A rethink on majority and minorities…
This post was prompted by an exchange sometime ago on the Freedom Team of India google groups on the subject of “minority protection“.
As we get into the final stages of 2009 Lok Sabha elections, this is an attempt at dissecting this controversial topic and to examine how established political parties have dealt with this touchy subject. I would like to start off with this comment from Sanjeev Sabhlok, in response to points made during the discussion. He wrote (emphasis added):
All of us, each of us, is a minority of one.
Step 1: Let’s begin by ensuring that the liberties of these minorities (each of us) are protected. That should suffice.
If after that anyone attacks any ‘linguistic’ or ‘religious’ minority, we can debate about it separately; it will simply show that step 1 (of ensuring individual liberties and security) has not been done properly, and we can go back to reinforcing step 1.
Can you show me one example where Step 1 – if properly done – is going to be insufficient?
He further asked:
a) What exactly is the protection a religious minority (assuming such a thing exists) needs?
b) And why is it related to being a minority? Why is not covered off under the general protections available to every citizen?
Surely I must be protected equally as you. Why should you get a special protection? And what against? If I assault you then I’ll be picked up under the IPC. If I abuse
you, you can sue me under the law of torts.
.
…and went on to suggest the following draft for consideration as FTI policy:
The strong defence of liberty and uniform enforcement of law and order and laws ensuring equal opportunity would ensure that no minority (no matter what the basis of this ‘minority status’, whether religious, linguistic, geographical or otherwise) would have any fear of oppression from any majority.
In other words, the strongest possible ‘minority rights’ are implicit in the general defence of everyone’s freedoms.
As I was thinking about his remarks, I stumbled on this comment made by Sh Narayana Murthy in a recent interview to Tehelka. Sh Narayana Murthy said:
I have also said that if we start looking at ourselves in terms of a minority, there are zillions of kinds of minorities in this country!
I speak Kannada at home, I am in a minority. If I speak English outside, I’m in a minority. If I’m an engineer, I am in a minority. I can go on creating differences. On the other hand, what is common between you and me is how we can work together.
…and was then alerted to this bit in the BJP Manifesto:
The BJP repudiates the division of Indian society along communal lines which has been fostered by the Congress and the Left in pursuit of their vote-bank politics. Categorisation of communities as ‘minorities’ perpetuates notions of imagined discrimination and victimhood; it reinforces the perception of the ‘minority’ identity as separate from the national identity.
The BJP remains committed to a common Indian identity that transcends community, caste and gender, with every Indian an equal participant in the building of a prosperous nation and an equal beneficiary of that prosperity. Pluralism is a sine qua non for any democracy and the BJP cherishes the diversity that is also the strength of Indian society and lends vibrancy to our national fabric. But pluralism should strengthen, not weaken our national resolve.
This prompted a web crawl of the various party manifestos which proved to be a very interesting exercise. The Congress (I) manifesto had this to say about minorities:
For the first time, a separate Ministry of Minority Affairs was createdin May 2004 and the Rajinder Sachar Committee was set up to look into the social, economic and educational status of the Muslim community in the country. The implementation of the recommendations of the Sachar Committee is already under way and an Equal Opportunity Commission will be established by law. …The Prime Minister’s 15-point programme was launched in June 2006 with physical and financial targets for minorities in all welfare programmes of the Central Government. A special development package for the 90 minority-concentration districts in different states has been introduced.
…The Indian National Congress has pioneered reservations for minorities in Kerala, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh in government employment and education on the basis of their social and economic backwardness. We are committed to adopt this policy at the national level.
What about CPI(M)? The manifesto has a section titled “Minorities” that is clear and unambiguous. It lists various bullet points amongst which:
- …Special initiatives in the sphere of employment,education and health to be undertaken targeting districts where the Muslim population is concentrated
- …As an immediate measure, all OBC Muslims which form the vast majority of the Muslim community to be included in the OBC quota with specific State wise allocations
- Earmarking 15% of priority sector lending by banks for the Muslims;subsidised credit to be ensured for the self-employed Muslim youth
- Promoting the teaching of Urdu in schools
Not to be left behind, Sh Bardhan (CPI) and comrades promise the following in their manifesto:
- Comprehensive plan for Implementation of recommendation of Sachar Committee and Ranganath Commission report
- …Special consideration in granting bank loans.
