Communal divide in scholarships
The Pioneer
The New Indian ExpressAdithya Reddy
First Published : 02 Sep 2010 12:10:00 AM IST
Last Updated : 03 Sep 2010 12:32:57 AM IST
The UPA government’s minority-welfare measures have been criticised for obliquely re-enforcing existing communal divides in society. The centrepiece of the government’s efforts is the prime minister’s 15-point programme for welfare of minorities unveiled in 2005.
Few people would dispute the desirability of measures that address problems specific to minority communities. The question of appeasement and discrimination becomes relevant only when preferential treatment is sought to be given on communal lines on problems like education, which affect people beyond social barriers.
One component of the programme that has evoked protest from some political parties is the ‘scholarship for meritorious students from minority communities’. This consists of two schemes, one each for pre-matric and post-matric students.
The criteria stipulate that an applicant should have at least 50 per cent marks in the previous final examination and that the annual income of the parents should not exceed `1 lakh in the case of pre-matric students and `2 lakh in for post-matric students. The scholarship rates vary between `6,000 and `10,000 per annum.
The objective of the scholarship is to “encourage parents from minority communities to send their schoolgoing children to school, lighten their financial burden on education and sustain their efforts to support their children to complete school education…and to enhance the employability”.
Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before law to all persons and this guarantee embraces the entire realm of state action, including grant of privileges. The Punjab & Haryana High Court struck down as unconstitutional rules that made students eligible for scholarships on the basis of their place of study and their parents’ employment in a state government.
Equality, as enshrined in the Constitution, does not mean the state cannot classify people into groups and treat them differently. It only means that classification should be reasonable and should rest on ‘differences pertinent to the subject in respect of which classification is made.’
The most controversial and oft-litigated form of preferential treatment is reservation. The Supreme Court has said that reservation cannot be provided to a religious community, without a lawful determination of its ‘social and educational backwardness’.
In Triloki Nath Tiku Vs State of J&K, the Supreme Court struck down the policy of the state, whereby 50 per cent of government job vacancies were reserved for the Muslims of Kashmir for the entire state, 40 per cent for Hindus of Jammu and 10 per cent for Kashmiri Hindus. In the famous Indra Sawhney case, the Supreme Court held that just like caste, religion could also be an indicator of social backwardness.However, the judges clarified that the authority surveying communities for determining backwardness cannot use a uniform yardstick for the whole country. The court observed that “in a particular State, Muslim community as a whole may be found socially backward… Similarly, certain sections and denominations among Christians in Kerala who were included among backward communities notified in the former princely State of Travancore as far back as in 1935 may also be surveyed and so on and so forth… The approach may differ from State to State since the conditions in each State may differ…Nay, even within a State, conditions may differ from region to region.”
By implication, no reservation can be provided to a religious community on a uniform basis across the country. The government needs to first establish ‘social and educational backwardness’ of each and every denomination, sub-sect of a religious community in every region. This principle will apply to any preferential treatment the government wishes to give to minorities.
Also, it is relevant to note that the government has introduced an economic criterion as well in determining eligibility for these scholarships. Therefore, it’s discrimination between the economically weak of different communities. How can Hindu children with families earning less than `1 lakh be any less eligible for scholarships than their minority counterparts?
One should not underestimate the impact such discrimination can have on the minds of children.
In 2005, the National Sample Survey Organisation released a detailed report on the education and employment situation among major religious groups. While Muslims do appear to lag in the field of education, the report states that the “proportion of persons with educational level secondary and above, was far greater among Christians” than Hindus.
This is significant as 30 per cent of scholarships are earmarked for girl students from minority communities. Even with regard to employment, the rates in urban areas were more or less same between Hindus and Muslims (4 per cent). Where are the facts to show that, on a pan-India basis, the minorities are in more need of ‘encouragement’ to educate and employ their children?
The recent decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that struck down 4 per cent quota for ‘backward’ Muslims in government jobs has been stayed by the Supreme Court and has no legal value. However, one feature of the judgement deserves serious attention — it’s recognition of the ‘potential to encourage conversions’ as a legal ground for challenging reservations.
