*** 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?

This will very likely be a 2-part chat. The topics that I intend to touch upon are:

• An Overview of Indian History
• Why Bother with History?
• What could be wrong with History?
• The History that is Not Told
• The History that is Distorted
• The Conspicuous Omissions
• The State of History in India and finally,
• What can you Do?

I will start by sharing some specific facts & ideas related to the sub-topics above. This will be followed by a moderated Q&A. Please use the hashtag #itihAs while mentioning this chat on twitter. This will help us aggregate & view the comments later..

“ItihAs: A Discussion on Indian History, its Omissions and Distortions”

Time: 8pm IST
Date: 10th Mar ’12 (Saturday)

Please do leave a note below (via comments) if you have a specific question or wish me to address a specific point.

***

***
There are entire categories of posts on Indian History on the blog if you want to read something by way of background…If you plan to join, please note the time and make sure you are online a few minutes before we initiate the chat.

You should be able to set a reminder in the box above by entering your email. Looking forward to seeing many of you online this Saturday evening…Jai Hind, Jai Bharat!

Past live chats are here (archived; can be “replayed”):

20th Jan ’12 on Youth, Politics and Systemic Change

3rd Jan ’12 on Illegal Infiltration and Impact on Demographics in North-East

29th Nov ’11 on Corruption, in conjunction with Indian Army Fans

5th Jun ’11 on Midnight Drama and Police Action at Ramlila Maidan

22nd Mar ’11 on Arunachal, Tibet and China

2nd Jul ’10 on Media and Distortions

2nd Oct ’10 on J&K

21st Nov ’10 on Corruption and What can You and I do?

In 1888, a high court in Allahabad ruled that cows are not “sacred” animals as defined in section 295 of the Indian Penal Code and Muslims could not be held accountable for slaughtering them. (1).

There are accounts from colonial times of Muslims slaughtering cows during Bakr-Id festival although there is no religious decree to support cow slaughter (In fact, the Supreme Court in Mohammad Hanif Qureshi Vs. State of Bihar in 1958 had held that the Muslims had no religious right to kill cows on Bakr-Id).  Although some argue that the cow was merely used as a symbol for mobilizing Hindu opinion by Arya Samaj and other leaders of the movement, the fact that it spread rapidly over large parts of India in a day and age where communication and travel was very difficult is indicative of the underlying strength of emotions towards this animal.

In the 1870s, cow protection movements spread rapidly in the Punjab, the North-West provinces, Awadh and Rohilkhand. Arya Samaj had a tremendous role in skillfully converting this sentiment into a national movement. The first Gaurakshini sabha (cow protection society) was established in the Punjab in 1882.(2) The movement spread rapidly all over North India and to Bengal,Bombay, Madras and other central provinces.

It has been mentioned that

Signatures, up to 350,000 in some places, were collected to demand a ban on cow sacrifice.(3)

The strong sentiment around cow-slaughter – and Mahatma Gandhi’s strong views on the matter – led to its inclusion in Constitution under Article 48 (Part IV; Directive Principles of State Policy) which states that: (the) State shall preserve and improve the breeds and prohibit the slaughter of cows, calves and other cows and drought cattle.

It has also been mentioned that when this issue was being debated in Parliament, many wanted a total ban on cow slaughter but this was opposed by Nehru and thus a compromise was reached by including it in terms of Directive Principles. I do not have sufficient references (also see #164) to back this up but hope to find links to debate/discussion in Constituent Assembly on this matter. However, it appears that during the debate in the Constituent Assembly at least some Muslim Members (Mr. Z.H. Lari and Syed Mohammad Saidulla?) were willing for cow slaughter prohibition to be kept as a Fundamental Right.  Regardless of the deliberations in Constituent Assembly – and since then – the cow continues to be an object of great reverence and is widely considered sacred – cutting across castes and regions in India.  Laws banning slaughter of cow and its progeny have been promulgated in almost all states in India except Paschim Banga, Kerala, Nagaland and Meghalaya (the latter two have a predominant Christian population). The ban on cow slaughter was in news last year too when the government of Karnataka passed a law that prohibiting the slaughter of buffaloes along with cow and its progeny (a law protecting the cow was already in force in Karnataka since earlier).  And as noted above, this has been in news once again prompted by a move by the government in MP to seek punishment of up to 7 years for slaughter of cow (note the punishment is not for consumption of beef but for slaughter of cow).

