Shah’s Bold Challenge: BJP vs. Congress on Reservation and Religion

Paromita Das

GG News Bureau
New Delhi, 18^th Dec. In the ongoing debate over reservation policies, Union Home Minister Amit Shah has made serious allegations against Congress, accusing the grand old party of undermining the welfare of the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) while pushing for religion-based quotas. Shah’s remarks, delivered during a marathon reply to a two-day special debate in the Rajya Sabha on the 75th anniversary of the Constitution, have reignited the contentious issue of caste-based reservation and its potential extension to religious minorities, particularly Muslims.

Amit Shah’s criticism stems from what he perceives as Congress’s prioritization of religious quotas over the welfare of OBCs. He alleged that Congress does not genuinely care about the OBC community and is instead focused on expanding reservation for Muslims by increasing the limit by 50 percent. The Home Minister further emphasized that the BJP would not allow reservation based on religion as long as they hold any representation in Parliament, reaffirming the party’s commitment to maintaining the secular and constitutional integrity of Bharat’s reservation system.

Shah’s critique also delves into the historical stance of Congress on reservation. He pointed to the party’s failure to implement the Kaka Kalelkar Commission’s recommendations in 1955, which were aimed at providing reservation to OBCs. He argued that had those recommendations been taken seriously, the Mandal Commission, which later led to the implementation of reservation for OBCs in 1990, might never have been formed. This historical backdrop serves to accuse Congress of being indifferent to the needs of OBCs when it had the power to act. Shah went on to highlight the delay in the implementation of Mandal’s recommendations, which came only after Congress lost power, further questioning the party’s true intent regarding caste-based welfare.

The BJP’s critique extends beyond reservation to Congress’s broader approach to constitutional amendments. Shah compared the BJP’s 22 amendments in 16 years of governance to Congress’s 77 amendments over 55 years, presenting the BJP’s changes as more focused on public welfare, such as the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) and the constitutional recognition of the OBC commission. Shah juxtaposed this with Congress’s amendments, which, in his view, served personal or dynastic interests, citing amendments during Indira Gandhi’s tenure that he claimed were made to protect her political power.

One of the most contentious aspects of Shah’s statements was his claim that Congress introduced amendments to safeguard the interests of a single family—referring to the Gandhi family—and to suppress democratic principles. He highlighted amendments like the 39th amendment, which nullified a court verdict declaring Indira Gandhi’s election illegal, and the 45th amendment, which extended the tenure of the Lok Sabha and President’s rule, allegedly to avoid defeat. In contrast, Shah presented the BJP’s amendments as measures aimed at national progress and inclusivity, focusing on the welfare of the people, such as the 103rd amendment providing 10 percent reservation for economically weaker sections.

Shah’s position on the reservation issue also reveals a sharp division between the BJP and Congress regarding the inclusion of religious criteria in social welfare schemes. While Congress has been accused by the BJP of playing politics with reservations by trying to include Muslim quotas, Shah remains adamant that the BJP will not allow such an inclusion. This disagreement underscores the broader ideological rift between the two parties, Congress is perceived by the BJP as trying to cater to religious minorities for electoral gains, while the BJP insists on maintaining a reservation system based solely on social and economic backwardness, without any religious considerations.

The political fallout of this ongoing discourse is far-reaching. Shah’s statements are not just a critique of Congress’s policies but also a broader attempt to position the BJP as the defender of secularism, arguing that any move to reserve seats for religious communities would be unconstitutional and divisive. For Congress, this accusation taps into a deeper concern: the party is facing a challenge in demonstrating its commitment to social justice while also navigating the sensitive issue of minority welfare, which has been a significant part of its political identity.

In conclusion, the issue of reservation continues to be a battleground for political ideologies, with Congress and the BJP taking starkly different positions. While Congress faces the challenge of defending its stance on minority reservation, the BJP is determined to uphold the original spirit of the Constitution by ensuring that reservations are based solely on social and economic backwardness. Shah’s critique of Congress highlights a broader debate on the role of reservations in Bharatiya society and the potential consequences of making them a tool for political maneuvering. This debate is far from settled, and its resolution will likely shape the trajectory of Bharatiya politics for years to come.