The Indian Express (Delhi Edition)
VADODARA HOME TEST
A government scheme cannot pander to prejudice. Municipal Corporation must uphold rule of law, constitutional rights
FOR MOST INDIAN families, a home of their own is a dream of a lifetime. It comes with a promise of security and belonging, an offer of a sense of community. Not so, it turned out, for the 44-year-old Muslim woman employee of the Ministry of Entrepreneurship and Skill Development who was allotted an apartment in the Vadodara Municipal Corporation’s (VMC) low-income group housing complex at Harni under the Mukhyamantri Awas Yojana in 2017, whose dream was to bring up her son in an inclusive neighbourhood. The allotment has been met with complaints and demands to revoke it to government authorities from 33 residents of Motnath Residency Cooperative Housing Services Society Limited on the ground of her religion and possibilities of “threat and nuisance”. This display of extreme prejudice may not be an aberration in urban centres such as Vadodara or Ahmedabad, but a government scheme cannot pander to it, or be affected or circumscribed by it. The VMC must, in fact, read the law, and the Constitution, to it. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law. Article 15(1) prohibits discrimination against any citizen on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
In Gujarat, spatial segregation based on religion or community, is unfortunately not a recent or isolated phenomenon. In 1986, following communal riots, the Disturbed Areas Ordinance was introduced as a deterrent against distress sale of properties. It mandated that property deals in areas prone to violence or disturbances be approved by the district collector. In 1991, it was replaced by permanent legislation. Since then, the Disturbed Areas Act has been periodically updated with progressively stringent provisions that have served to deepen social fault lines and marginalise minorities. The result has been a hardening of stances that treat the “other” with suspicion and shrink the common ground. In Vadodara, for instance, the range of “reasons” offered to disenfranchise the Muslim woman from her apartment ranged from discomfort at living next door to a family belonging to the minority to apprehensions of law and order breakdowns because of their presence in a “Hindu” neighbourhood.
VMC officials have pointed to the impartiality of the process, but it is not enough to suggest that the matter be settled in court. When personal prejudice threatens to corrode constitutional rights, it is for all concerned authorities — and the state — to come forward and protect them. This, then, is a test: To defend the equal rights of every citizen, without fear, favour or prejudice.