Article 30 and Religious Apartheid in Modern India

Dear All: I stumbled on this article a few weeks back and felt that it deserved wider circulation – especially in the context of the recent discussions and decision by SC on RTE.  I was vaguely aware of the discriminatory nature of Article 30 (which by the way, was the reason behind the Ramkrishna Mission to declare itself a non-Hindu “sect”) but its extent and repercussions shocked me. Below, excerpts from a richly referenced and data-rich critique of this article by Dr Moorthy Muthuswamy…Read on.

*** Excerpts from Religious Apartheid in Modern India by Moorthy Muthuswamy ***

For any emergent or modern nation, it would indeed be downright shameful, and even outright inconceivable to blatantly discriminate against its citizens, especially its majority community. This reminds one of the white apartheid-rule in South Africa.

One may be surprised to learn that in India, of all nations, similar practices are taking place.

Recently, St. Stephen’s College, an elite Christian missionary-controlled higher education institution located in New Delhi shocked many by declaring that it was setting up a quota system that allots 50 percent of its student enrolment for the Christians.

A stunning fact: About 95 percent of the college’s expenses are paid by the taxpayers, with the majority community contributing most of it.[4] Interestingly, according to the 2001 census figures, Christian population in New Delhi constitutes just one percent.[5] Indeed, Indian taxpayers appear to be subsidising the selective empowerment of Christians in St. Stephen’s College at the expense of deserving non-Christians.

A Supreme Court ruling based on Article 30 of the Indian Constitution was used by the St. Stephen’s management to justify these religious discriminations.[6] In 1993, the Government of India notified that the Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Zoroastrians (Parsis) are considered “minority.”[7] Article 30 of the Indian constitution allows religious minority communities regardless of their socio-economic status to allot up to 50 percent of student enrolment and employment for members of their own communities in educational institutions administered by them even if the institutions are getting aid from the government.[8] The definition of minority applies at the national level — meaning that in the Indian states of Mizoram and Punjab where Christians and Sikhs are majorities respectively, and the Hindus are a minority, Article 30 still applies to the Christians and Sikhs in these states as minorities, and the Hindus there as majority.

Christian minorities are also, not surprisingly, getting preferential employment in missionary-controlled educational institutions, again justified on the basis of Article 30. For example, the percentages of teaching staff belonging to the Christian faith in missionary-controlled, but taxpayer-funded American College, Union Christian College and St. Xavier’s College are 66, 83 and 42 respectively.[9] But the percentages of Christians in the state of Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Maharashtra, where these colleges are located are just 7, 19 and 1 respectively,[10] clearly suggesting the role of religious discriminations in hiring. It appears that these lawful discriminatory practices encompass just about all Christian denominations and cut across the nation. The temptation to discriminate is driven by the highly beneficial manner of the reservations as well as by their lawful nature.

If the percentage of missionary-controlled educational institutions is proportional to the Christian minority population percentage, these discriminations, while hardly justifiable for a nation that calls itself “secular,” are unlikely to have an adverse impact. However, here’s the gist of the problem: the 2.3 percent (2001 census figures)[11] Christian minorities control over 22 percent[12] (almost ten times their population percentage) of all educational institutions in India (i.e., over 40,000 of them[13]).
In combination with Article 30, the above statistics state the obvious: The Christians are a privileged minority in India, with the government’s resources — inadvertently, it seems — allocated for their preferred empowerment. Not surprisingly, literacy rate of the Christians in India stands at 80 percent,[14] compared to 65 percent[15] overall. With the missionaries providing nearly 30 percent of the healthcare services in India,[16] employment possibilities for those who convert to Christianity are significantly more than those of non-Christians. In addition, the minority status of missionary-controlled institutions helps them get tax, land allotment and many other benefits.[17]

…The magnitude and scale of these discriminations are staggering. If each missionary-controlled institution has on the average a total of 300 students and staff, and if it discriminates on the average against 10 non-Christian student enrolments and youth employments every year, it translates to about a quarter million discriminatory acts every year. For instance, St. Stephen’s, which has an incoming class of about 400 students every year,[19] allots nearly 200 of these seats exclusively for Christians — i.e., nearly 200 acts of discrimination every year.

…It is useful to quantify the implications of this decision. Assuming on the average a total of 300 students and staff in an institution, for the 40,000 institutions controlled by the missionaries, a grand total of 12 million seats is reached. Hence, a disturbing possibility has arisen as a result of the honoured court’s decision: It has empowered the missionaries to lawfully deny non-Christians from a few millions to about 6 million student enrolments and staff employments every year in institutions likely funded by the government.