The  cow and bullock have a venerated place in the ancient traditions of Bharat. The cow  is referred to by various names in the Vedas including Aditi, KamaDhenu and Aghnya (that which cannot be killed). Other than its milk and by-products, a cow has numerous “economic” uses. Cow dung is known to act as an anti-septic and reportedly acts as an air purifier when burnt. It also acts as a coolant when mixed with mud and applied to walls of dwellings. There is also some evidence to suggest that the chemical composition of cow-urine may have medicinal properties (and may play a part in cancer therapy).

One of the many names of Bhagwaan ShriKrishna’s is “Gopal” (Protector of Cows).  Muhammad Ghori was apparently pardoned by Prithviraj Chauhan when he asked to be treated like a “cow” (unfortunately I don’t have full & reliable references). There are records to suggest that Akbar issued firmans prohibiting cow-slaughter to respect the sentiments of the large Hindu population during his reign. This “ban” continued during the reign Jehangir and ShahJahan. The cow may also have been one of the triggers for the uprising against the British in 1857.

Before we proceed any further, it would be instructive to read the judgement of the Supreme Court in the landmark case on this matter, Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Others vs The State Of Bihar(& Others), April, 1958 (emphasis added):

So approaching and analysing the problem, we have reached the conclusion (i) that a total ban on the slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows and calves of she-buffaloes, male and female, is quite reasonable and valid and is in consonance with the directive principles laid down in Art. 48, (ii) that a total ban on the slaughter of she-buffaloes or breeding bulls or working bullocks (cattle as well as buffaloes) as long as they are as milch or draught cattle is also reasonable and valid and (iii) that a total ban on the slaughter of she- buffaloes, bulls and bullocks (cattle or buffalo) after they cease to be capable of yielding milk or of breeding or working as draught animals cannot be supported as reasonable in the interest of the general public.

Note that while the Directive Principles are unenforceable by themselves but constitutionality of laws is usually examined in the light of directive principles.  Even stronger than the 1958 ruling, is this conclusion from a (relatively) recent judgement by the Supreme Court (from 2005) in the case of State Of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab (emphasis added):

In the case before us, we have material in abundance justifying the need to alter the flow of judicial opinion.…Independent India, having got rid of the shackles of foreign rule, was not even 11 years old then. Since then, the Indian economy has made much headway and gained a foothold internationally. Constitutional jurisprudence has indeed changed from what it was in 1958, as pointed out earlier. Our socio-economic scenario has progressed from being gloomy to a shining one, full of hopes and expectations and determinations for present and future. Our economy is steadily moving towards prosperity in a planned way through five year plans, nine of which have been accomplished and tenth is under way. We deal with the findings in Quareshi-I seriatim.

Finding 1 :…So far as the State of Gujarat is concerned, we have already noticed, while dealing with the documentary evidence available on record, that fodder shortage is not a problem so far as this state is concerned and cow progeny, the slaughtering whereof has already shown a downward trend during the recent years, can very well be fed and maintained without causing any wasteful drain on the feed requisite for active milch, breeding and draught cattle.…the documentary evidence available on record shows that beef contributes only 1.3% of the total meat consumption pattern of the Indian society. Butchers are not prohibited from slaughtering animals other than the cattle belonging to cow progeny. Consequently, only a part of their activity has been prohibited. They can continue with their activity of slaughtering other animals. Even if it results in slight inconvenience, it is liable to be ignored if the prohibition is found to be in the interest of economy and social needs of the country

Finding 3 : 47 years since, it is futile to think that meat originating from cow progeny can be the only staple food or protein diet for the poor population of the country. ‘…The real problem, facing India, is not the availability of food, staple food and protein rich diet; the real problem is its unequal distribution. The real challenge comes from the slow growth of purchasing power of the people and lack of adequate employment opportunities. ….It will, therefore, not be correct to say that poor will suffer in availing staple food and nutritional diet only because slaughter of cow progeny was prohibited.