- …rectify OBC lists, both state-wise and central.
- Recognise Muslim and Christian Dalits for all benefits.
The manifesto concludes with:
CPI will leave no stone unturned to protect and strengthen secular democratic set-up of the country and champion the cause of religious and linguistic minorities.
Jai Ho!
P.S. Curiously (wisely?), the UN Fact Sheet on Minority Rights carefully avoids giving a definition of minority:
What is a minority? Who defines a minority? Who are the beneficiaries of minority rights? these questions and the possible responses thereto have been the subject of a number of studies by experts of the Sub-Commission and lengthy debates in many forums in which minority protection has been addressed. No definite answers have been found and no satisfactory universal definition of the term “minority” has proved acceptable.
Two Questions for all of you:
- Do you agree that it is time to get rid of the notion of “majority” and “minority”?
- Do you feel that the political (and socio-economic) reality in India is ready for such a change?
Related Posts:
Testing the limits of minority appeasement
The ridiculous extremes of pseudo-secularism
I want a “subsidy†to visit Bali
Of Subsidies and Politics of “Secularismâ€
“Pseudo-secularism†at its best?
Another fine example of pseudo-secularism
and an unusual “minority” in Jammu & Kashmir: The forgotten “J†in J&K
Bonus: Muslims Should Come Out of Their Minority Mindsetby Firoz Bakht Ahmed
If you enjoyed this post, pl. consider subscribing to my Daily Feed or the Weekly Newsletter.
P.S. Very relevant conclusion from a recent firstpost article:
…minorities have been defined without any reference to size. Are Parsis minorities? Surely, they are, since there are only a few thousand of them around. Are Muslims minorities? When there are 180 million of them around, making India the second-largest Muslim country in the world? Maulana Abul Kalam Azad didn’t think Muslims were minorities – he called them India’s second majority.
It is also worth remembering that Hinduism is not a monolith which can be deemed a majority in any conventional religious sense. Linguistically, even Hindi, the largest spoken language in India, is not a majority language in India as a whole.
We are a nation of minorities. We should be driven by universal rights, not minority rights.
Basically its the big brother vs. little brother analogy which is being used. Families would over protect little brother by giving certain privileges and protections.
Is it needed for modern society where you have well defined laws and there is widespread media and an educated population?
I don’t think so. But I don’t believe in separate Civil Codes and Article 370 also. Neither do I believe that India and Pakistan can be friends. I do believe that India should take this opportunity and kick the terrorists out of Kashmir once and for all. But I digress….
It is really time to move away from the politics and notions of eternal victimhood.
One interesting fact I did note was that while all the parties (except the BJP) talk of minorities (whether religious or othewise) none of them spoke specifically about the poor. Now, the poor in India are truly the silent minority. These are people who are earning less than $2 a day and form around a third of our population. In their names, we have rural employment schemes and reservation policies. In their names, many a politician and activist shed crocodile tears. But in the last sixty years, how many of them have been helped out of poverty by these schemes? And have we reduced the percentage of people below the poverty line? One point that Vandana Shiva made in a speech was that the average number of calories consumed by the poor Indian has actually decreased with the advent of the economic liberalization and the loss of price support policies (the government had to end subsidies in compliance with WTO).
Namaskar Shantanu,
Please look into this news piece. I am hugely disappointed with the Congress govt. They are ruining the nation.
Muslims have right to establish Shariah Courts: Govt. to Supreme Court
http://www.twocircles.net/2009may11/muslims_have_right_establish_shariah_courts_govt_supreme_court.html
Wonderful article. I can observe one difference between each of these, while NRN, BJP insist that noone is minority, UPA/Communits insists on religious minority, sanjeev sabhlok insists on every individual as minority.
