Author: Vijay Barve
Publication: Organiser
Date: August 25, 2002
Political Science is a very popular
subject in Indian universities. The curriculum covers various topics, different
theories and so on. However, there is no discussion, or even a mention
of minoritism or majoritism in any textbook or any curriculum.
However, in today's world, whenever
political ideology and governance in a country are discussed, these two
words unfailingly pop up, time and again. In the game of politics, minoritism
and majoritism have become the most popular pawns. No sane person could
have visualized this scenario a few years back! But do not underestimate
the wiles of a politician-who has the uncanny knack of interpreting every
word to suit his purpose! India has a written constitution, which also
lays down the rules of governance. However, when minoritism comes into
the picture, everything else pales into insignificance.
But the crucial question is this:
Who is a minority? For this word, there is no universally acceptable definition.
When you compare one in 99, of course one is in minority. Similarly between
30 and 70, thirty too is minority compared to the bigger figure. And between
49 & 51 (although the difference is only two), mathematically 49 is
in minority!
Consequently, minoritism is quite
difficult to define and understand. If As are small in number compared
to Bs, then they can be termed as minority. However, at which stage A becomes
minority has not been defined-should it be 30% of B or can it even be 70%?
The effect of this is always felt
is the political arena. As there are no rules regarding either the number
or the proportion, disputes arise. And this is the most important reason
leading to a debate, and then a conflict, between the two communities.
The word 'minority gained' currency
after the First World War. When the League of Nations was established in
1919, the USA introduced the concept of minoritism. It must, however, be
noted that this idea has neither been accepted by the US Government nor
is it used in American social life.
Macmillan and Free Press have published
the International Enclycopedia of Social Sciences. In the treatise, the
word minority has been defined as follows: "In any society, it is a group
which is different from the larger group, in terms of race, nationality,
religion or language. Each group thinks it is distinct and looks down upon
the other. As regards political power is concerned, the situation is different.
The minorities are at the mercy of the larger group, which discriminates
against the smaller group."
The aforementioned book also talks
about a "National Minority". Reportedly such groups originated in Europe.
A set of people resided at one place for several years, but lost the political
dominance to people of another nationality. The phrase National Minority
was used to refer to such people, now subjugated to another power.
Thus, while they continue to live
on the same land, persons belonging to a National Minority have lost all
political power. The economic power is used by the government only for
the benefit of the ruling majority. Moreover, this set also decides the
political future of the smaller group. Often, individuals belonging to
the minorities have no voting rights either in the parliamentary elections
or even municipal elections. Sometimes, the minorities are allowed to nominate
a couple of representatives, by way of a token gesture.
At the end of second World War,
the political map of Europe was redrawn. This led to the creation of a
number of minority groups. Before the first World War, European kings fought
each other often, but signed a peace treaty at the end of the war. The
treaty included the following clause : "It will be the responsibility of
the relevant government to provide security to the minorities. But the
ruling government would verify the implementation of this policy." A body
of people living near the borderline areas, and based on their race, language,
etc. were accepted as minorities. For example the Paris Treaty of 1763,
Clause 4 states: "The original residents of Canada have the freedom to
pursue Catholic denomination. Therefore, the Canadians can follow the Roman
Church. Even if these citizens follow the British laws, a clear directive
should be given to enable the new Roman Catholics to pursue their religion".
(The protection of minorities, J.N. Lopex, p. 23)
When the Mughals ruled India, a
special tax (jizia) was imposed on the non-Muslims, particularly on the
Hindus. Similarly, in 1866, the religious minorities in Denmark were required
to make a specific payment to the National Church. Till 1958, a Jew in
the UK could not become a member of the House of Commons. Even today, a
non- Muslim cannot be the President or the Prime Minister in Pakistan as
well as in other Muslim countries.
After the first World War, a minority
was identified based on religion, language as well as race while treaties
were signed guaranteeing their rights. The League of Nations (LoN) had
approved such pacts. Further, the LoN also issued the following directive:
"On one hand, the national government is expected not only to guarantee
security to the minorities, it will also meet their basic needs and will
ensure that the aspirations of the minorities are met. On the other hand,
the minorities will not get involved in any anti-national activities."
After the World War II, more than
religion, language and race became the main criterion for identifying minority
groups. It was further accepted that people of different languages and
races can coexist in a nation. The UN was formed at the end of the World
War II. On December 9, 1948, the General Assembly of the UN passed a resolution:
"It accepted the fundamental right of every human being not only to life
but to live in dignity. The human rights of every person were acknowledged
regardless of the race, religion or language of that individual. After
the Human Rights Commission was established, the word minorities became
rather irrelevant."