…Post 1990s, the religious apartheid practices permitted by Article 30 of India’s constitution have played a primary role in devastating the majority community economically in the southern Indian state of Kerala by marginalising their educational opportunities. The article has given minority-controlled institutions in Kerala legal power to discriminate and to regulate educational access at the expense of the taxpayers. According to Indian academic C. Issac:

“[The] 55 per cent of Hindu population of Kerala controls 11.11 per cent of the state’s bank deposits. On the other hand, the 19 per cent Christian community commands 33.33 per cent and 25 per cent Muslim population retains 55.55 per cent…. The education is one of the major sectors where the organised strength of the minorities in Kerala is used in a covert manner. In this sector the majority [Hindu] community as well as the government together control only 11.11 percent, on the other hand, the church controls 55.55 percent and Muslim religious organisations 33.33 percent of all institutions. At present the professional education sector of Kerala is almost under the full control of the minorities. About 12,000 engineering enrolments and 300 medicine enrolments are in the minority institutions and they are fully controlling the admissions. At present 60 percent of the enrolments in paramedical courses are controlled by the organised minority religious leadership…. In this situation the successive governments are functioning as mere onlookers…. A lion’s share of these aided [government-funded] schools is under minority management.”[44]

Can a parent belonging to the majority community expect his/her sons and daughters, even if they are well-qualified, to receive college education in Kerala? Difficult as it is to get admission in a college, it is unlikely to be lost on many Hindus that they stand a much higher chance, should they convert to one of the privileged minority faiths.

…Clearly, modern and “emergent” India has to do away with Article 30 in the present form.

…This article shouldn’t be viewed as an attack on Christian minorities or a call for undermining their rights, or an effort to stop conversions altogether. The focus of this analysis is about the egregious human rights violations of the 80 percent majority community. By tracing these violations to Article 30 of the Indian constitution, this piece offers ways of addressing this issue objectively and fairly without infringing on anyone’s rights.

*** End of Excerpts ***

The original is a long piece but worth reading in full…Comments & thoughts welcome, as always…

P.S. A relevant excerpt from a recent piece in FirstPost:

The spirit of Article 30 is that it is intended to ensure that minorities are not discriminated against or denied equal treatment. But in practice, it has begun to mean that non-minority institutions can be denied the right to “establish and administer” institutions in their own way.
Article 30 and various court judgments related to it, including the recent one by the Supreme Court on exempting unaided minority institutions from the purview of the 25 percent quota for the poor prescribed under the Right to Education Act, clearly need to be rewritten or even abolished.
It can be abolished for the simple reason that the right of minorities to establish their own institutions is inherent in human rights and citizenship rights. Since any Indian citizen has the right to set up any institution under extant laws of the land, minorities can do so too.

Additional Reading: Why Did The Ramakrishna Mission Say They Are Not Hindus?

Also read: “Pseudo-secularism” at its best?

B Shantanu

Political Activist, Blogger, Advisor to start-ups, Seed investor. One time VC and ex-Diplomat. Failed mushroom farmer; ex Radio Jockey. Currently involved in Reclaiming India - One Step at a Time.

You may also like...

15 Responses

  1. Ashish says:

    @Shantanu
    you make me weep a lot. 🙁

  2. Lara Prerna says:

    The way the article is written, it gives the impression that the christians are cornering most of the aid disbursed by various governments. I very much think that the reality might be quite different. First of all, the author should disclose the source of his information, specially the figures and percentages.

    I have the following queries, can the author or anyone else enlighten me?

    1. What is the total annual expenditure (including the capital expenditure) of the 40000 christian institutions and how much of it is funded by government aid?

    2. What is the total aid disbursed by the said governments, and what is the percentage that goes to christian institutions?

    The answer to these two questions may reveal the actual reality. I very much think that in both cases, the figures may turn out to be a pittance. However, by just mentioning the number of student and staff intake, the article gives a totally different picture.

    Article 30 has got nothing to do with this situation. It is the government policy of “Aid” that needs to be questioned. If anything at all needs to be done, let the government stop giving aid to institutions. I am sure the managements are very much capable of running their institutions without govt aid.

    lp

    @Ashish: Instead of weeping, use your brain.