My question to Sanjeev Sabhlok is, when we have minority protection group they can assist minorities breed exponentially using polygamy, they can fund their religious activities by taking money from majority, they can allow them to set up religious courts etc. Now, if we consider individual as minority, we would still not allow him to do polygamy and free jerusalem pilgrimage. In this case, how does it make minority protection redudant. Step 1 is a success but step 2 is a failure. So, its not about comparing individual freedom with minority protection. We have to have a clear stand like NRN and BJP that minoritism should go. You may not want to compare individual freedom with minoritism.
@Haripriya
This is a common phenomenon in democracies across the world. Take for example the US elections, there were groups talking about specific minorities like the Democracts about rights for gays or the Republicans for gun control. But the poor who formed a huge chunk (about 20%) were totally neglected.
It was almost like they were taken for granted. Same situation in the UK. And to think that this happens in the worst economic situation in the world simply shows the moral bankruptcy of all the parties involved.
People of a single race, same background, same food habits almost similar in everything is divided into majority and minority because the way they pray to god is different. Should we get rid of such a notion? Hell yes.
Political /Socio-economic situation will never get into an ideal state to be ready for ANY change in fact. It just needs political will and some support from forward thinking people to bring about the change and rest of the population will fall into the grove if the change is for good.
the discussion is irrelevant.
With the kkkangress set to come to power, its clear that hindu nationalists have no place left in india and should now run and not stop running.
Otherwise, manmohan will come for you and like floyd warns, ‘will send you back to mother in a cardboard box… you better run’!
@ DD and Harapriya: Agree with all the points you have made…The poor are truly a forgotten lot in India.
***
@ Pradip: Thanks for the link…This is a complicated matter…While every community can (in theory) argue that it should have its own personal (civil) laws, problems arise when such laws come in conflict with commonly established norms of decency (the Imrana case being an example). I would therefore be very watchful – and especially worry about instances where such Fatwas clash with the judicial system . The article link does not tell us what the courts thought of decision of the local Panchayat in the Imrana case.
***
@ Nanda: I do believe that Sanjeev’s stand is similar to NRN but I will let him respond.
***
borneveryday: You are right – such a change is hardly going to be easy.
***
AG: Wait till 16th!
Excerpts from: The Secular Class by Dr. Jagdish Tummala, relevant to this particular discussion.
Here is my understanding/stand :
1. No political party is ideologically sound, and committed either to upliftment/equal-opportunity of poor, minorities or any other group/identity. They speak and act in different voices, and sometimes keep matters confused deliberately.
Congress woos Muslims, ‘Seculars’.
BJP woos ‘Hindus’.
Communists woo ?
All parties woo low castes. BSP does it more explicitly.
Regional parties woo regional voters.
2. We need to be clear in our priorities across ‘humanity’, ‘nation’, ‘family’, ‘religion’ …. when there is a conflict of interests. And we need to agree to disagree with each other in this regard.
3. Words like ‘secular’, ‘hindutva’ have different, possibly contradictory or incoherent interpretations/meanings. And political parties ‘deliberately’ keep their stand on the two confused. Things become relatively clearer by observing the kinds of voters a political party attracts. And the kind of things it ‘clearly’ condemns, apologises for, supports, avoids commenting on (eg in their manifestoes).
4. My gut feel says that there should be uniform civil code across a country. (For example, polygamy may be legalised for all under given conditions Or banned for all). However, when I try to think more about this, I cannot find any strong basis. It is not clear why different states/regions should not be ‘free’ to legislate their own laws (as in USA). Based on their cultural considerations for example.
Where should the line be drawn between individual liberty and ‘nation building which requires homogenisation’ ?
‘Unity in diversity’ sounds like a beautiful concepts, and definitely appeals to my gut. But we need to think about ‘unity in what’ and ‘diversity in what’ …. and what is the basis for choosing these. At all points, we need to be clear about out personal priorities, as outlined in ‘2.’ above.
