Home Blog Page 2655

Pre-natal history of Article 16

0

What is the pre-natal history of Article 16(4) of the Indian Constitution?
 

Clause (5) of the Fundamental Rights Sub-Committee Report providing for ‘’equality of opportunity in matters of public employment’’ came up for consideration before the Advisory Committee under the chairmanship of no less a person than Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel between 17 and 19 April, 1947. There was a rigorous discussion on whether the classification of social and economically backward classes per se included minorities. There was unanimity among all that it did as far as Article 16(4) is concerned and disagreement only whether specification of ‘minorities’ was required.
 

When it came up for discussion, Clause (5) as recommended by the Fundamental Rights Sub-Committee was the most important clause, and it was given due consideration by the Committee. That Committee consisted of stalwarts like C. Rajagopalachari, KM Panikkar, Shyama Prasad Mookerji, Frank Anthony KM Munshi and many such legal luminaries.
 

Shri C. Rajagopalachari suggested making the provision explicitly for the minorities instead of ‘classes’ as it is provided now. Shri Rajagopalachari told the Committee on a specific clarification about it as to whether it was the classes or minorities who were being given protection. Shri KM Panikkar, who was responsible for the initial changed words explained that besides recognising religious minorities there might be many classes amongst the Hindus not adequately represented. According to him, they had also to be given reservation.
 

In this connection Shri Shyama Prasad Mukherjee suggested the phrasing ‘minorities and other classes’ instead of simple ‘classes’. That was the suggestion made by Shri Shyama Prasad Mukherjee. Again, Sardar Ujjal Singh, who was a member of that Committee suggested ‘minorities and backward classes’ without any reference to adequate representation. Shri Frank Anthony said that it should be ‘classes and minorities’. This was the discussion that took place in that meeting. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel observed that ‘classes’ included ‘minorities’. So, according to the drafters of the Indian Constitution, looking at the discussions by this Committee, under Article 16(4) of the Constitution wherever ‘classes’ has been mentioned, it includes ‘minorities’.
 

"The Advisory Committee was chaired by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel when the matter was taken up for discussion. The Advisory Committee met for the second day in the council’s chamber of the Council House in New Delhi at 10 a.m. on April 22, 1947. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel was in the chair. When the discussion was initiated, there were a number of observations made by the hon. members of the Committee like Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Shri Rajagopalachari and others.
 

"Frank Anthony: I would like to suggest that the clause should be amended ‘nothing herein contained shall prevent the State from making provision for reservation in favour of minorities or classes.
 

Ujjal Singh: It should be ‘classes’ over ‘minorities’.
 

Frank Anthony: What is the objection to ‘classes and minorities’? ‘Classes’ will refer to the Scheduled Castes.
 

C. Rajagopalachari: It is sufficiently described here – ‘those who are inadequately represented’.

Frank Anthony: Why should we fight shy of using a word which has the sanction of law and usage? We can make it more specific.

C. Rajagopalachari: Just as we do not say, ‘citizens and persons’, if one word is wider, we omit the smaller word.
 

Frank Anthony: We can put it as ‘classes including minorities.
 

Chairman (Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel): ‘Minority’ is included in ‘classes’.
 

Frank Anthony: This is my amendment. I move in favour of ‘classes and minorities’.
 

Ujjal Singh: ‘Minorities and backward classes’.
 

Chairman: This is simple English. ‘Class’ includes ‘minorities’. This is absolutely unnecessary. It is as clear as daylight."
 

"The Committee has come to the unanimous conclusion and we also feel classes include minorities. There is no need to suspect. The whole basis of the provision is minorities. You say the State will exclude minorities?"
 

This is what Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel asked the Committee when Article 16(4) was under discussion of the Advisory Committee. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel had taken the stand that the classes would include minorities. He said that there was no need to suspect and that the whole basis of the provision is minorities. Again I would like to quote:
 

"Frank Anthony: We are not suspecting the present leaders. We do not know who the future leaders would be.
 

Chairman: No leader would be so stupid as to interpret that classes do not include minorities.
 

Frank Anthony: We are not suspecting the present leaders. We do not know who the future leaders would be.
 

Chairman: No leader would be so stupid as to interpret that classes do not include minorities.
 

Frank Anthony: We have used the words elsewhere.
 

Chairman: Anybody will say that ‘’classes’’ is a wider term. It is better to use a wider word.
 

C. Rajagopalachari: I would appeal to him that according to the ordinary interpretation if you introduce the word minority, the question whether a class is a minority will become justiciable. Classes will be interpreted in the sense of minority. The use of the general term ‘classes’ is followed by the phrase ‘not adequately represented’ and the opinion of the State finally determines it. I think, this is the best way of solving it.
 

KM Munshi: In Section 153 A, the term ‘class of His Majesty’s subjects’ has been used. ‘Classes’ have been interpreted as minorities or religious communities also. Nobody has ever interpreted it as not meaning minorities."
 

(From the Constituent Assembly Debates The Framing of India’s Constitution by Dr. B. Shiva Rao).

