By Jasim Mohammad,
When we got independence in 1947, the founding fathers of our Constitution faced a serious problem of safeguarding the genuine interests of the minorities. A sub-committee was formed under the Chairmanship of Sardar Patel to look into the matter. After prolonged discussions, the Committee recommended that the Constitution should have separate Articles to deal with the preservation of culture and language of the minorities, apart from Fundamental Rights.
At last, Indian Constitution adopted Articles 29 and 30 as safeguards for minorities to preserve their cultural heritage and languages. Article 29 states that; “(1) Citizens, living in any part of India, having distinct language, script or culture, have right to preserve them. (ii) No educational institution aided by the state can refuse admission to any citizen on the grounds of his religion, caste, language or creed. Article 30 clearly states that – (i) Religious and linguistic minorities have right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. (ii) State will not refuse grants to such institution on the pretext that they are established and managed by such religious or linguistic minorities. Article 29 and 30 falls in the category of the Fundamental Rights in respect of safeguarding cultural and educational institutions of the minorities.
The Government and the media know pretty well that these “Special Rights” are enshrined in the Constitution of India in the form of Fundamental Rights and we commit no offence, if we seek to enforce their due recognition and claim to enjoy them to our best advantage without their being eroded by anyone including the government. There can be no valid objection to our endeavouring to safeguard our rights and privileges guaranteed by the Constitution as a minority community as long as the Constitution is in force and operative.
Case of Aligarh Muslim University
It will be appropriate to re-analyze the claim of the AMU being a minority institution. For a long time, the government and even the Apex Court had held the view that AMU had not been established by the Muslim minority and it could not be recognized as a minority institution. They were always trotting out the view that AMU Act (1920) alone established the University. At that time (during Azeez Basha case) the Apex Court failed to make distinction between “incorporation” of an existing institution (MAO College) already functioning with buildings, labs and other infrastructure and being merely conferred the status of a University and the act of “founding” afresh an institution with construction of new buildings, labs and other facilities. It was ignored that requisite infrastructures were readily made available by the Muslim community at the time of the incorporation of AMU in 1920 through an Act. In the judgement of the Azeez Basha case, the Supreme Court rejected the claim of the AMU “being minority institution established by them”.
In the judgement delivered by the Allahabad High Court, the Hon’ble Court admitted that MAO College was flag bearer of the Aligarh Muslim University but it went on to record that, “the enactment of Section 06 in the 1920 Act in a very important circumstance which shows that the Aligarh Muslim University when it came to be established in 1920 was not established by the Muslim minority”. In the last paragraph of the judgement, the Hon’ble Judge observes that, “Aligarh Muslim University is not a minority institution within the meaning of Article 30 of the constitution of India. Therefore, the University cannot provide any reservation in respect of the students belonging to a particular community”.
We, again remind you Article 30 which categorically gives us right “to establish and administer educational institutions of our own choice”. If we cannot administer our own institutions then how they will be of our “choice”? If we cannot make reasonable admission policies to achieve the basic aim of the establishment of the institution, then, what is the use of the Article 30 in the Constitution of India and what purpose it serves? If the Courts can draw their own conclusions, then, what is the use of being Article 30 in the category of “Fundamental Rights”?
Hence, we are of the opinion that our debate should revolve around meaning and scope of the Article 30. We are of the opinion that if need be the scope of Article 30 should be made clear by the legislature and its scope should be enlarged, if there is any need to satisfy the judiciary.
Constitution of India is for the people of India by the people of India. Muslim minority is the second largest community in India, if it lags behind, India will lag behind. We must analyse the soul of Constitutional provisions and accept that there is an urgent need for political will to implement the wishes of the founding fathers of our Constitution.
The case of the Minority Status of AMU is pending in the Supreme Court. The Apex Court has constituted a three judge Bench to hear it and the case has been listed for hearing in January, 2008 but till date no hearing has taken place.We are of the opinion that this is the right time to awake the masses.
(Author is Research Scholar at Aligarh Muslim University and President of the Millat Bedari Muhim Committte [MBMC], Aligarh Email: [email protected], [email protected])