*** COMMENT MOVED HERE ***
*** NOTE by B Shantanu ***
@ Vivek: As I have requested numerous times on this blog, please post comments on appropriate threads. Please use the Google Search box (just below “Friends Conenct” box on the right hand side-bar) to find the right thread or use the “Categories” drop-down menu – at the bottom of the right-hand side bar.
It takes only a minute to do that. You may actually find something interesting you had missed and most importantly, you don’t break the flow of thought on other threads.
***
@ All: Please treat this request seriously. Thank you.
Dear Shantanu and others,
I believe that the discussion above is best supplemented by the draft policy created by the Freedom Team at:
http://freedomteam.in/blog/content/432
You also know, Shantanu, that I’ve partly lost the debate on minorities on FTI because it is claimed that law and order is not uniformly enforced in India and hence we can’t get rid of the Constitutional protection of minorities. Hence the draft FTI policy states, among other things:
===
i) FTI believes that a government must be ‘religion-blind’, ‘caste-blind’, ‘tribe-blind’, ‘language-blind’. In particular, a government has no cause to recognise ‘minorities’ as a specific category using religious (or related) classifications. Indeed, if everyone has equal freedom, then a separate category of ‘minority’ rights are not needed. A strong defence of liberty and the uniform enforcement of laws, as well as the provision of equal opportunity for all would ensure that no minority could harbour any fear from any majority. However, until the rule of law is well-established in India, FTI recommends preservation of Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution, while ensuring that no subsidisation of any religious or other minority takes place.
==
I think people who read your blog should go to the above link and provide their comments as citizens, so the Freedom Team can consider these comments and decide how to address them. Ultimately, the team has to agree to an approach. I’m merely one person out of (potentially) 1500 or more.
I do believe, though, that if a simplification is needed, it is this: FREEDOM SUBJECT TO ACCOUNTABILITY. That is all we need. Anything that tries to dig deeper merely ends up creating false categories. Concepts of secularism, minorities, etc., artificial constructs that confuse rather than enlighten. Stick to freedom with accountability and everything becomes clear.
The sum and essence of freedom is thus: believe and think what you will, but DO only things that do not harm others. Very simple, I think.
I’d like to add that given time constraints I am unable to comment much on this blog, except sporadically, but would be happy to continue this discussion on FTI’s blog linked above, so that people’s views on religious freedom are understood and addressed.
I’d like FTI to design policies that make sense to everyone in India.
Please also note, that unlike ANY other political movement in India’s history so, FTI has a specific place for citizens to provide comment on its draft policies. We want to work WITH you.
FTI aims to be YOUR group; YOUR team. We want to bring the best policies in the world to YOU. So we want to listen to you, as an equal. Ultimately, FTI members will seek to represent you through the hustings. Either in 2014 or beyond. We are preparing hard for that day.
Regards
Sanjeev Sabhlok
http://sanjeev.sabhlokcity.com/breakingfree.html
On p.3 of the Delhi edition of The Hindu, May 26, there is a prominent “advertisement” issued by six Muslim organisations and titled “Muslims in Union Cabinet”.
It congratulates the UPA, states that Muslims voted overwhelmingly for the Congress, and notes that there is only one Muslim amongst the 20 cabinet ministers sworn in on May 22 which is “disproportionately low”. It presumes 67 members in the Union Cabinet and, therefore, in keeping with the Sachar Committee recommendations, asks for and expects at least 11 Muslim ministers.
If this sounds curious:
it probably is.
Go read RC’s take on this.
Check out http://minorityaffairs.gov.in/newsite/schemes/coaching/coaching.htm
(the home page is http://minorityaffairs.gov.in/newsite/index.asp)
———————————
Check out http://www.hindu.com/2009/06/26/stories/2009062661171200.htm:
——————
In other words, public policies that discriminate solely based on religion. And note too that it is not just the poor within the so-called minorities, but also the wealthy, including so-called minorities that as a “minority” are prosperous.
