On April 21, Prime Minister Narendra Modi told an election rally in Rajasthan’s Banswara that the Congress’ manifesto for the general election promises to “calculate the gold [available] with mothers and sisters, get information about it, and then distribute that property”. Curiously, the PM’s statement came just two days before a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court began hearing a case referred to it by two previous benches in 1997 and 2002 on the interpretation of Article 39 related to equitable redistributing of wealth and resources.
Calling it an “urban Naxal” mindset, Modi said, “Mothers and sisters, they will not even spare your mangalsutra. They can stoop to that level. The Congress manifesto says they will calculate the gold with mothers and sisters, get information about it and then distribute that. They will distribute it to whom — Manmohan Singh’s government had said Muslims have the first right on the country’s assets.”
Watch: ‘Congress won’t spare even your mangalsutra’ medium nocaption109504218
He continued: “Earlier, when they [Congress] were in power, they said that Muslims have the first right on the country’s assets. This means to whom will this property be distributed? It will be distributed among those who have more children. It will be distributed to the infiltrators. Should your hard-earned money go to the infiltrators? Do you approve of this?”
What Manmohan Singh had said
To double down on Modi’s claim, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) put out a 22-second video of former PM Manmohan Singh’s speech on his government’s fiscal priorities in December 2006. “The Congress doesn’t trust their own Prime Minister,” the BJP wrote on X.
In the video, Manmohan says, “We will have to devise innovative plans to ensure that minorities, particularly the Muslim minority, are empowered to share equitably in the fruits of development. They must have the first claim on our resources.”
Manmohan’s speech had created a row back in 2006 itself, with the BJP accusing the Congress-led government of Muslim appeasement. Later, the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) released a statement dubbing the controversy as arising out of what it called a “deliberate and mischievous misinterpretation”.
The PMO put out Manmohan’s statement that read: “I believe our collective priorities are clear: agriculture, irrigation and water resources, health, education, critical investment in rural infrastructure, and the essential public investment needs of general infrastructure, along with programmes for the upliftment of SC/STs, Other Backward Classes, minorities, and women and children.
“The component plans for SCs and STs will need to be revitalised. We will have to devise innovative plans to ensure that minorities, particularly the Muslim minority, are empowered to share equitably in the fruits of development. They must have the first claim on resources. The Centre has a myriad other responsibilities whose demands will have to be fitted within the overall resource availability.”
Like Manmohan’s PMO did 17 years ago, the Congress, too, has now hit back at the BJP and Modi, saying they are trying to “divert” attention from real issues.
The manifesto debate
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi linked Modi’s statement to the first phase of voting. “After the disappointment in the first phase of voting, the level of Narendra Modi’s lies has fallen so much that out of fear, he now wants to divert the attention of the public from the issues. Trends have started coming regarding the immense support that Congress’ ‘Revolutionary Manifesto’ is receiving,” he wrote on X.
Meanwhile, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge sought an appointment with Modi to “educate him” on the party’s manifesto.
Wealth redistribution case in apex court
On April 23, the Supreme Court commenced the process for interpretation of Article 39(b) of the Constitution to determine whether this directive principle of state policy provision allows the government to treat and redistribute privately owned properties under the garb of “material resources of the community” for greater common good.
The interpretation will be done by a nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud. The case stems from Justice VR Krishna Iyer’s dissenting view in the Ranganatha Reddy case of 1977 that community resources included private properties and the conflation of the two in later judgments, leading to the matter being referred in February 2002 for interpretation by a nine-judge bench.
Article 39(b) provides that the state shall direct its policy towards securing “that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good”.
Senior Congress leader P Chidambaram, who headed the party’s manifesto committee, said, “Each sentence [of PM Modi] outdid the previous sentence in its absolute falsehood and brazen mendacity. Will the BJP tell the world: a) when and where did the Congress say that we will distribute people’s land, gold and other valuables among Muslims? b) when and where did the Congress say that a survey will be conducted to value the property of individuals, gold held by women and silver owned by tribal families? c) when and where did the Congress say that land and cash belonging to government employees will also be distributed?”
