Denying admissions based on religion is unconstitutional, politically driven, and a dangerous move that must be challenged in court
Mohd Ishaq Shah and Mumtaz Ahmad Dar
The recent controversy regarding admissions to various medical courses at Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University (SMVDU) has attracted the attention of every educated person, and the intellectual community in particular. Our minds were drawn to the issue after watching videos circulated by various news agencies and media channels, in which some communally minded individuals were demanding that Muslim candidates be barred from admission. They claimed that the university was established for a particular community and not for the general public.
Perhaps these ill-informed individuals, who may be politically motivated, are unaware that the university’s profile states it was established under an Act of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly in 1999. It receives funding partly from the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board and partly from the Jammu and Kashmir government. The university has recently received a grant of Rs 20 crore under the PM-USHA scheme from the Government of India, and a further Rs 10 crore grant for a research project through the ANRF-PAIR programme with IIT Ropar. Other funding sources include the SMVD Shrine Board, the Jammu and Kashmir government, and the University Grants Commission. The PM-USHA grant originates from the Ministry of Education, Government of India.
In a democratic society, we cannot justify denying students admission on the pretext of caste, creed, colour, or community. Just as institutions run by the Jammu and Kashmir Waqaf Board cannot deny admission to non-Muslim students, despite being funded by the Muslim community, the constitution of the country has specific provisions in this regard. The move against Muslim students’ admission appears more politically motivated than judicially justified. It is obvious that certain politicians are trying to divide society along religious lines. This move can be easily challenged in a court of law, and I am confident these communally minded people would be defeated, with no logical excuse to present before the court.
I would like to intervene in the matter by posing a question: if Muslim students are denied admission at SMVDU, then how can Hindus be justified in receiving admission at BGBSU, IUST, and other such universities that are not fully funded by the government? Justice dictates that to deny a student admission is a cheap tactic and a form of moral degradation. On one hand, so-called nationalists say that Muslims must educate their children to escape orthodoxy and dogmatism. On the other hand, they demand the cancellation of Muslim students’ admissions at SMVDU, particularly for medical courses, which produce skilled doctors who can serve the nation effectively. History shows a considerable number of Hindu scholars have conducted research in Islamic theology, history, and philosophy. Similarly, we have many Muslim scholars who have researched Vedic philosophy and the Hindu religion.
Therefore, communalising education could take us back to prehistoric times when people did not understand what religion truly means. My conscience compels me to say that such ill-minded people, backed by political parties, wish to push us back into a dark era. Their aim is to create illusions about religion, fostering chaos and confusion so that the public’s capacity for reason ceases to function, allowing these political goons to exploit the situation.
Every religion has its own parameters, which undoubtedly vary. But this does not mean there is inherent conflict and controversy among people. An educational institution should be free from religious bias. Whoever deserves a place, based on merit and within the capacity of the institution, must be duly admitted according to criteria laid down by the competent authority. Public sentiment based on religion must be avoided, as institutions have their own parameters for selection. If there is a problem between two groups in society, it should not be reflected in our departments, and especially not in institutions which are considered the bedrock of a functional society.
This is a matter of concern for all stakeholders: parents, students, academicians, and the intellectual sphere at large. It is especially critical for the students whose careers are at stake. The intellectual community, social activists, NGOs, professors, and administrators must come forward to highlight the essence of democratic principles within academic institutions. Religious scholars from both the Hindu and Muslim communities should unite in a joint consensus to end this disparity before it grows and its damaging effects become visible in public and academic institutions.
The Bar Association at the Honourable High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh must take a stand on this issue and place the matter before the Chief Justice so that justice prevails and deserving candidates do not suffer for a fault they did not commit. The Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir must intervene, meeting with the university authorities to ensure these students are not deprived of their fundamental rights; failure to do so will have adverse repercussions for students from all communities.
Last but not least, the public itself must come forward and refute these petty, politically motivated policies, which have nothing to do with the interests of any community. We would like to conclude by appealing to the people to take serious note of this move and confront it with a brave heart, a sharp mind, and a warrior’s courage.
is*******@***il.com