Minority Card: Morley-Minto Vs Moiley-Antuley

Govt of India Act of 1909 — also known as Morley-Minto is going to convert in the minority card of Moiley-Antuley. Eighty ministerial headed UPA government is ten times greater dangerous than Ravan.

Congress running ‘Divide and rule’ machine
Divide and rule was the central plank of Britain’s imperial control from India to Ireland, and from Cyprus to Nairobi.

The British had followed a divide-and-rule policy in India. Even in the census they categorized people according to religion and viewed and treated them as separate from each other. They had based their knowledge of the peoples of India on the basic religious texts and the intrinsic differences they found in them instead of on the way they coexisted in the present.

Some of the mist over Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's promise of "fair share" for minorities in government jobs could be lifting. Congress on Nov 13 took ownership of proposals for quota benefits for Dalit Muslims and Christians aired by two senior Congress leaders A R Antulay and Veerappa Moily.
Antulay, who is minister for minority affairs, and Moily, chairman of Administrative Reforms Commission, have spoken in favour of reservations for Muslims. Antulay advocated inclusion of Dalit Muslims in the SC/ST quota frame

Self-government in British and Congress led UPA Rule
The first steps were taken toward self-government in British India in the late 19th century with the appointment of Indian counsellors to advise the British viceroy and the establishment of provincial councils with Indian members; the British subsequently widened participation in legislative councils with the Indian Councils Act of 1892. In Left supported UPA rule appointment of the ministers of the cabinet of PM Manmohan is to advise the Italian viceroy ?Sonia Gandhi. .

The Government of India Act of 1909 — also known as the Morley-Minto Reforms (John Morley was the secretary of state for India, and Gilbert Elliot, fourth earl of Minto, was viceroy) — gave Indians limited roles in the central and provincial legislatures, known as legislative councils.

Morley made it clear in introducing the legislation to the British Parliament that parliamentary self-government was not the goal of the British government. According to Morley-Minto Reforms the "electorate" was limited, however, to a small group of upper-class Indians. These elected members increasingly became an "opposition" to the "official government". Communal electorates were later extended to other communities and made a political factor of the Indian tendency toward group identification through religion. The practice created certain vital questions for all concerned.

The intentions of the British were questioned. How humanitarian was their concern for the minorities? Were separate electorates a manifestation of "divide and rule"? Now the intention of Congress led government is the same.
.
Congress party spokesperson Satyavrat Chaturvedi said the party did not support reservation based on religion, but on social and educational backwardness. Probed if the party endorsed Sachar Committee conclusion that all Muslims were socially and educationally backward, the spokesperson said, “The findings will be examined by the Government and appropriate action taken.” How the Congress is making fool even the media. You hold the ear this or that from this side or from other side, what makes the difference?

Congress led UPA Government is on the path of Jinnah
Jinnah, who was born in 1876, studied law in England and began his career as an enthusiastic liberal in Congress on returning to India. In 1913 he joined the Muslim League, which had been shocked by the 1911 annulment of the partition of Bengal into cooperating with Congress to make demands on the British. Jinnah continued his membership in Congress until 1919. During this dual membership period, he was described by a leading Congress spokesperson, Mrs. Sarojini Naidu, as the "ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity".

UPA Government can also be described as the “"ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity". Muslim league is its half brother and also partner in the government. PDP is an ally of Congress in J&K. Its founder leader former CM Mufti Sayeed said that Kashmir would be the bridge betweent Pakistan and India. Has Kashmir identity different to India? They are also talking for self rule in J&K as Morley-Minto gifted Indians in British rule.

Collective Responsibility of Manmohan’s cabinet flouted
There are 34 ministers, 7 Minister of State (Independent charge) and 39 Minister of state, total 80 heads in Congress government which are fighting is each other. Is this fighting fool making game or deceiving game? Are Antule and Moiley collectively responsible to the UPA government’s decision on religious quota issue? Eighty ministerial headed UPA government is ten times greater dangerous than Ravan.

Future generations may find it hard to believe that there was an age and time when ministers used to have something called collective responsibility. Once a decision was taken in a Cabinet meeting, it was honored and defended by everyone. In the UPA government, ministers criticize almost every such decision none too guardedly the moment they come out of the meeting. As if that is not bad enough, they have also taken to bad-mouthing each other. This kind of irresponsible behavior has crossed all limits of civility of late. The other day, Union Rural Development Minister Raghuvansh Prasad Singh publicly accused his colleague Ram Vilas Paswan of sheltering dacoits (“Daku paalte hain”). To pay him back in the same coin, the Steel Minister countered: “Raghuvansh Babu ke yahan sab sadhu palte hain kya?” (Are there only saints at Raghuvansh’s house?). A minister using such street language is shocking enough. Aiming it at a ministerial colleague is simply unbelievable.

Shri Lalu Prasad Yadav and Shri Ram Vilas even publicly leveled against each other grave charges of corruption. Their war of words continues even today. The public expression of differences between the Defense Minister and the Law Minister over the filing of the first affidavit relating to the defense deals, the public airing of differences between the Labor Minister and the Finance Minister over the interest rate of EPF, between the Petroleum Minister and the Finance Minister over the fixing of petroleum product prices, the External Affairs Minister’s shocking statement in an interview to a South Korean newspaper, urging Korea not to emulate India’s “wrong example” of conducting nuclear tests at Pokharan in 1998, are all examples of the erosion of the concept of collective responsibility of the Cabinet under this Government.

Issue of reservation for Muslims hotted up
The controversy over the issue of reservation for Muslims hotted up with JD (U) opposing any such move while at least three Central ministers have demanded that private companies provide reservation to minorities. Minorities Affairs Minister A R Anutlay even wants action against companies if they failed to do so. Chemical, Fertilizers and Steel Minister Ram Vilas Paswan, who enraged the pharmacy sector by slashing down drug prices, also supports reservation for minorities in the private sector. Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav too supported the idea. "Of course there should be quota. Just like everyone else, minorities should also be given," said Yadav.

Are the statements of Antuley, Moiley and Ram Vilas Paswan on religious based issue different to the decision of their government? Have they not gone against the principles of collective responsibility?
By Premendra Agrawal