  3. Malavika says:

    Article 30 has every thing to do with the religious apartheid in India.
    It is against the secular principles and is discriminatory against majority community. Article 30 also is against natural justice. Individuals should have rights not groups. There is no reason article 30 should not apply to all Indians equally rather than just to minorities.

  4. Madhusudan says:

    @Lara Prerna
    your quote : “First of all, the author should disclose the source of his information, specially the figures and percentages.”

    The complete article link has already been provided by the author. Please first go thru it. The statistics has been duly cited with references. Go through it if you may please.

    Below is excerpt from an article written by Mr. Ram Madhav :

    “brings up the insensitivity and irresponsibility of the minority institutions to the fore. They vociferously opposed the RTE Act in the Supreme Court and unlike the other private institutions, succeeded in convincing the Court to exclude them. It doesn’t need great wisdom to state that the minority communities in India have a good number of poor and underprivileged people as members. In fact on many occasions the minority community leaders argue before the same Supreme Court for various rights like SC reservations etc in the name of the poor among their flock. It shows their utter disregard for the poor in their communities that when it comes to providing free education to the children of their own poor they shrug off their responsibility. It shows the minority leadership in true colours. For them only the numbers matter but not the social conditions within their community.”

    He futher adds :
    “It is a sad commentary that the Supreme Court lets them off the hook when it comes to providing basic education to the poor and underprivileged children of their communities. It is well-known that many of the most expensive schools in our country are minority-run schools.”

    Similar issues have also been raised by Mr. R L Francis(President, Poor Christian Liberation Movement) :

    http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=1343

    @Shantanu Sir,
    Sorry, i dont know how to use the tags you have provided for commenting.

  5. Malavika says:

    @Lara,

    1. What is the total annual expenditure (including the capital expenditure) of the 40000 christian institutions and how much of it is funded by government aid?

    We don’t know. But, Hindu institutions get zilch.

    2. What is the total aid disbursed by the said governments, and what is the percentage that goes to christian institutions?

    You should be asking how much of the education aid goes to Hindu Institution Vs Christian/Muslim institutions. Hindu institutions get Nothing from Govt. Total amount spent on education is misleading because that money goes to fund Universities, colleges and schools for
    every one and NOT Hindus exclusively.

  6. B Shantanu says:

    @Ashish: I sympathise/ things are pretty awful…

    @Lara: If you click the source link, you will find the references to the stats.
    Regardless of how much the government spends on Christian institutions, it is wrong because similar amounts (or proportional amounts to be precise) are *not* spent on Hindu institutions. Pl bear in mind that I am *not* advocating government funding of religious-oriented institutions but if it exists, it cannot be specific to a group.
    Malavika has responded to your point #2.
    Article 30 allows perverse government interference in similar institutions that are run by Hindus but is unable to enforce its own policies on “Minority Institutions” while merrily dispensing “aid” (read taxpayer’s money) to them.

    @ Malavika: Well said: “Individuals should have rights not groups.

    @Madhusudan: Thanks for the links and not to worry abt the tags.

  7. Lara Prerna says:

    The above discussion shows how people take everything that is written as the gospel truth and jump to conclusions if it resonates with their own thinking, without analysing the things involved or going deeper into the matter.

    I am reproducing Article 30 of the Constitution herebelow for ready reference:

    30. (1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

    (1A) In making any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of any property of an educational institution established and administered by a minority, referred to in clause (1), the State shall ensure that the amount fixed by or determined under such law for the acquisition of such property is such as would not restrict or abrogate the right guaranteed under that clause.

    (2) The State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language.

    Can anyone tell me how it discriminates against anyone or any group? It does not say that others cannot establish or administer educational institutions.

    It is merely a protective clause to ensure a majority elected government does not trample on the rights of minorities, and in no way impinges on the rights of the majority or anyone else. Only a bigoted mind would think otherwise. And please note that the minority can be by religion or by language.

    The angle of the author of the article (not article 30, but the publication) was entirely different. He dragged Article 30 into the subject matter to showcase how the Christians are misusing it for the purpose of converting Hindus (and others) to Christianity. He used the issues of “Aid” and “taxpayers’ money” merely to incite the gullible, inspite of his caveat at the end of the article.

    The author does sound innocent, but I can’t say if he actually is. His conclusions are absolutely false. In most of the Christian institutions, the services are open to all without any discrimination (the author admits it), no favour is shown to Christians. So what if some institutions like the St. Stephens College have now woken up to the fact that their own community deserves some more help from them ?

