I have gone through the articles on the Allahabad High Court
judgement on Aligarh Muslim University (AMU)
in your issue of November 2005 by Mihir Desai, Faizun Mustafa, Irfan Habib and
Asghar Ali Engineer.
Apropos Mr Desai's suggestions, I am not aware of any
educational institution established and administered by non-minorities which
claim minority status under Article 30 of the Constitution. The real test of a
minority educational institution has always been whether the majority of
students on its roll belong to the minority whose religion, language, script and
culture it claims to protect or promote. How or to what extent it does so is
another matter. But the mere fact of its establishment by a member or members of
a minority community has never been considered adequate, for it may simply be a
commercial venture under Article 19(1)(g) and nothing more and make a deceptive
claim to arrogate the benefits under Article 30. Much before the Supreme Court
permitted self-reservation of 50 per cent I had demanded on the floor of
Parliament in the 80s that no educational institution should be recognised as
a minority institution unless 50 per cent of the students on its rolls belong to
the establishing minority.
I have noted the arguments put forth by Prof. Faizun Mustafa
against the Allahabad High Court judgement. But I feel that the definition of
'University' in the 1981 Act could have been more explicit a) by referring to
Article 30 of the Constitution and b) by excluding any pre-1981 judicial
pronouncements. These lacunae were noticed when the Act was debated. I think AMU
and the government have to apply their minds on how to make the recognition
foolproof within the meaning of Article 30(1) and unassailable by any future
misinterpretation.
Prof. Irfan Habib's views are well known. He is a great
historian but a poor lawyer. Aligarh Muslim University has always been open
to all persons whatever their religion. Even after the recent reservation it
remains so. He ignores not only Section 5(2)(c) of the 1981 Act but the change
in the Preamble and the composition of the court, its supreme governing body,
its history and its culture, and its tradition of having a preponderance of
Muslim students on its rolls. He also ignores the deterioration in the quality
of input caused by internal reservation, which limited it to a few districts and
some local families, and the need to restore the national character of this
great university and upgrade the quality of the input to make it truly a centre
of excellence.
An institution is not necessarily communal because it has a
majority of students of the same religion. Ninety per cent of Indian
institutions probably have an overwhelming Hindu majority. How does a university
become communal by reserving half the seats for students of the community it is
supposed to educate? Prof. Habib is seeing ghosts where none exist!
Finally, Mr Engineer, I am afraid introduces an argument that
cuts through the basic purpose of reservation – to make it pan-national and
upgrade its quality.
We consider that the Muslim community, as a whole, constitutes a
Backward Class under the meaning of Article 15 of the Constitution and that
there is no constitutional bar on reservation in its favour and that the most
important objective before the community today is to have its Backward Class
status recognised. In this context, it will be retrograde to divide Muslims
and weaken their political voice. Muslim candidates for admission to a Muslim
university should be selected as Muslims. It would also be a tactical mistake
when the demand for reservation for Muslims in AMU is getting support all over
the country. After the objective is achieved, we can apply our mind on the means
to provide more space for candidates from the Muslim sub-communities notified as
Backward by the Centre.
(Syed Shahabuddin is president, All India Muslim
Majlis-e-Mushawarat.)