Reject Congress and the likes. DO NOT VOTE TILL WE GET TRUE LEADERS OF CALIBER. Reject BJP also if it throws up leaders like Advani, Rajnath, etc. These people are men of straw. We should only vote for people who are seriously interested in unity and upliftment of Bhartiyas, eradication of caste stigma practiced by BIGOTS and eradication of poverty among Bhartiya. Also, actively preach all Bhartiyas to not to vote for men of straw.
From Join us, RSS tells Muslims, Christians (emphasis mine):
The RSS is an association which started out life with a Hindu leader dedicated to social work. It has fulfilled a gap for Hindus in the absence of the state assuming the commanding height of such responsibility, Hindu has lacked that empathy when their own people have suffered from calamity and misfortune.
The injunction of both the Islamic and Christian religions (not to mention Judaism) is charity and self-sacrifice. This is not to deny that Hindu society does not subscribe to charity because it clearly supports religion through alms and other donations. If the suicide bomber in Islam has given such sacrifices a bad name, the message should not be lost on Hindus that the lack of the total commitment under the RSS ethos. The lack of the total commitment to something to which Muslims and Christians can meaningfully subscribe, makes it unlikely that they will be signing up in any meaningful numbers.
I have already argued that Hindutva and the integral humanism are past their sell by date. The urgent need for the Sangh Parivar is for the revival of a meaningful Hindu identity with whom Muslims and Christians can establish ordered relations. This message by the RSS leaders may be heartfelt but to trundle out such homilies from time to time simply demonstrates their inability to adjust to new realities: the standing of Islam and Christianity in the world of today does not require any affirmation by the RSS.
Participating in a discussion on Islam, Azmi said, “(Islam) is liberal in some countries, moderate in others, intolerant in some and extremist in the others.” This is what is said by the so called secularist Shabana Azmi. She further said that “Discrimination exists against minorities, it exists against women; it exists against Dalits”(in India). All these rantings on a foreign soil. Can we deduce that Islam graduates from liberal to intolerant on the basis of percentage of followers. In a country where it is in minority it becomes liberal and when the percentage increases it metamorphose into intolerance ? Only Azmi can explain….. The full story can be read from the following link.
http://in.yahoo.com/s/144058/nm_ts_hl7
Excerpt from Aren’t we all minorities, Mr Chidambaram? by Vivek Gumaste:
At a conference organised by the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, Chidambaram philosophised: “A nation can ignore its minorities only at its peril. The golden rule in a democracy is that it is the duty of the majority to protect the minority, be it religious, racial or linguistic. It is a self-evident rule. It is a rule that is firmly rooted in the universality of human rights.”
Although Chidambaram added racial and linguistic qualifications to imbue a sense of political correctness to his remarks, it appears to have been an afterthought. There is little doubt, that the basic thrust of his statement was directed at assuaging Muslim sentiments as evidenced by his redundant resurrection of a near forgotten issue that is nearly 17 years old: the Babri Masjid demolition.
…Chidambaram’s statement therefore stands out for two infractions both of which perpetuate a malady that we are striving to erase: one, the use of the term minority that stereotypes a section of our society and two, the ill conceived proposition that all minorities are automatically in need of protection or privileged access. These remarks by Chidambaram as well as the oft quoted contention by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that minorities have the first right on the nation’s resources violate the spirit of the constitution and are diametrically opposed to the course of action advised by the Supreme Court of India as per the Constitution of India.
…
Who actually is a minority in India? The question is perplexing with no single response. India with its myriad communities, castes, religions, languages and races spawns a complex variety of minorities based on these attributes; some display conflicting identities that make them a majority and a minority simultaneously while still others may exhibit traits that condemn them to a double disadvantage. Haven’t we all experienced being a minority at one time or another? Linguistically, even the Tamilian Chidambaram, despite his powerful status, is a minority in the predominantly Hindi-speaking city of New Delhi and may be subject to subtle discrimination.
