gen) -20%
-40%
-15%
-60%
+30%
-40%
Muslim OBCs -40%
-60%
-20%
-80%
+40%
-60%
The Table shows that up to the Matriculation level in education, the
Hindu OBCs trail behind the national average by 5%, while the figure
for Muslims in general and OBCs Muslim is 20% and 40% respectively.
When it comes to education up to graduate level, the general and
OBCs Muslims trail behind the national average by 40% and 60%
respectively. In the field of employment in formal sectors, the
general and OBCs Muslims trail behind the national average by the
staggering 60% and 80% respectively. Even in land holdings, Muslims
are far below the national average: general Muslims 40% and Muslim
OBCs 60%, while the Hindu OBCs 20% above. Muslims score better only
in poverty as the general and OBC Muslims are poorer by 30% and 40%
respectively, than the national poverty level, while the Hindu OBCs
are less poorer by 10%. That means the general and OBC Muslims are
poorer by 40% and 50%, respectively, than the Hindu OBCs.
In Judiciary, Muslims are Invisible
According to experts, one of the key findings of the Sachar Committee is that, whether it is Education, Health, Transport, or Home, or virtually in all departments of the state governments, the share of Muslim employees is way below their share in the population. But arguably, in no other wing does this under-representation raise as many questions as in the state judiciary.
The “judiciary” for which the Sachar Committee asked for data
includes officers at all levels, from Advocate Generals and District
and Session Judges to Additional District and Session Judges, Chief
Judicial Magistrates, Principal Judges, Munsifs, Public Prosecutors
and even Group A, B, C & D employees in lower courts. These officers
constitute the basic foundation of the justice-delivery system in
the country. Public Prosecutors are lawyers representing the
government, District and Session Judges hear both criminal and civil
cases. The lower judiciary has a state-level examination and some
get elevated to District Session Judges and Additional District
Session Judges.
Data supplied by state governments themselves show that, just as
in all government jobs, there is a glaring gap between the share of
Muslims in the population and their share in judiciary jobs.
Ironically, in two states that have high Muslim population share,
West Bengal (25.2%) and Assam (30.9%), the percentage of Muslim
employees in key positions in the judiciary is barely 5% and 9.4%
respectively. This is true in tune with West Bengal’s dismal overall
Muslim employment data as well. The Table II below shows this dismal
condition of employment of Muslims in state judiciaries:
Table – II
% Muslim Share of Muslim
District Session Chief Judicial
Principal Public
Population Employees
Judge
Magistrate Judge
Prosecutors
Jammu & Kashmir
66.9
48.3
n.a.
n.a.
0
59.3
Assam
30.9
9.4
0
9.5
50.0
16.8
West Bengal
25.2
5.0
4.8
7.8
0
5.4
Kerala
24.7
12.3
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Uttar Pradesh
18.5
10.9
3.1
7.5
0
4.7
Jharkhand
13.8
8.4
2.9
0
0
0
Karnataka
12.2
4.0
0
3.4
20.0
n.a.
Uttaranchal
11.9
3.9
0
0
0
n.a.
Delhi
11.7
1.3
0
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Maharastra
10.6
8.1
2.3
8.2
0
6.4
Andhra Predesh
9.2
12.4
1.8
5.0
n.a.
3.1
Rajasthan
8.5
5.1
3.0
2.3
0
n.a.
Madhya Pradesh
6.3
6.0
7.2
6.9
8.3
n.a.
Orissa
2.1
1.5
1.4
0
0
n.a.
Chhattisgarh
1.9
6.9
4.2
4.3
0
n.a.
The Table shows that, even in the state of Jammu & Kashmir, where
Muslims constitute nearly 67% of population, only 48.3% of its
employees in judiciary are Muslims. It also shows that, Andhra
Pradesh and Chhattisgarh are the only states where the percentage of
employees in its judiciary exceeds its share of population. In
Andhra Pradesh, the share of Muslims in its population is 9.2%,
while 12.4% employees in judiciary are Muslims. For Chhattiagarh,
the figures are 1.9% and 6.9% respectively. Picture is gloomiest in
Kerala, where Muslim employees in judiciary is merely 4.0%, while
Muslims constitute 12.2% of its population.
While commenting on this aspect, a report in Indian Express says, “The overall figure of merely 7.85 Muslim employees in this crucial area in the 12 high-Muslim population states surveyed at this level is a problem, admit experts. Says jurist Fali Nariman; “It is not just in multi-cultural democracies like ours that people feel the need to be represented adequately. Even in Australia with far less diversity than India, for many years, people of Western Australia felt totally neglected as they had no representation in their highest court.”
| Part 1
| Part 2
| Part 3
| Part 4
| Part 5
| Part 6
| Part 7
|
(To be continued)
| If you like this essay: |
Stumble it
 |
digg it |
[comment/guestlog8.htm]