So, what does the manifesto say?
While the Congress’ manifesto does not specifically mention wealth redistribution, it promises to “address the growing inequality of wealth and income through suitable changes in policies” if voted to power.
However, Modi and other BJP leaders have questioned the promises made in the ‘equity’ chapter of the manifesto which has sections on ‘social justice’ and ‘religious and linguistic minorities’. Spread over pages 6-8, the sections talk about social justice in 23 points and religious and linguistic minorities in nine points.
Though a more curious or invested reader may go through the Congress manifesto here, Modi and the BJP’s allegations broadly stem from points 1 and 7 of the ‘social justice’ section and points 1, 2, 3 and 6 of the ‘religious and linguistic minorities’ section.
Watch: Key takeaways from Congress manifesto medium nocaption109070871
Point 1 of the ‘social justice’ section reads, “Congress will conduct a nationwide Socio-Economic and Caste Census to enumerate the castes and sub-castes and their socio-economic conditions. Based on the data, we will strengthen the agenda for affirmative action.”
Point 7 of the same section says, “Congress will establish an authority to monitor the distribution to the poor of government land and surplus land under the land ceiling Acts.”
These points seem to be the trigger for the BJP to accuse the Congress of eyeing “the gold and silver that our mothers and sisters have” for redistribution. While in the broader sense, the Congress manifesto may be suggestive of the idea of equitable distribution of the national resources as expressed in Article 39 of the Constitution, the BJP suspects “a deeper conspiracy” by its rival through measures such as caste and economic census to “calculate” the wealth held by individual households.
The minority appeasement charge
The next question that Modi and the BJP raised is who will be the beneficiaries of the wealth redistribution? This is linked to the manifesto’s ‘religious and linguistic minorities’ section.
TOI quoted a BJP leader as saying that the Congress’ manifesto implied Muslim reservation. Point 3 of the section says, “We will encourage and assist students and youth belonging to the minorities to take full advantage of the growing opportunities in education, employment, business, services, sports, arts and other fields.”
Point 6 says, “We will ensure that the minorities receive their fair share of opportunities in education, healthcare, public employment, public works contracts, skill development, sports and cultural activities without discrimination.”
“If the Congress manifesto had limited itself to just ‘encourage’, then it would have been OK. But how will the Congress ensure? Such language is employed when the intent is to back the promise with legislative action,” the BJP leader said.
Combining the points of the ‘social justice’ and ‘religious and linguistic minorities’ sections, the BJP leader points to an alleged bigger plan of the Congress. “Read together, only one conclusion follows. Congress plans to install Muslim reservation — not just in education and jobs but also in healthcare, public contracts, skill development, cultural activities and even sports,” he says.
The BJP further picks past measures taken by the Congress-led governments at the Centre and in states to emphasise its point.
The BJP says that the Congress’ manifesto for the 2009 general election had promised nationwide reservation for Muslims in jobs and education. The idea was to create a Muslim sub-quota within the 27% OBC quota, it says.
The Congress’ manifesto for the 2014 general election spoke about addressing the condition of backward Muslims by aiming to provide them reservation in educational institutions and government jobs: “We will pursue this matter closely in court to ensure that the policy is implemented through proper legislation.” Its 2019 manifesto avoided such promises.
Now, BJP leaders are alleging that the Congress launched its “pilot project” to introduce Muslim quota in Andhra Pradesh after coming to power in 2004, making four attempts during 2004-10.
“Each time the Andhra HC or SC quashed the pernicious attempts of Congress. Unashamed, the UPA then tried the Muslim reservation at the central level in 2011. Even this attempt was stalled by Andhra HC in 2012 and SC agreed with HC,” a BJP leader told TOI.
The BJP leaders are also referring to the Congress’ promise to reinstate Muslim reservation that the BJP government had scrapped to validate their all-out attack on the grand old party’s 2024 manifesto.
Is there a Rahul connection to Modi’s attack?