Finding 4 :…For multiple reasons which we have stated in very many details while dealing with Question-6 in Part II of the judgment, we have found that bulls and bullocks do not become useless merely by crossing a particular age. The Statement of Objects and Reasons, apart from other evidence available, clearly conveys that cow and her progeny constitute the backbone of Indian agriculture and economy. …This Statement of Objects and Reasons tilts the balance in favour of the constitutional validity of the impugned enactment. …

In the light of the material available in abundance before us, there is no escape from the conclusion that the protection conferred by impugned enactment on cow progeny is needed in the interest of Nation’s economy. Merely because it may cause ‘inconvenience’ or some ‘dislocation’ to the butchers, restriction imposed by the impugned enactment does not cease to be in the interest of the general public.

The former must yield to the latter.…The Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994 (Gujarat Act No. 4 of 1994) is held to be intra vires the Constitution.

Let us now look at the “rational” or “liberal” argument against a ban on cow slaughter:

1] That Hindus ate beef in the past – as mentioned in the Vedas. The first point against this argument is the fact that there are contradictory statements within the Vedas regarding “beef eating”. Very likely, these are the result of incorrect and improper translation (e.g. see this post on Agniveer.com) and therefore cannot be relied on as being authoritative. But even if one was to assume so – for the sake of argument – this is a bad argument because not all past practices are carried over to current times (neither should they be; e.g. past practice of not dining or marrying outside the “jati”). The second (important) point to note (and ask) re. the Vedic references is: are these references really laudatory – and praiseworthy – or are “beef-eaters” looked down upon? Furthermore, most (all?) references are to the meat of the bull – not cow; and even of there were references to cow, they refer to a sterile cow; also see part II of the post on Agniveer)

2] The second “liberal” argument against a ban on cow slaughter is that the state shall not dictate what I can and cannot eat; that the only reason the state can impose its views on such matters is if you harm others in this process, or if doing so will harm the environment. A good illustration of this argument is in this post by Sanjeev Sabhlok (also FTI colleague):

If eating beef is not lethal and it doesn’t kill others, then there is no cause to interfere in the freedoms of others to eat beef.

Now substitute “eating beef” with “taking drugs” or “having multiple wives” – and you will begin to see why this argument looks somewhat shaky. Freedom cannot be absolute – and is usually circumscribed by prevailing social norms and expectations. If such expectations overwhelmingly treat the cow as an object of reverence – or if there is general social revulsion towards slaughter of a particular animal – perhaps there is case to be made for a law banning slaughter of cows?

It is obvious that cow-slaughter arouses strong emotions in people. Bear in mind that people elect a government (in a democracy) to make/propose laws and take decisions that represent the collective will of the society (in addition to maintaining their safety and security). In a democracy, laws will usually be a manifestation of how the society wishes to govern itself (including in the form of a Constitution) – and are usually based on traditions and norms. If the society and the community wishes that the slaughter of cow ought to be prohibited in a land where it has been worshiped and held sacred for millennia, is that not a good reason for having such a law? Unless public opinion change to such a degree where such a ban becomes irrelevant?

I am tempted to point out that another argument (which is sometimes) used in this discussion – along the lines of “let society decide on its own to not eat beef, if it so wishes, but governments should have no role to play in this” – would mean government should have no role in banning untouchability or demands for dowry, right?

Please note that a nuanced argument can be made supporting a ban on cow-slaughter while maintaining neutrality with regards beef consumption (this would mean – for instance – that restaurants are free to import beef and serve it to their customers).  Anyway, enough food for thoughts for now, I guess. I will stop at this point – with the caveat that my thoughts on this matter are still evolving. Therefore, happy to be challenged, contradicted and of course supported!  Comments and thoughts, welcome as always

P.S. While I am broadly supportive of the government’s bill in MP, I worry seriously about the apparent “presumption” of guilt and putting the onus on the accused to prove his or her innocence (these are also the reasons – among others – on why I worry about the Communal Violence Bill and an all-powerful “Jan Lokpal”).

References/ Supporting Documents (the three below, courtesy Wikipedia; have not been independently verified):

1. “Religious Nationalism, Hindus and Muslims in India”, Peter van der Veer, pp. 83 and 86, 91 and 92 ISBN 0520082567
2. “The Making of an Indian Metropolis, Colonial governance and public culture in Bombay”, 1890/1920, Prashant Kidambi, p. 176, ISBN 9780754656128
3. “Vishnu’s crowded temple, India since the great rebellion”, pp. 67-69, Maria Misra, 2008, Yale University Press, ISBN 9780300137217

Here is a richly linked and referenced web-page on the history and background to this question and the matter of cow slaughter

Here is an unusual case for eating beef – from a Hindu perspective and a case for cow slaughter – from an economic perspective (this also has an excerpt that suggests Swami Vivekananda reportedly favoured beef-consumption).

