Identity Politics in J&K: The Intersection of Regional and Communal

Rekha Chowdhary (Professor, Political Science, Jammu University) in an article in May 8, 2010 issue of EPW, discusses the intersection of the regional and communal identity of politics that characterizes the two Bills introduced in the recently concluded budget session of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) Legislature. She writes that both the Permanent Resident (Disqualification) Bill, 2010 that seeks to disqualify the J&K women from their permanent residential status if they marry outside the state and the Inter-District Recruitment Bill, which aims to ban the inter-district recruitment, are not simplistic or homogeneous issues with singular nature. The debate on both issues, instead of revolving around the effect of such change on the substantive rights of the parties that come under their purview, has been hijacked by the competitive politics of regional/religious identity, which has come to define the J&K political discourse.

The PR Disqualification bill has received support in Kashmir cutting across party lines, both from the mainstream politicians as well as separatists. The opposition has come from Jammu where it has been opposed not as being discriminatory in general but as ‘anti- Jammu’ and ‘anti-Hindu’. The debate, riding on emotive examples, has been on ‘dangerous regional and communal lines’ and has completely sidelined the ‘rights of women’. Similarly, the discourse on the Inter-District Recruitment Bill has centred on communal and regional identities where Kashmir has been pitted against Jammu. The demand was initially raised to preserve the interests of the backward districts of the state to ban ‘outsiders’ from usurping employment opportunities, but got pitted against the backward communities who have the benefit of reservation. The political parties in Kashmir, displaying regional favouritism, went on to demand the withdrawal of reservation for Dalits as Kashmir being predominantly Muslim does not have any Scheduled Case (SC) population. On the other hand, the Jammu based parties who were initially at the forefront, demanding a Bill banning the inter-district recruitment started called it ‘anti- Jammu’ and against Hindus.

The author puts these two issues in the backdrop of the increasingly ‘regional polarized response’, even from Kashmir. Unlike Jammu, this is uncharacteristic of Kashmiri politics, where the response to public issues has historically been articulated with the Kashmir’s reference to India. But now a regional aspect of ‘discrimination vis-à-vis Jammu has also been added to the earlier dimension. She attributes this high-pitched, regionally and communally polarized politics as a ‘fallout of the increasing relevance of the politics of governance and the intensity of competition’; and with parties ‘competing for the same political space, they tend to radicalize the politics and in the process increase sensitivities about identity’.

Taking an even more vicious turn, the region-based politics has not remained exclusively limited to the cries of ‘discrimination or ‘dangers of demographic change’ that diverts ‘all political energies to divisive positions and reduces substantial issues to simplistic notions of regional discrimination’ , but has also acquired communal overtones where the regional identity is often used interchangeably with religious connotations. Kashmir gets equated with Muslims and Jammu with Hindus. The arguments about the regional discrimination transcend to religion and are employed by the politicians to ‘stoke barely camouflaged communal sentiments.’ The outcome is that identity politics starts getting defined on the basis of the religious character and hence the ‘need to preserve it’.

The intersection and seamless transition of the divisive nature of the indentity politics based on regional and religious divisiveness from one form to another on any issue not only diverts attention from concerns of good governance, but also undermines the unity and integrity of the state, and does great harm to cherished cultural, plural and secular values, one example being Amarnath agitation of 2008. To quote Chowdhary, “For a socially and culturally diverse state like J&K, there is a fundamental danger in the deepening of identity politics polarized along regional and communal lines. It will not merely weaken the secular basis and plural ethos of the state, but also endanger the very integrity of the state by fracturing the relations between its constitutive regions and communities.”

The Economist Article on Job Quotas and Indian Muslims

This article published in the Economist (March 4, 2010) highlights the poor socio-economic situation and educational backwardness among the majority of Muslims, the largest religious minority in India. Relying upon the Sachchar Committee’s Report and Ranganath Mishra Commission’s findings, both of which it does not name, the article stresses on the fact that that the situation of most of the India’s 160 Muslims is as bad as Dalits. It also quotes the Commission on why the Dalit Muslims and Christians are also entitled to reservation, as they too, like their Hindu brethren are ‘deprived.” The article blames the politicization of the entire issue by the mainstream political parties for electoral gains as one of the major reasons for lack of any concrete action.