In the past year, particularly after the Bihar caste survey, Rahul has been vocal about a national caste census to be followed by an economic mapping at the household level.
On March 9, he put out a tweet in Hindi saying, “The caste survey conducted in Bihar revealed that 88% of the poor come from Dalit, tribal, backward and minority communities. The figures emerging from Bihar are just a small glimpse of the real picture of the country. We do not even have an idea about the conditions in which the poor people of the country are living. That is why we will take two historic steps — caste count, and economic mapping, based on which we will uproot the 50% cap on reservation.”
Three days later, during his Bharat Jodo Nyay Yatra, he said the Congress-led government would hold financial and economic surveys after a nationwide caste census if voted to power. “Caste census and economic and financial surveys… these are revolutionary steps. The Congress will include these in our manifesto,” he said in Maharashtra’s Nandurbar district.
Earlier this month, while releasing the party’s manifesto on April 6 in Hyderabad, he said, “We will hold a financial and institutional survey after that [caste census]. We will find out who holds India’s wealth and what class of people hold it. And after this historic step, we will take revolutionary measures…We will ensure you get what is your right.”
Now, Indian Overseas Congress chairman Sam Pitroda, a key policy adviser of the Congress, has waded into the controversy by advocating an inheritance tax — something the Rajiv Gandhi government had scrapped in 1985 — in India on the lines of the US.
When it was in force, inheritance tax was levied at the peak rate of 85% estate duty. In 2014, Jayant Sinha, then the minister of state for finance, backed the idea of bringing inheritance tax but it didn’t move beyond the idea stage. There was also a wealth tax that the Modi government scrapped in 2015. And, gift tax was withdrawn in 1998 but reintroduced in 2004, levying income tax on gifts to relatives.
Has India redistributed wealth in the past?
The fact is all governments redistribute wealth — through taxation. Those who earn more, pay more to the government, which redistributes that money in the form of direct benefit transfer (DBT), subsidies, social security pensions and welfare schemes for housing, etc.
When India attained Independence, it was a geography of lands belonging to the governments — central and state — and to private individuals who were princely rulers. Through various instruments of accession, the central government became owners of their lands.
A year after the Constitution came into force, the central government brought the First Constitution (Amendment) Act in 1951. The amendment aimed at providing the government with the authority to impose reasonable restrictions on the right to property for land reform and the acquisition of property for public welfare.
Then followed the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951, which came into force from July 1, 1952. It abolished the rights and privileges of the zamindar (landlord) intermediaries, bringing agriculture directly under the control of the government.
Next in line was the land ceiling laws in different states. Such laws defined a family of five members as one unit, which could own a maximum of 10-27 acres of irrigated land and 35-54 acres of dryland. The rest of the land was declared surplus and taken away by the government.
The Indira Gandhi governmnet also brought a Privy Purse law to nationalise the wealth of the former princely houses. Her government nationalised banks and mines.
Also, at least on two occasions, the central governments — both under the Congress — brought what is called the Compulsory Deposit Scheme. Finance minister Morarji Desai introduced this scheme in his 1963 Union Budget and brought a separate bill for this. This came under the shadow of the 1962 India-China war, which saw an Emergency in the country.
The scheme required individuals to deposit their money for a locked period. Central and state government employees had to deposit 3% of their annual income from salaries. Those earning more than ₹6,000 had to deposit 3% of the next ₹6,000 and 2% of the balance.
Individuals earning money from land use had to deposit 50% of the revenue. In urban areas, those with rental income had to deposit 3% of the annual rental value of the immovable property.
The next time, the scheme was brought by the Indira government in 1974, a year before the Emergency was reimposed in the country.
Now, those earning ₹15,000-25,000 were required to deposit 4% of their income. Those earning more had to deposit ₹7,100 plus 18% of the surplus income. A violation drew a fine of 25% of the compulsory deposit.
These were not, however, wealth redistribution measures but legislative measures to control private wealth by the government — a point Modi has raised in his recent speeches while accusing the Congress of planning to “snatch” the hard-earned wealth of the people.