header
Communalism

Telangana: Amit Shah Asks for Votes in the Name of Nixing 'Anti-Constitution' Muslim Quota

Shah’s public utterances at a party rally in Rangareddy district are factually, morally and more crucially, in the eyes of the law and code of conduct for elections, flawed, divisive and dangerous.

New Delhi: Union home minister Amit Shah, while addressing a public meeting – a ‘Vijay Sankalp Sabha’ – at Chevella in Rangareddy district of Telangana on Sunday, April 23, promised to end “anti-constitution Muslim reservation.”

“In the two-bedroom kitchen hall scheme too, they [KCR’s Bharat Rashtra Samithi] brought in reservation for minorities, this anti-constitution Muslim reservation was brought in education, and they also said many other things. I am saying this here, when there is a BJP government here, we will end the anti-constitution Muslim reservation. This right is of Telangana’s SC, ST and OBC. They will get this right and Muslim reservation, we will end,” Shah said, in Hindi.

Shah, in calling for votes in the name of the exclusion of reservation for Indians who happen to Muslim, and giving it to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes points to creating a manifest division between the electorate on the basis of religion, not backwardness. By then linking it to a vote for the BJP, the Union home minister is breaking many rules and conventions.

1. The first is factual. The reservation for OBCs is not based on caste, but classes, with a large bunch of Muslim, Sikh and Christian castes deemed as OBCs. Reservation is on the basis of studies and reports on backwardness and deprivation, which has many components, economic, social and educational. So positing Muslim versus OBC is wrong.

2. “Religion has no role in electoral process, which is a secular activity,” the Supreme Court had said in a landmark seven-judge verdict in 2017. A bench led by the then Chief Justice of India, Justice T.S. Thakur had ruled that using religion or caste to seek votes amounted to a “corrupt practice” under electoral laws.

3. The model code of conduct is not in operation in Telangana, but Shah is discussing very specifically, the Telangana state assembly elections due before December 2023, i.e., this year, before the general elections. He is, in fact, saying something in direct violation of the code. The code’s ‘general conduct’ on the Election Commission’s website, item number one, reads, “No party or candidate shall include in any activity which may aggravate existing differences or create mutual hatred or cause tension between different castes and communities, religious or linguistic.” Shah is seeking to not enhance benefits to one side but take away from one religious community and pass onto other socio religious categories.

[The Election Commission’s role has been questionable, and especially since 2019, when the top court reprimanded the Election Commission for not taking action against candidates engaging in hate speech during election campaigns in the state of Uttar Pradesh. The Commission merely said that it had limited powers to take action in this matter.]

4. The beleaguered BJP government in Karnataka had in March removed the 4% reservation that the Muslims in the state had so far accessed, having been designated ‘backwards’ by all but one report in the state, and shifted the 4% equally between the state’s powerful caste groups – Lingayats and Vokkaligas – taking their quota to 5% and 7%, respectively. The Muslims were moved to the EWS (economically weaker sections) category which has a total of 10%. They have to share the same with a few groups like the Jains and Brahmins. Notably, only Muslims were removed from the 2B category, not other minorities. The Supreme Court is hearing this matter. Hearing is set to resume tomorrow (April 25). The Karnataka government, having been slammed by the two-judge bench, had asked for more time to bring its arguments to the apex court. A bench of Justices K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathna adjourned the case after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for Karnataka, said they would need the weekend to finalise the response.

The apex court had taken the Bommai government’s decision apart – and forced Karnataka to say it will not act upon its announcements till the polls. In the last hearing, the court had in oral observations that it prima facie found that the state’s action was based on “absolutely fallacious assumptions”.

Shah’s remarks fly in the face of facts and all propriety expected from the Union home minister at a political event in a state soon to go for elections. Importantly, on grounds of rules and legal position, the home minister is left vulnerable to strict action if independent institutions were to take cognisance.

In Ramesh Yashwant Prabhoo v P.R. Kunte, 1995, the Supreme Court upheld the disqualification of a candidate who happened to be from the Shiv Sena, who made derogatory references to Muslims while contesting assembly elections in Maharashtra.