Although the article recognizes the importance of reservation in social upliftment, it expresses doubt about the same being panacea for all ills. To support the same it point out a large section Dalits despite having the benefit of the quota based affirmative actions for the last six decades still continues to be social, economically and educationally backward. At the same time it notes that “‘unlike that downtrodden group, do Muslims lack inspiring torchbearers. They already dominate Bollywood and include many sports stars. Above all, India’s Muslims need better schools and better jobs, as do most poor Indians.”

This article forms another piece in the series of articles in the recent days that have sought to analyze the problems plaguing the Indian Muslims and the political reasons for inordinate delay/inability to take credible action bring the community into mainstream. Earlier posts on the blog have also discussed the feasibility of extension of quota-based reservation to socially and educationally backward classes among religious minorities.

Identification Question and Reservation for Undeserved : Andhra Muslim Quota fails Equality Test

A Seven judge bench of the High Court at Andhra Pradesh a majority of 5:2 has struck down the A.P. Reservation in Favour of Socially Educationally Backward Classes of Muslims Act, 2007 (“the Act”) as unconstitutional describing the Act as “unsustainable” and “religion-specific”. The judgment is available here. Amongst other reasons, the Court reasoned that the Act potentially encourages religious conversions. Zoya Hasan in her book “Politics of Inclusion” has suggested that fear of religious conversions (though not supported by statistics) is a major factor inhibiting extension of affirmative action to minorities.

The majority judgment was delivered by Chief Justice A R Dave. Justice T. Meena Kumari gave a separate and concurring judgment allowing the writ petitions for different reasons. B. Prakasha Rao, J. and D.S.R. Varma, J. provided the minority view.

The Act provided four percent reservation to certain backward sections of Muslims by introducing an additional “E” group in the existing Backward Classes enjoying reservation, first through an ordinance and then the legislation. The Court severely criticized the report of the A.P. Commission for Backward Classes (“APBC”) which formed the basis of the government action for its procedural errors and glaring irregularities. The Commission failed to come up with definite criteria to identify the backward classes among Muslims.

The High Court further held that the quick survey and the fast track method employed by the APBC Commission was faulty and in substance, amounted to a ‘hit and run method’ and therefore cannot be approved of. The Court said that it was deplorable that the Commission was not even aware of the population of the groups of Muslims selected for inclusion in the E category among the Backward Classes and the government to provide and objective basis for its action. I
As per Justice T. Meena Kumari, “the APBC Commission has acted in a hasty manner and without any scientific survey, I am of the opinion that the data collected is not sufficient for the Government to come to the conclusion that specific classes of Muslims can be classified as ‘backward class’ for the purpose of Articles 15(5) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India. The Commission has not proceeded on correct lines to assess the social and educational backwardness as indicated in other cases or has followed any criteria for such assessment. In the absence of any such material, it has to be held that the State Government has utterly failed to discharge its onus of proof to establish that the reservations are for socially and educationally backward classes of citizens and that the enactment is based on sufficient material to support the classification. If the court perceives that the identified classes exist, then the Court will uphold such law for the purpose of doing social justice, but in the instant case the exercise of identifying specific group of backward classes is not rational; therefore the Court cannot uphold the law made by the State. The same has to be struck down for want of sufficient material or appropriate data.” Therefore, it appears that where the State Government is able to discharge the onus of proof, reservation for socially and educationally backward Muslims may not be unconstitutional. However, what remains uncertain is the extent of burden of proof required to be discharged, especially given the Sachar Committee findings.

It was the third attempt on the part of the Andhra Pradesh Government to provide a quota for Muslims which has been repeatedly struck down by the High Court as unconstitutional. The Andhra Pradesh Government has decided to file a Special Leave Petition against the judgment in the Supreme Court.