When the term minority is defined purely in terms of religion, which has been the case in India, it becomes an etymological and social misnomer that smacks of favoritism towards a specific section of society relegating other numerical disadvantaged groups to second class status. One type of minority cannot be more equal than another. Moreover with a religious connotation, there is a real danger of inadvertently converting our secular nation into a theocratic state the Supreme Court cautions in the same above mentioned case:
Even identification of Hindus as a majority is a misleading and unfair conjecture in the pluralistic mosaic of India, the Supreme Court points out:
Worth reading: Muslims and reservations
by Firoz Bakht Ahmed
An excerpt from an Interview of Firoz Bakht Ahmed in which he talks about Jamia Millia’s Minority Status:
Q: How do you look at the role of what are called ‘Muslim leaders’ in this move to have Jamia declared a minority institution?
A: I think they are misguiding the Muslims. Afflicted by educational backwardness, administrative apathy and political expediency, Muslims have been cajoled by almost all politicians but mostly from their own fold, who indulge in mere lip-service only to cry hoarse inside and outside Parliament about the plight of Muslims. The Muslim ‘leadership’ has lost its voice and utility. Most so-called leaders of the Muslims are brokers, who play the politics of vote-banks to acquire state patronage for themselves and their coteries.
Q: In this context, many Muslim ‘leaders’ continue with their demand for separate quotas for Muslims. How do you see this demand?
A. Our myopic political class, ever ready to appear to pander to these ridiculous demands, occasionally throws crumbs at them — their sole motive being to meet their political ends. Furthering the cause of education or ameliorating the lot of poor or building a secular society is out of their radar. They fill their coffers while the community is left to fend for itself. The Indian Muslim ‘leadership’ is characterized by petty mindedness and a narrow outlook so out of tune with reality as to be quite irresponsible.
This demand for separate Muslim quotas is intrinsically discriminatory, and so is the entire politics around minority institutions. Granting minority status might give some people or institutions a temporary financial reprieve, but in the long run it saps their confidence, self esteem and dignity and undermines the quest for building a cohesive society. The very fabric of secularism is torn asunder when a nation starts viewing people or institutions in terms compartments based on ascriptive identities such as religion. The fundamental principles of equality are murdered in broad day light, and it only leads to the balkanization of society.
Excerpts from NAC’s idea of minorities is irrelevant – and dangerous by Sanjeev Nayyar.
..The NAC’s definition of minorities is flawed. The bill uses the word ‘minority’ as the basis for separating one group from another. However, the Indian Constitution does not define the word ‘minority’. The term minority is used in Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution. But the circumstances and environment today are very different from what existed 60-and-odd years ago when the Constitution was written.
The composition of India’s population has substantially changed since 1950; the cumulative experiences since then make it imperative to revisit the meaning of the word minority. It is worth noting that barring India, nowhere in the world is a minority defined by religion.
…According to a Supreme Court judgment of August 2005, “Minority as understood from the constitutional scheme signifies an identifiable group of people or a community who are seen as entitled to protection due to deprivation of its religious, cultural and educational rights by other ‘majority’ communities. Majority here refers to a group or community that is likely to gain political power in elections under a democratic form of governmentâ€.
…Post-independence, the underlying rationale for granting minorities special rights were the following:
Minorities deserved protection of their rights from the majority community, i.e. the Hindus.
The Hindu community was a monolith which voted solely on religious lines
Hindus would force non-Hindus to assimilate into Hindu culture.
It is necessary for a Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court to rethink who is a minority since these assumptions are clearly flawed!
First, Hindu society can be considered a monolith only if it were governed by the equivalent of a Church.
..Two, by its very nature, Sanatan Dharma allows others to assimilate into its culture.
…Three, during the last 64 years, we have seen that the Hindu does not (usually) vote on religious lines, but does so on the basis of government performance, ethnicity, caste and locality.