Archived from Communalism Combat, July 2004. Year 10, No. 99, Special Report 7
 

A police officer to be proud of

0

Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Police Inspector, Ahmedabad

The exemplary conduct of police inspector Ajay Kumar Srivastava demonstrates what a lone individual who decides to follow his conscience and do his duty can achieve and the difference that such an individual can make to society. By his selfless commitment to the ordinary citizen, irrespective of caste and community, Srivastava helped redeem every peace-loving Gujarati’s faith in the policeman’s uniform.

PSI Srivastava has always been on very good terms with the Muslims in his jurisdiction and enjoyed their trust and respect. Full of pithy stories and cultural tidbits, Srivastava has an enviable lineage — his maternal grandfather was none other than the famed Urdu poet, ‘Firak’ Gorakhpuri (Raghupati Sahay).

In February-March 2002, Srivastava was posted in the Detection Staff at Shahpur in Ahmedabad. Calls for help started pouring in as soon as trouble started in Ahmedabad early in the morning on February 28. Shahpur with its mixed population is a communally sensitive area. PSI Srivastava tried to answer as many calls and rescue as many people as possible.

At around 3 p.m. that afternoon, he received a call from a local, Nasirbhai, who told him that about 32 Muslim women were stranded in a house in Khanpur. When he reached there, he saw that a menacing mob had surrounded the area, hurling stones and burning objects at the trapped women to prevent them from escaping. The first and second floors of the building had been set on fire and some gas cylinders had also been exploded there. The women were trapped on the third floor. Apart from the physical danger they were in, the traumatic incidents had shattered the trapped women’s faith in the police force. The failure of other men in uniform to assure them security led them to suspect Srivastava’s credentials. Srivastava was firm, quick and fearless with the mob whom he first controlled virtually single-handed. Still, it took him 40 minutes to convince the trapped women to trust an officer. He then risked life and limb by jumping into the raging fire and fortunately managed to save them.

In another incident, PSI Srivastava managed to rescue several families, some of them Hindu, who were stranded and whose houses had been set on fire. On the night of March 1, PSI Srivastava got a call from Mai Fateh Shah near Shahpur. The Muslim locality there had been completely surrounded by a murderous Hindu mob about 15,000-20,000 strong. About 400-500 people were stranded inside. The locality had an iron gate that was kept closed by the Muslims and had also been electrified to keep the mob away.

There was stone-throwing on both sides. Armed with petrol and diesel bombs, the Hindu mob was ready to attack and it was feared that if the Muslims were not rescued, a major loss of life would occur. In this confusion the policemen had to shout to communicate with the Muslims who were asked to let them in. Wary of the police, the Muslims were reluctant to open the gate.

Finally, PSI Srivastava went in alone. When he entered, a few Muslims rushed towards him with shouts of "Kill him!" PSI Srivastava admits that for a moment he was terrified and thought that he would indeed be killed. However, he took strength from his faith his God and in his mission to help these people. He explained that he had come to help them, not to kill. He pacified them, and convinced them to trust him so that he and his colleagues could effect a rescue. Once the Muslims were convinced that he was was sincere in his desire to help, PSI Srivastava was able to win their confidence. While his colleagues controlled the mob outside, he escorted the traumatised and stranded Muslims to safety.

In yet another incident, near Halim ki Khidaki, 100-150 Muslim families were stranded in a colony off the main road. A road about 10 metres long links the colony to the main road; the colony is also vulnerable from behind. That day, a crowd of about 5,000 people attacked the chali from the main road and another mob, 2,000 strong, attacked it from behind. PSI Srivastava rushed to the spot with another vehicle. The police fired tear gas shells to keep the mob at bay. However, the mob would disperse from one side only to re-group and attack again from the other side. This went on the whole day as PSI Srivastava, with the help of his colleagues and two police vehicles, managed to prevent the mob from traversing the 10m stretch from the main road to the colony. The stranded families were finally rescued that evening and arrangements were made to take them to the SRP camp.

During the initial 4-5 days of intense violence, PSI Srivastava went without sleep or rest. He couldn’t go home or see his family. Although his wife was worried about his safety and his children missed him at meals, they understood that what he was doing was very important and were happy that he was doing a good job. Later, he fractured his leg while trying to rescue a stranded police constable and he was forced to take rest.

PSI Srivastava maintains that there was no pressure on him to act in a partisan manner and that he got full co-operation from his seniors. He feels that some policemen must have feared that there would be repercussions if they did not co-operate with the mobs and acted accordingly; and this attitude has given the Gujarat police force a bad name. He also believes that the police were clearly outnumbered and under-staffed for disturbances of this scale and were unable to reach all the trouble spots. This also led to allegations of partisan behaviour.

PSI Srivastava was transferred to Vadodara after the riots but his family continues to stay in Ahmedabad. Every Raksha Bandhan day, many Muslim women from Shahpur leave behind rakhis at his home, even if he is away. He makes it a point to visit Shahpur whenever he is in town. As soon as he enters the area, residents surround his motorcycle making it difficult for him to drive on. His popularity among the Muslims of Shahpur continues to be as high even two years after he was transferred out of the area.

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 2004 Year 10   No. 98, Cover Story 2