[Reader-list] Re-Defining Minorities

[Yogi Sikand]

*Re-Defining Minorities*

* *

*Yoginder Sikand*





Of late there has been much discussion in the media and political circles
about how precisely to define religious minorities in the Indian context.
The Hindutva lobby vociferously advocates that the very category should be
scrapped, alleging that it promotes 'divisiveness' and undermines 'national
unity'. This reflects its visceral hostility to minority rights and its
monolithic, majoritarian understanding of Indian nationalism. Some recent
judgments of the Supreme Courts and state high courts have also tended to
give a very restrictive interpretation of the term 'minority' and of
minority rights, and these, critics argue, have given further impetus to the
Hindutva lobby's case. And now there is talk of the Government perhaps
moving a Constitutional amendment in Parliament to do away with the notion
of national-level minorities and replacing it with a definition that would
specify minorities at the state level instead.



On the face of it, this proposal might sound innocuous, but, as several
minority spokesmen point out, it is a major assault on minority rights.
Mujtaba Farooq of the Jamaat-e Islami Hind, a leading Indian Muslim
organization, describes the possible amendment as a 'conspiracy', and adds
that the fact that the draft of the Bill is still unavailable adds weight to
his contention as the 'secrecy' which surrounds it would provide minority
organizations little time to analyse, critique and protest against it. He
argues that it may well be that the amendment would reflect and reinforce
certain recent judgments of the Supreme Court that he says aim to restrict
minority rights. Suleiman Seth, President of the Indian National League,
echoes the same fears. He contends that sections of the judiciary, the media
and the political class 'are out to do away with India's social, political
and cultural diversity' and sees the proposed amendment as reflecting their
agenda. He describes it as 'being against the spirit of the Indian
Constitution' and as part of a larger process of dilution of minority rights
that he says sections of the judiciary are involved in.



Syed Shahabuddin, former MP and a leading Muslim politician, points out that
in India no community is a majority throughout the country at every level of
governance. Hence, he says, there is a need to define minorities and their
rights at each level, including the panchayat, block, district, state and
national levels, rather than defining them only at the state level, as the
proposed amendment might do. If the amendment is passed, it would lead to a
situation wherein Muslims in Kashmir, a Muslim majority state, would lose
their minority rights and would not enjoy the privileges under Article 30 of
the Indian Constitution regarding educational institutions. A Kashmiri
Muslim would not be considered a member of a minority community when he or
she seeks admission to a Muslim minority educational institution outside
Kashmir. The same anomalous situation would prevail in the case of
Christians in Christian-majority Nagaland and Sikhs in Sikh-majority Punjab,
for instance.



Dr. J.K.Jain, a Jain leader, also voices similar concerns. He argues, 'The
affairs of the country are not being run as per the Preamble of the
Constitution, which talks of social, political and economic justice'. 'We
cannot implement even the first line of the Constitution, and at the same
time there are moves to undermine minority rights through possible
Constitutional amendments as this!', he explains. 'Minorities are being
reduced to the status of beggars, living at the mercy of the state or the
majority for their rights, which are increasingly sought to be curtailed.
Every organ of the state is being pressed into service to insult and
humiliate the minorities and deprive us of our rights', he insists.



Says M.P.Raju, a senior advocate and leading Indian Christian legal scholar,
'Even if the amendment is not made, we still have to raise our voice against
efforts to curtail minority rights by defining minorities at the state
level, in the face of certain recent Supreme Court judgments that seek to
redefine minorities in this way and to do away with the minority character
of an institution if it does not have at least half of its seats filled by
that particular minority. That would, for instance, mean that practically
all Christian educational institutions in north India would at once cease to
be considered as minority institutions as they have well below less than
half Christian students'. He critiques these judgments, most notably in the
T.M. Pai case, as reflecting a 'restrictive, rather than expansive,
interpretation of minority rights'. He argues that if minorities were to
henceforth be defined state-wise rather than at the national level, it would
represent 'over-federalism' as well as a 'non-harmonious interpretation of
the Indian Constitution', adding that minority rights need protection at
both the state as well as national levels.



Besides the ominous implications of the proposed Constitutional amendment
for minority rights, it is the perceived arbitrary manner in which the
Government is said to be going ahead with it that has raised the ire of
human rights and minority rights activists. Surely, the draft of an
amendment of such import must be first made public and publicly discussed
and debated before it can go ahead.





Yoginder Sikand works with the Centre for Jawaharlal Nehru Studies, Jamia
Millia Islamia, New Delhi