BETWEEN THE Supreme Court order of 1967 declaring that Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) was not a minority institution and the Court’s ruling on Friday overturning it, the institution retained its minority status on account of an Act brought in Parliament by the Indira Gandhi-led Congress government in 1981.

On the side opposing the AMU (Amendment) Bill at the time was, among others, CPI(M) MP Somnath Chatterjee. Those who supported AMU status as a minority institution included the Janata Party’s Ram Jethmalani and Subramanian Swamy, and senior CPI leader Indrajit Gupta.

Both Jethmalani and Swamy would later be associated with the BJP.

The Bill, that restored the university’s minority status, held that AMU had been “established by the Muslims of India” to promote the educational and cultural advancement of Muslims. A challenge to this Act, first filed in the Allahabad High Court in 2006, was what led to the Supreme Court’s order Friday.

Introducing the Bill in the Lok Sabha, Minister of State for Education Sheila Kaul said, “… We are redeeming the pledge that we have given to our Muslim brethren that the historical character of the Aligarh Muslim University will be assured.”

The Congress had made the promise in its manifesto for the 1980 elections.

Significantly, in these polls, Indira Gandhi was trying to win back Muslim support, after the community turned away from the party due to Emergency excesses, particularly forced family planning drives. In the 1977 elections that followed the Emergency, the Congress had been routed.

In her speech, Kaul said the AMU Act of 1920 that had been passed by the Central Legislative Assembly was not “the starting point” of the institution, and that founder Sir Syed Ahmed Khan had set the ball rolling for its formation as early as 1870, when he realised that “the backwardness of the Muslim community in India was mainly due to the neglect of modern education”.

Kaul also said that Indian Muslims had long been concerned that the Act did not recognise this genesis of AMU and wanted it amended. Moving the amendment, she said, “A fact of history is something which laws cannot alter.”

While most speakers welcomed the Bill, CPI(M) leader Somnath Chatterjee argued that the proposed amendment would dilute “the secular character” of the university. Conceding that special care should be taken of minorities, Chatterjee said: “So far as educational institutions are concerned, we want that they should be free from narrow or sectarian outlook or control… which does not help maintain secular and democratic character of such institutions.”

He added that while AMU should enable the promotion of Muslim culture and education, it has to also maintain “its essential secular character, which alone can maintain its true tradition and help in the real advancement of Muslims”. Asserting that he respected the sentiments of “Muslim brothers and sisters”, Chatterjee said he was sure they did not want to make “this great university the exclusive preserve of any one section or community”.

Demanding that the Bill be sent to a Select Committee, the CPI(M) leader also noted that the university had been brought into existence by an Act of Parliament. “Can what was done in 1920 be undone by legislation like this?” he said, asking if the House could “restore” a character that was not there in the beginning.

Among the apprehensions Chatterjee raised was what the amendment could do to AMU, including leading to its control by “a coterie of theologians and zamindars”, or “communalists and vested interests”. “We have seen from our experience that whenever and wherever a minority character had been conceded to an institution… its functions had been conducted on an undemocratic line… Once this control is conceded… we find there is no protection for employees. No standard of teaching….”

Chatterjee added that the Bill establishes the AMU court as the supreme body, above the Executive Council of the university. “The (AMU) court will decide what will be its composition. Six representatives of Muslim colleges of learning to be elected… Here only the representatives of Muslim theological schools are expected to be elected. Chairman of Waqf Board to be elected by the court, who have nothing to do with educational institutions as such.”

Adding that “nobody can accuse my party of supporting any communal organisation”, the CPI(M) leader pointed out there was already talk of an Aligarh Hindu University as a counter to AMU.

H K L Bhagat of the Congress spoke after Chatterjee, and was repeatedly interjected by the CPI(M) leader in his arguments in support of the Bill.

The CPI’s Indrajit Gupta also supported the legislation, saying investing AMU with a minority character was an important gesture that the Muslim community would welcome.

Jethmalani said he supported minority status for AMU, but criticised the Bill for falling short of explicitly stating that it was a university established “by Muslims for Muslims”. He differed with Chatterjee on regulation, saying powers of the Centre to maintain conditions of employment and teaching remained intact even for a minority institution, but felt that the Bill did not offer concrete guidelines for the same.

Ironically, where Jethmalani faulted AMU was in its “failure” to maintain its “pristine” nature, by allowing teaching of “political, social or economic doctrine… inconsistent with the teachings of Islam”. The administrators of the university should have the right to eliminate such teaching, Jethmalani said, going on to target the Left. “And if those who are incharge of… administering this university regard Communism inconsistent with Islam, it shall be their duty to exclude it from the teaching.” Jethmalani added that the Bill should state that those going to the university shall be taught to worship only one God… “and not worldly gods on this Earth below”.

He then went on to call the Bill a “fraud” on Article 30, ending by saying: “I have warned the Muslims of India, but, sir, it is up to them to decide.”

Arif Mohammad Khan, the then Congress leader who later moved to the BJP and is currently Kerala Governor, backed the Bill, praising India’s Hindu majority for its “largeheartedness”.

Subramanian Swamy’s argument was somewhat similar to Jethmalani, in recognising AMU as an institution by Muslims and for Muslims “in its broad content”, and in his warnings of “Marxist” control. But he believed that the Bill might pave the way for the latter to end.

“… so far, the Aligarh Muslim University, particularly the academic side, appointment side and the faculty side, has been dominated by two or three families. These two or three families have a special liking for Marxist Communist Party. What would happen after the new structural changes… is that there will be loss of power for these two or three families.”

Swamy added that these structural changes would hurt the oligarchy “trying to convert it (AMU) into an Afghanistan for its own purposes”.

Deputy Speaker G Lakshmanan quipped, “I would very much appreciate it if Swamy’s party enters the university and replaces the Marxists.”

Swamy ended by saying that the Bill should explicitly state that AMU is an educational institution established and administered by Muslims within the meaning of Article 30 (1) of the Constitution.

After the debate, the legislation was passed by the Lower House.