    As to the taxpayers money being used, it has nothing to do with Article 30. It is as I have mentioned earlier, the govt’s policies that need to be questioned. Govt. policies are implemented on 3 parameters:
    1. Based on contacts in the higher echelons of the Govt.
    2. Based on money to be earned (bribes) by Govt. functionaries.
    3. As an incentive for vote banks.

    Christians are “generally” backward in the first 2 parameters. So their chances of getting more Aid than others is slim, to say the least. Moreover, most of the Govt employees who implement these policies are the majority Hindus who think in the same way as the blog readers. How far they will be favourable to the minorities can be well imagined.

    My point is only this: that readers should delve deeper and think logically before jumping to conclusions. The world is in turmoil today because we do not have patience or an open mind and follow blindly where our emotions lead. I too have been guilty of such actions many a time.

    Now to answer the points raised by other readers:

    @Malavika & Shantanu: “Individuals should have rights not groups”
    I do not agree with this. Groups are made up of individuals. So they may have rights too. However, they should not supercede individual rights. Keeping that aside, Article 30 does not confer any additional rights on minorities. It merely emphasises the right of establishing educational institutions by minorities (which is available to every citizen or group), so that it is protected. The language of the Article is clear. It is protective and not exclusive.

    @Malavika: “But, Hindu institutions get zilch”. “Hindu institutions get Nothing from Govt”.
    This only shows your ignorance. That is why I have said people should delve deeper. I know more about this issue because I work for a large Hindu Charitable Organization which runs several educational institutions of all hues and sizes. This Org gets several crores of rupees annually as Govt aid. And this is not the only Org. I know of several Hindu institutions being aided by the Govt. Even though I do not know for sure, for reasons I have mentioned above, I believe the Govt aid to Christian institutions as a whole will be much less compared to other institutions. (and I am not including Govt institutions in this)

    @ Shantanu
    Govt does not have discriminatory policy on funding educational institutions. But as I have stated above, the policy is implemented on the parameters I have mentioned above.

    Article 30 does not permit perverse Govt interference in non-minority institutions. But it does protect minorities from such perverse actions. Article 30 cannot be faulted for perverse Govt actions.

    You should remember that the Govt is run by the majority community. It is precisely for this reason Article 30 was included in the Constitution, so that perverse Govt actions would not affect the minorities. Unfortunately, the authors of the Constitution did not think that the majority community needed protection from themselves.

    It all boils down to this. Well meaning people create certain things, meaning well. But, ill meaning people distort and destroy whatever good people have done. That does not mean that the original good things should be discarded. We have to find the ways and means to overpower the bad ones.

    lp

  8. Sid says:

    @Lara,

    “Can anyone tell me how it discriminates against anyone or any group? It does not say that others cannot establish or administer educational institutions.”

    I am pretty sure that paying attention to detail is not your strong suite but I would like to point out that if you could read the links provided by Shantanu, you would have understood. Since you did not, let me take a moment to point that out to you.

    The problems start with article 30. But one needs to read the article 30(1) to understand the root cause. The text begins with “All minorities. whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice”. Why is it about “All minorities”? If secularism and democracy is about equal rights, what is so special about minorities? It does not end here. Read more and you will see that govt goes a step far to ensure that “the amount fixed by or determined under such law for the acquisition of such property is such as would not restrict or abrogate the right guaranteed under that clause”. In other words, as long as you declare yourself as minority, government would also manipulate price of the property so that you dont have problem in acquiring the property. Minority protection? What about the protection of institutions run by majority religion?

    A case in point is Ram Krishna Mission Vs State of West Bengal. After Jyoti Basu govt took over and destroyed whatever good education was left in state-run schools in WB, it trained it’s guns on RKM schools and colleges which, for a long time, were considered one of the best in WB since the schools were built (therefore a threat to hype around missionary schools/colleges since christians were really tiny part of Bengali population and these schools need to survive based on the hype of quality of English based education despite ground evidence to the contrary). So it instigated strikes through teacher unions and then asked calcutta university to demand re-construction of the governing bodies of the affiliated RKM colleges. To cut the long story short (long story was available in the link Shantanu provided at the top of the article), Supreme court declined to provide constitutional shield to RKM since it considered RKM as a Hindu organization. To survive, they declared themselves as non Hindu. In other words, if you run a school that is run with money donated by Hindu citizens and a hostile anti-Hindu govt want to take over, constitution (as well as the judicial machinery) is not there for you (other secular are there to advise you about benifit about secularism).

