The proportion of Muslims in the population of India is about 14.2 per cent. But the number of Muslim MPs in the Lok Sabha has usually been less than 6 per cent, less than half of their share in population. A similar situation prevails in most State Assemblies. Three students drew different conclusions from this fact. Write down whether and why you agree or disagree with each of them.
Hilal: This demonstrates the unfairness of the FPTP system. We should have opted for PR system.
I agree with Hilal. The context shows that the FPTP system often creates a disparity between vote share and seat share. For example, in the 1984 elections, the BJP secured 7.4% of votes but won less than 1% of seats. Since Muslims are spread across the country, they may not be sufficiently concentrated in specific constituencies to influence a victory, leading to under-representation. A PR system would ensure representation is proportional to the votes received.
Arif: This shows the wisdom of granting reservations to SC and ST. What is needed is a reservation of seats for Muslims on the same lines as for SC and ST.
I disagree with Arif. While the context explains that reservation is granted to SCs and STs because they are spread across the country and may not influence victories in individual constituencies, it explicitly shows that such provisions were rejected for Muslims. The quote by Tajamul Husain in the Constituent Assembly argues against separate electorates or reservation for Muslims, stating they are a "curse" and that the community wants to merge in the nation.
Saba: There is no point in talking about Muslims as a whole. Muslim women are not going to get any share in any of these systems. We need a separate quota for Muslim women.
I disagree with Saba. The provided context does not contain any information or arguments to support a separate quota for Muslim women. It focuses on the representation of the Muslim community as a whole and the historical decision to reject separate electorates. The text discusses reservation for SCs and STs but does not provide a basis for Saba's specific conclusion regarding women's quotas.
Explanation
The answer evaluates each student's conclusion strictly based on the provided textbook context. For Hilal, the 1984 election data in the text proves FPTP can distort seat shares relative to vote shares, validating his concern. For Arif, the text provides the specific counter-argument used by Tajamul Husain against religious reservations, invalidating his conclusion. For Saba, the text is silent on the issue of women's quotas, making her conclusion unsupported by the provided facts.