…Four, the Constitution does not specify a population percentage beyond which a community ceases to be a minority. Muslims, for example, are close to 15% of the population, and growing. They constitute a majority in many pockets of India. They are also in a majority in Jammu & Kashmir, just as Christians are in Meghalaya, Nagaland and Mizoram.
Courtesy SpreadLaw (emphasis added):
Commending his Committee’s Report in the Constituent Assembly on 27 February 1947, Sardar Patel said:
Often you must have heard in various debates in British Parliament that have been held on this question recently and before when it has been claimed on behalf of the British Government that they have a special responsibility – a special obligation – for protection of the minorities. They claim to have more special interest than we have. It is for us to prove that it is a bogus claim, that nobody can be more interested than us in India in the protection of our minorities. Our mission is to satisfy every interest and safeguard the interests of all minorities to their satisfaction within the framework of the overall national interest…. In the long run, it would be in the interest of all to forget that there is anything like a majority or a minority in this country and that in India there is only one community.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2998039.ece?homepage=true
………about Rs. 3,000 crore would be spent on giving tablets and laptops to all Class 10 and 12 pass students of madrasas, the Madhyamik Shiksha Board, the ICSE and the CBSE.
In addition, Muslim girls who pass Class 10 will be given a grant of Rs. 30,000 for their education and marriage. The Chief Secretary said there were around 1 lakh Muslim girls and the scheme would entail an annual expenditure of Rs. 3,000 crore.
To save the Muslim ‘qabristans’ (graveyards) from illegal occupation, boundary walls would be constructed and provision for the same would be made in next year’s budget……….
—————–
Are the madrasas registered? Why not to any pathshalas too? Why only Muslim girls? Why only Muslim graveyards? Why not of shamshanbhumis too?
—————————–
PS http://www.dailypioneer.com/nation/50035-jak-govt-clueless-about-unregistered-madarsas.html
Well-researched post on what is a “minority” by Amit Malviya MUSLIMS ARE NOT THE ONLY MINORITY! from which, these excerpts:
…
Lets look at what Article 29 and 30 have to say:
Article 29 (1): Any section of citizens residing in the territory of India or any part there of having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same.
Article 30 (1): All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutes of their choice.
Article 30 (2): The State shall not, in granting aid to educational institution on the ground that it is under management of minority, whether based on religion or education.
The two Articles above clearly establish that as per constitution religion is at par with language when it comes to establishing the ‘minority’ status.
…
Before we go further, lets look at what the Supreme Court’s 11-judge bench had to say about “who constitutes the minority†in theTMA Pai Foundation case.
“The State is the unit to determine Religious and Linguistic Minorities. This cannot be determined at national level.â€
It adds..
“The opening words of Article 30 (1) make it clear that religious and linguistic minorities have been put on par…. Since the State is regarded as the unit to determine a linguistic minority vis-à -vis Article 30 and since religious minority is on the same footing, the State has to be the unit in relation to which the majority or minority has to be determined.â€
It also says that..
“The determination of who is a minority for the purpose of Article 30 cannot have different meanings depending on who is legislating.â€
It is therefore abundantly clear that state and not the country is the unit to decide the ‘minority’ status and not just religion but language is an equal criterion.
Lets look at some more facts now. You may never have been told about them.
The Hindus who contribute a majority nationally (80.5%) are religious minorities in seven States and one Union Territory of India. These are Jammu & Kashmir (29.6% of population), Punjab (36.9%), Nagaland (7.7%), Mizoram (3.6%), Meghalaya (13.3%), Manipur (46%), Arunachal Pradesh (34.6%) and Lakshadweep (3.7%).
The Supreme Court in another case involving Punjab Government made the majority – minority distinction even more clear.
In the case-involving petitioner Sahil Mittal, who moved the High Court against SGPC, the State of Punjab and Baba Farid University, the Punjab High Court held that Sikhs, even though they may be religious minority in India, are a majority in the State of Punjab since they constitute 59.9% of the population as per 2001 census.