Scholarships and schemes that provide immediate financial benefits to people are bound to encourage religious conversions, if granted on communal lines. No one questions the need for efforts to educate minorities. What is unconstitutional is the exclusion of others from the same benefits.
(The writer is an advocate at the Madras High Court)reddy.adithya@gmail.com
Few people would dispute the desirability of measures that address problems specific to minority communities. The question of appeasement and discrimination becomes relevant only when preferential treatment is sought to be given on communal lines on problems like education, which affect people beyond social barriers.
One component of the programme that has evoked protest from some political parties is the ‘scholarship for meritorious students from minority communities’. This consists of two schemes, one each for pre-matric and post-matric students.
The criteria stipulate that an applicant should have at least 50 per cent marks in the previous final examination and that the annual income of the parents should not exceed `1 lakh in the case of pre-matric students and `2 lakh in for post-matric students. The scholarship rates vary between `6,000 and `10,000 per annum.
The objective of the scholarship is to “encourage parents from minority communities to send their schoolgoing children to school, lighten their financial burden on education and sustain their efforts to support their children to complete school education…and to enhance the employability”.
Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before law to all persons and this guarantee embraces the entire realm of state action, including grant of privileges. The Punjab & Haryana High Court struck down as unconstitutional rules that made students eligible for scholarships on the basis of their place of study and their parents’ employment in a state government.
Equality, as enshrined in the Constitution, does not mean the state cannot classify people into groups and treat them differently. It only means that classification should be reasonable and should rest on ‘differences pertinent to the subject in respect of which classification is made.’
The most controversial and oft-litigated form of preferential treatment is reservation. The Supreme Court has said that reservation cannot be provided to a religious community, without a lawful determination of its ‘social and educational backwardness’.
In Triloki Nath Tiku Vs State of J&K, the Supreme Court struck down the policy of the state, whereby 50 per cent of government job vacancies were reserved for the Muslims of Kashmir for the entire state, 40 per cent for Hindus of Jammu and 10 per cent for Kashmiri Hindus. In the famous Indra Sawhney case, the Supreme Court held that just like caste, religion could also be an indicator of social backwardness.However, the judges clarified that the authority surveying communities for determining backwardness cannot use a uniform yardstick for the whole country. The court observed that “in a particular State, Muslim community as a whole may be found socially backward… Similarly, certain sections and denominations among Christians in Kerala who were included among backward communities notified in the former princely State of Travancore as far back as in 1935 may also be surveyed and so on and so forth… The approach may differ from State to State since the conditions in each State may differ…Nay, even within a State, conditions may differ from region to region.”
By implication, no reservation can be provided to a religious community on a uniform basis across the country. The government needs to first establish ‘social and educational backwardness’ of each and every denomination, sub-sect of a religious community in every region. This principle will apply to any preferential treatment the government wishes to give to minorities.
Also, it is relevant to note that the government has introduced an economic criterion as well in determining eligibility for these scholarships. Therefore, it’s discrimination between the economically weak of different communities. How can Hindu children with families earning less than `1 lakh be any less eligible for scholarships than their minority counterparts?
One should not underestimate the impact such discrimination can have on the minds of children.
In 2005, the National Sample Survey Organisation released a detailed report on the education and employment situation among major religious groups. While Muslims do appear to lag in the field of education, the report states that the “proportion of persons with educational level secondary and above, was far greater among Christians” than Hindus.
This is significant as 30 per cent of scholarships are earmarked for girl students from minority communities. Even with regard to employment, the rates in urban areas were more or less same between Hindus and Muslims (4 per cent). Where are the facts to show that, on a pan-India basis, the minorities are in more need of ‘encouragement’ to educate and employ their children?
The recent decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that struck down 4 per cent quota for ‘backward’ Muslims in government jobs has been stayed by the Supreme Court and has no legal value. However, one feature of the judgement deserves serious attention — it’s recognition of the ‘potential to encourage conversions’ as a legal ground for challenging reservations.
Scholarships and schemes that provide immediate financial benefits to people are bound to encourage religious conversions, if granted on communal lines. No one questions the need for efforts to educate minorities. What is unconstitutional is the exclusion of others from the same benefits.
(The writer is an advocate at the Madras High Court)reddy.adithya@gmail.com
The Pioneer
No comments:
Post a Comment