    Discrimination? Apparently, it exists in the mind of “Hindu chauvinists”. As long as govt pampers to minority and punishes majority for being majority, there is no discrimination. Have to agree.

  9. seadog4227 says:

    Nobody from the earlier era is there to enlighten us as to why these peculiar laws were drafted.
    eg. The Hindu Charitable Endowments Act is singularly responsible for the takeover, misuse and breakdown of thousands of temples.
    Hindus have a peculiar propensity for “overcompensation” in the name of “fairness”; we have a peculiar tendency to hamstring our own causes.

  10. Sid says:

    @seadog4227

    Few hints are left in the construction of various committees that designed various parts of constitution. Likes of KM Munshi/SP Mukherjee were there and we are told that enlightened people were in constituent assembly. Look at other members and member of drafting committee. A muslim league member Md Sadullah was there. What was his qualification? We don’t know. A lot of them (like TT Krishnamachari) were Nehru toadies, Vijayalakshmi Pandit was Nehru’s own sister. BR Ambedkar was repeatedly over-ruled by these cronies through voting process, be it the decision on national language or the name of the new country. Whatever Nehru could not get him to agree on was achieved using Amendment 1 (like the severely restricted definition of freedom of expression or schedule 9 – a bloody scheme pulled on us until supreme court declared it to be unconstitutional in 2007). What his daughter did to constitution is simply beyond the scope of the discussion.

    The only area where BRA pretty much got his choices were fundamental rights. After communists managed to support ’77 janata government, even that area did not remain untouched. Ambedkar/Munshi/Sardar Patel as well as Mohandas Gandhi were the rubber stamps which were used to pass the constitution. Apparently all Indians were equal, some of them were just Nehrus/Gandhis and therefore more equal.

  11. Anonymous says:

    @Lara,
    “I know of several Hindu institutions being aided by the Govt. Even though I do not know for sure, for reasons I have mentioned above, I believe the Govt aid to Christian institutions as a whole will be much less compared to other institutions”

    Can you give some names and Hindu institution that receive govt funding? my convent school St Anns got govt(my parents) money and Land, and used to shill for Christ. In AP Venkateshwara Univ, PAdmavati Univ are run by the TTD Trust and not through govt funds. And worse late YSR forcible took over Chilkulur Balaji Temple and its assets, donated by Hindus. This Hindu money goes into common pool, which funds things like Jerusalem pilgrimage.

    Since Indian Church is the third largest land owner thanks to Colonial oppressors(British), should’nt the govt run its affairs like it does to Hindu temples?

    Again why should a secular state favor ‘some groups’ over others?

  12. lara prerna says:

    @Anonymous
    Type out the following text in google search:
    “List of institutions which receive government aid”

    I did and goggle threw up several lists. If names are any indication, more than 90% (perhaps 95%) of the institutions were Hindu institutions.

    As to your other points, if you read my comment carefully, you will find your answer in the last but one para.

    That all private institutions (educational or otherwise) should have been protected from govt interference is a good thought. That some protected groups should not have been protected because all are not, is perverse logic.

    lp

  13. Malavika says:

    @Lara
    “That all private institutions (educational or otherwise) should have been protected from govt interference is a good thought. That some protected groups should not have been protected because all are not, is perverse logic.”

    Your logic is perverse. You think it is ok to discriminate against Hindus. Some ‘protected groups’ are more equal than others, truly Orwellian.

    B.t.w your Google search of “List of institutions which receive government aid” gives links of US and Canadian govt links.

    Grants.gov – Home
    http://www.grants.gov/

    http://www.collegescholarships.org › College Grants
    T

    http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca › … › Learning › Canada Student Loans and Grants

    http://www.finaid.org/questions/govtaid.phtml

  14. Malavika says:

    @Lara,
    ” goggle threw up several lists. If names are any indication, more than 90% (perhaps 95%) of the institutions were Hindu institutions.”

    Your ‘If’ and ‘perhaps’ are weasel words. Names are NOT indication. Benares Hindu Univ is not a Hindu Inst, it is run by the Govt of India and its students are admitted by common entrance tests like IIT . And Hindus are NOT privileged there. Your understanding of facts and logic is severely lacking.

    You still did not give one Hindu institution which gets Govt funds. The burden of proof for your claim that “Hindus Institutions(not Insts named after Hindus) rests with you.

  15. B Shantanu says:

    All: Gentle warning. No personal comments or abuse please… Thanks