Surprising Find of the Day: the following quote attributed to Mahatma Gandhi (December 1927):

As for me, not even to win Swaraj, will I renounce my principle of cow protection.

Related Posts: If Muslims revered cattle – excerpt and  Of “Sacred Bulls”, Divinity & Development

Also see: This is funny.. and the Deoband fatwa on “beef-eating”

P.P.S. I was not aware that certain types of meat consumption is banned in Australia (so I guess Hindus are the not the only ones who are irrational!):

RSPCA Australia believes the consumption of cat and dog meat should be expressly prohibited in statute. Cats and dogs hold a specific place in Australian society as companion animals. Eating cats and dogs is therefore offensive to mainstream Australian cultural values. RSPCA Australia believes that state governments should follow the lead of South Australia and create specific offences for eating cats and dogs...

Additional (suggested) Readings: Eating less meat may help save the planet and Eating red meat may be really bad for you..

I don’t know how this man Narayana Murthy gets the audacity to lecture to others about doing something.

For nine years now I have been trying to get him (or Nandan Nilikani) interested in CITIZENSHIP – namely, in the process of active participation in the affairs of their nation. Numerous email communications I’ve had with both of them ..I even met both of them. They pretend to be “supportive” of the ideas I advocate but then do nothing.

One of them even asked me to consider joining an existing party to which I responded that I have something valuable: self-respect. Something they don’t seem to either have or understand. Their “honesty” means nothing if it doesn’t translate into self-respect.

…Unfortunately (for India and for their own reputation), they don’t seem to notice any discrepancy in LECTURING others even as they sit on the sideline as smug observers.

…During the lecture Murthy gave a few days ago he is reported to have said that the biggest malady of the country at present was the apathy to social problems. “We feel that problems surrounding us belong to somebody else. We do not take action or rather postpone the decision”.

Nicely said, Mr Murthy, but SINCE WHEN HAVE YOU DONE ANYTHING ABOUT INDIA’S PROBLEMS? Only complain endlessly (or bribe the corrupt?).

The ONLY thing I’ve seen from you in the last nine years are lectures. I’m sorry to be publicly saying this but I’ve formed the view that you are a TIGHT FISTED STINGY MAN WHO IS EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY SUPPORTING INDIA’S CORRUPT SOCIALIST PARTIES.

Why is it that you fear to build or support a political opposition that wants to fix India’s governance? Why not be a citizen instead of being a carping, stingy old man? Why is it that NOT A SINGLE PAISA has been spent by you in supporting the right cause?

Prior to you I met many Indian origin CEOs of IT companies in the Silicon Valley. Same result. TOTAL APATHY.

These are not Indians. They are BLOOD SUCKERS OF INDIA – who will exploit India for all they can but give back nothing in return. They will leave behind a WORSE INDIA than when they were born. That will be their legacy – of DO NOTHINGS.

In THIRTEEN years (fourteen in February 2012) since I’ve been fighting to establish a classical liberal political party in India not ONE so-called “honest” CEO has bothered to even inquire in some detail about how we can transform India.

And not ONE paisa spent. Not one. All hot air and mindless talk.

If you want your reputation to go down well in India’s history, please do something. Or BE QUIET, now. I’m getting a bit sick of all this.

Also read: Narayana Murthy – the most apathetic of them all (by Sanjeev)

and … On Politics, Corruption and FTI, Why bother with politics? and FTI comes of age on this blog

***

***

As I stress towards the end of the seminar (and in the slides), this is work in progress. So suggestions, corrections and modifications will be garetfully acknowlegded and incorporated.   Thanks. Jai Hind, Jai Bharat!

Related Posts:  Hindutva and Liberalism, “Sukhasya moolam Dharmah”

Why I am a proud nationalist,

Understanding Raj-Dharma – Part I and Part 2

Somewhat Related: “People are the Nation” – Excerpts