The Punjab Government then challenged the verdict in Supreme Court. This case could have had grave implications for constitutional rights of Hindus in the country as they have been reduced to being minorities in several states and one union territory. The Supreme Court however struck down the plea citing the TMA Pai Foundation judgment.
Excerpts from Muslims are not minorities: Najma’s right, timing is wrong by R Jagannathan May 29, 2014:
…
At the outset, let us be clear that what Heptulla said was on the same lines as her grand uncle Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Education Minister in Nehru’s cabinet. He stoutly opposed partition and saw Indian Muslims as the country’s second majority. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, founder of the Aligarh Muslim University and father of the Muslim modernity project, called Hindus and Muslims “two eyes” of the nation – that is, equal and second to none.
…the concept of minority is the most abused one in the Indian context. Currently, a minority is only defined by arithmetic: if your population is less than 50 percent you are a minority. It doesn’t matter what the actual size of your population is. Look at the absurdity of it all in the Muslim context. First, with a population of around 180 million, Muslims in India are too large to be called a minority. India has the second-largest Muslim population in the world after Indonesia, though Pakistan, with runaway population growth after the break-up with Bangladesh, bids fair to overtake us in the next decade or two. If India’s Muslims were put into a geographically contiguous place, they would be the sixth or seventh largest country in the world.
Second, if a religious group is defined as people professing belief in one god, then Hindus should be classified as several minority religions since every sub-segment has its own gods and belief systems. It is only culturally that Hindus can be defined as one entity, but this definition cannot exclude those who worship Allah or Jesus either. Hindus are hardly a majority if we use the Abrahamic definition of religion and god.
Third, minorities ought to be classified based on their innate ability (or inability) to safeguard their culture or numbers. In the Indian subcontinent, Muslims have grown their numbers everywhere – and faster. So, clearly, there is nothing artificially curbing their growth, their culture and share of the population. If any community is going down in numbers across India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, it is various groups of Hindus – and Heptulla’s Parsis. Muslims may need economic support, education and jobs because they have fallen behind, but not because they are minorities. Maybe their sense of victimhood is what is holding them back.
Fourth, in large, populous countries, minorities cannot be defined only in proportional terms. The actual size of the minority also matters. In a country of one million, 200,000 can be a minority, since the other 800,000 can look threatening. This also makes sense if the 800,000 and 200,000 are both internally homogenous groups. But, in a country of 1.2 billion, to talk of 180 million as a minority is silly.
..
Fifth, all majorities and minorities are contextual – and cannot be defined only on the basis of religion and language, as we do in India. Within the Muslim community, there are many more minorities – like the Shias, the Ahmaddiyas, etc. Then there can be minorities based on class. Then there are minorities based on sexual orientation – gays and lesbians face huge discrimination in all communities, but particularly in Muslim society religious injunctions are used against gays.
Sixth, a smaller relative number should not automatically constitute a minority. Take Brahmins. They constitute a very small minority caste within the larger Hindu whole. But their clout is out of proportion to their numbers. The same goes for Jews in the US. The point is: relative numbers alone do not constitute a minority that needs official protection.
Seventh, minorities can become majorities and vice-versa depending on the geography you use to work out their population numbers. Hindus are a minority in large parts of the north-east and Kashmir. Muslims are a majority (or near majority) in many districts of India, especially in Kerala and some parts of Bihar, UP, West Bengal and Assam. In Kerala, over the next two censuses, the Hindu population could well fall below 50 percent. Even Christians in Kerala worry about their declining proportions and many Kerala churches want their members to have more kids.
The point: it is illogical to work out minorities in large territories like India. There can be numerous local and regional minorities.
…
the only logical way to ensure protection to all minorities is to use the citizen as the fundamental unit to confer rights on.
The individual citizen is the minority to worry about. The individual citizen is the one who needs protection against discrimination, who needs to be the unit for defining poverty and well-being. The remaining minorities are fictional – and serve only a political purpose…