Reservations in government appointments for Muslims were first recognised and granted by the colonial State in 1925 and extended to other communities in 1934. Before this, some of the earliest instances of policies of ‘group preference’ in government employment were found in the caste-based reservations and schemes instituted by the princely states such as Mysore in 1895 and Kolhapur in 1902.
 

How did the debate on minority rights and representation evolve through the Constituent Assembly debates and appear in the first draft of the Constitution published in February 1948 and how did they finally appear in the final draft of the Constitution?
 

Two aspects stand out here. One, the political safeguards for minorities including reserved seats in legislatures, quotas in government employment, representation of minorities in the Cabinet and the creation of an administrative machinery to ensure supervision and provision of minority rights existed specifically in the first draft of the Indian Constitution published in 1948 (Part XIV of the Draft Constitution).
 

Two, it was after detailed debates on secularism, equity, justice and national integration, in a remarkable reversal, by the time the Constitution reached the stage of its final draft in October 1949, minorities as a specific category were excluded from the purview of all political safeguards. The same, however, came to be accorded to SC/STs.
 

Even now, as extracts from the Constituent Assembly debates show (see accompanying box), the word ‘socially and economically backward classes’ as enunciated in Article 16 (4) was specifically argued by all to include minorities within its purview. This has been accepted by the National Commission for Review of the Working of the Constitution. (See article, Iqbal Ansari).
 

The difference between the first and final draft of the Constitution specifically concerning the exclusion of political safeguards and rights of minorities has been explained in terms of diluting the politics of religious identity in the aftermath of Partition. Muslim acquiescence on the issue was obtained through a closed (door) vote in the Advisory Committee meeting where Muslim leaders, including the Congress leader Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, abstained from voting.
 

Did these developments occur due to a weakened Muslim leadership, the privileging of the political discourse to leaders like Jinnah over Badshah Khan (Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan) by the British and then the Congress? Whatever the historical reasons, they were certainly explained and argued in the context of a secular Nation State and integration.
 

Surprisingly however, in the very same Constituent Assembly debates, Muslim members invoked strong notions of internal religious freedom of their community when it came to matters of Muslim Personal Law. They argued that religious personal laws, which govern such areas as marriage, divorce and maintenance, were an essential aspect of religion and, as such, ought to be granted immunity from State interference. Secularism was construed to imply that religion (in the context of family laws) in a secular State should be out of the purview of State interference.
 

What were the political safeguards for the minority offered in the earlier decisions of the Constituent Assembly that figured in the first draft of the Constitution?
 

The question of political safeguards to the minorities was referred to the advanced committee on Fundamental Rights, Minorities; Tribals had already been mandated by the Cabinet Mission Plan (May 16, 1946). While the concept of separate electorates as conceived by the British was rejected, the Committee did offer an alternate set of safeguards. These were: a) joint electorate with representation from communities in proportion to the population for a period limited to 10 years; b) ‘desirability’ of individual members of important minority communities in the Cabinet; c) a general declaration that in the All India and Provincial Services claims of all minorities in adequate representation shall be kept in view in consistence with efficient functioning of the administration; d) Provision for a special minority officer at the central and provincial levels to report to legislatures regarding the working of the various political safeguards for minorities.
 

The entire report was accepted by the Constituent Assembly in August 1947 and also incorporated in the first draft of the Indian Constitution in February 1948. However, in a substantive reversal, amendments were adopted to each of these Articles and they were dropped in the final draft in 1949.
 

In effect, this removed religious minorities from the purview of these safeguards. Not only that, through another significant reversal in 1950, a constitutional amendment restricted the benefits through reservation to the Scheduled Castes and Tribes among Hindus. Dalit Sikhs were later included through a further amendment. It was during Prime Minister VP Singh’s regime that (neo) Buddhist SCs were included as beneficiaries.
 

As of now, the constitutional reality of secular India privileges reservations for only Hindu, Sikh and neo-Buddhist Dalits even after it is more than widely accepted that caste and socio-economic backwardness spare no faith here, and in fact have de-privileged religious minorities, especially Muslims, in the past 56 years.

– TS.

Archived from Communalism Combat, July 2004. Year 10, No. 99, Special Report 6
 

The post Pages from our past appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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
 

The post Pre-natal history of Article 16 appeared first on SabrangIndia.