The Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), which has been at the centre of various controversies over the past few years, is once again in the news. The current controversy was triggered after the Indian National Congress promised in its manifesto to uphold the minority status of AMU. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) immediately lodged a complaint with the Election Commission, accusing Congress of violating the code of conduct as the matter is sub-judice.
While filing the complaint, the BJP seems to conveniently ignore the fact that it has also promised in its manifesto the expeditious construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, which is also sub-judice. Interestingly, the BJP seems to be committed to the enactment of the Citizenship Amendment Bill for the protection of individuals of religious minority communities from neighbouring countries escaping persecution; it is completely silent on the issues afflicting minorities in the country.
A brief history of AMU’s quest of minority status indicates that both Congress and BJP have in the past supported and opposed the university’s minority character, depending upon what have suited them politically.
After Independence and adoption of the Indian Constitution, AMU continued to enjoy the status of a de-facto Muslim minority institution of higher learning. The trouble began after the university took the decision under the stewardship of Badr-Ud-Din Tayabji to increase the quota of internal students to 75 per cent with tacit nod of the centre. The decision of the University was completely in line with the judgment of the Supreme Court (SC) which in Kerala Education Bill case had held that Articles 29(2) and 30(1), read together, clearly contemplate a minority institution with a ‘sprinkling’ of outsiders admitted in it.
But when Nawab Ali Yavar Jung took over as Vice-Chancellor, he was briefed by the then Education Minister M C Chagla to reduce the “internal” quota from 75 to 50 per cent which was taken by the students as a serious assault on the minority character of the university. The speech of Chagla in the Parliament to remove the word ‘Muslim’ from the name of the AMU further fuelled an already charged atmosphere of the campus, resulting in violence during which the Vice-Chancellor was grievously assaulted by some students.
In this emotionally charged atmosphere, Chagla brought an ordinance on May 20, 1965 which later became the AMU (Amendment) Act 1965. This was a serious blow to the autonomy of the AMU as it deprived the symbolic court of its status as a supreme governing body. Through new changes in the existing University Act while the power of the Executive Council was substantially increased but the power and character of the Court was diluted completely. This action of the Government was perceived by general Muslims as conspiracy of the Congress to do away with the university’s minority status.
Refuting all the charges levelled against him by the members of opposition parties, during the debate on the AMU Amendment Bill 1965, Chagla stated that the University was “not established by the minority community nor can it be administered or was ever administered by the minority community’ rather it was established by a legislative act and therefore it cannot claim to be a minority institution.
Against this backdrop the constitutional validity of the 1951 and 1965 Acts was challenged before the Supreme Court in the Azeez Basha case. The Congress-led government opposed the petition and submitted before the SC that the establishment of the University was not by the Muslim minority but by the Government of India by virtue of a statute namely the 1920-Act and, therefore the Muslim minority could not claim any fundamental right to administer the Aligarh University under Art. 30(1) of the Constitution. The contention of the government was accepted by the SC which erroneously concluded on very narrow and technical ground that AMU was not a minority institution.
These developments created a sense of unease and restlessness among Muslims in general and AMU alumni popularly known as Old Boys in particular which led to launching of a countrywide campaign for restoration of the minority status of the university. Capitalising on the general discontent among the Muslims against Congress, the Janata Party promised in 1977 and 1980 Lok Sabha elections to restore the minority status of the AMU. The Janata Party manifesto while criticising the Congress without naming it, had pledged to work for “a consensus on the restoration of the autonomy and original character of the Aligarh Muslim University, which had been gradually impaired by previous Governments”.
It must be noted that the Jan Sangh, precursor to the BJP, was part of the merged Janata Party. During the electoral campaign, Morarji Desai himself told Muslims “that their interests, including the restoration of the original character of the AMU, would receive the utmost priority in his government”. The Janata Govt in May 1977 even introduced in the Lok Sabha an AMU (Amendment) Bill to restore its minority character but it could not be enacted due to the early dissolution of the Lok Sabha, owing to internal squabbling. The BJP stalwarts such as LK Advani and Atal Behari Vajpayee were part of the Morarji Desai cabinet that had introduced the bill.
In the next Lok Sabha elections which were held in 1980, the desperate Congress took a u-turn and Indira Gandhi promised in the party manifesto that “the minority character of the Aligarh Muslim University will be assured” as she was certainly not ready to let her political adversary the Janata Party to reap a harvest which should be hers. Soon after coming to power, the Congress government on December 22, 1981, the then Minister for Education, Shiela Kaul introduced in the Lok Sabha the bill to amend the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) Act, 1920. Finally, the Parliament amended the technicalities quoted in the Azeez Basha judgment and minority status of the university was finally restored.
During the reign of Vajpayee, the then HRD Minister Murli Manohar Joshi, had while acknowledging AMU’s minority status, informally even had proposed 50 per cent reservation for Muslims in the university.
Until Allahabad High Court in January 2006 struck down the provision of the AMU (Amendment) Act, 1981, no one questioned the minority status of the university. This time, however, unlike in 1965, the Congress-led UPA government took the decision to challenge the 2006 judgment of the Allahabad High Court before the Supreme Court which in February 2019 referred the whole matter to a seven-judge bench.
When the AMU matter came up for hearing in 2016, the central government headed by the BJP, which had come to power in 2014, decided to withdraw its appeal that was filed in support of AMU’s minority status by the previous UPA government. The BJP-led central government told the SC that AMU does not merit minority status, arguing that granting privileges on religious grounds to an institution set up by a legislative act would be “contrary to the country’s secular policy”.
This brief history of AMU’s quest for minority status reveals the hypocrisy of both Congress and BJP who had used the AMU’s minority status case as per their political convenience. When they found it politically expedient to support the cause of AMU’s minority status, they supported it; but whenever they found the matter not politically advantageous, they either remained silent or vehemently opposed it. The repeated attack on AMU’s minority status by the BJP ever since it came to power in 2014 are mainly intended to polarise the issue on religious lines to take political advantage.
[The writer is a Professor, Department of Political Science, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh.]