The eighth report of the Human Rights
Commission includes the following clause: "The minorities should have the
right to follow their religion, language as well as the culture". (National
Minorities, Lay Land, p. 161). Barring this, no other rights were given
to the minorities. After this stipulation from the Human Rights Commission,
to demand a separate law for the minorities, would be going against the
resolution of the UN.
By studying Indian history, one
realises that the practice of minorities was introduced by the British.
After the war of independence in 1857, the British formalized the concept
of "minorities". On one hand , the British focused on the socially and
economically backward classes of the society and tried to proselytize them
to Christianity. Thus it gained some loyal and committed supporters for
the British Raj. On the other hand, they tried to make divisions in the
Indian society, on the basis of religion. The British purused the policy
of divide and rule.
In 1909, the British Viceroy suggested
to the Aga Khan that since the Muslims are in a minority, they should seek
special rights from the government. The Muslim League was formed in 1906.
Earlier in 1885, the Congress party was founded by Lord Hume, as a part
of the British strategy. By a law passed in 1909, the Muslims were given
two types of votes, for election to the Central Council: First, they could
vote along with the Hindus to elect a common representative. Second, the
Muslims were allowed to vote seperately and choose a representative of
their community. The Hindus had no say in the election of Muslim members.
As per the law passed in 1919, in
addition to having Muslim members, special voting rights were given to
Christians of Madras Presidency, Anglo-Indians of Bengal and Madras as
well as Europeans from all the states, (except Punjab). Similarly, specific
voting rights were provided to non-Brahmins of Madras Presidency.
The British policy of divide and
rule was now fully operational. Thirty- four members were elected to the
Central Legislative Council. But of these, 14 were chosen by different
communities. The same pattern was followed for the legislative assemblies:
52 members were elected by popular vote while 41 came from various communities.
Compared to 1909, as per the legislation of 1919, more Muslim representatives
were allowed. The number of such representatives was totally out of proportion
to the Muslim population.
In 1935, the pattern of communal
representation changed slightly. Now members of the backward class could
also send representatives to the Legislative Council. Seventy-five members
were selected by popular vote while 74 came from specific communities.
Further, 109 seats were reserved for the minorities. The break-up was:
82 for Muslims, 8 for Europeans, 8 for Indian Christians, 4 for Anglo-Indians
and 7 for the Sikhs. Out of the 105 seats to which individuals were selected
by popular vote, 18 were reserved for Harijans.
Nowhere in the world has a group
been sought, and later given the status of a minority. But this was done
in India for the Muslim community. However, it does not make sense for
a group to ask for special rights, in addition to human rights. This issue
gets complicated when the question of religious rights comes up. As per
Articles 25 to 30 of the Indian Constitution, religious and linguistic
freedom is a fundamental right of every citizen.
Before 1947, the Muslims demanded
special rights as a minority community, which were granted to them by the
British. Later Muslim leadership demanded Pakistan, as a free and independent
state. After having secured a separate nation, on the basis of religion,
the Muslims in India have no moral or legal rectitude to seek any special
rights. Pakistan was created for the benefit of the Muslims from India.
However, if an Indian Muslim has the 'minority' mindset, he can never become
an Indian citizen.
After the World War II, the concept
of minoritism / majoritism was rightly replaced by human rights. Therefore,
today any talk of minoritism has no relevance and is utterly absured! An
appeal in this regard is pending with the Supreme Court. After having guaranteed
human rights, the highest court in the land can delete the stipulation
about the minorities in the constitution.
The people who are considered minorities
in India are not discriminated against either politically or socially.
Therefore, there is no justification to offer additional rights or protection
to the minorities. By doing so, the government is infringing on the freedom
of the majority community. In India, even the cultural rights of the Hindus
are often suppressed in the hope that this will protect and sustain the
rights of the minorities.
Whether it is singing Vande Materam
in schools, worshipping goddess Saraswati in a conference of Education
Ministers, using Satyam Shivam Sundaram as the logo for Doordarshan-it
is believed that by discouraging the culture of the majority, the minorities
will feel safer. Hence, the so-called secularists are dying to run down
the customs and culture of the Hindus. Unfortunately, the government which
is supposed to maintain and sustain the Indian values, turns a blind eye
to all this. The bitter truth today is that secularism amounts to giving
undue concessions to the minorities.
Globally, all progressive nations
are giving the highest priority to human rights. But in India, in addition
to providing human rights, the rulers are also actively promoting (minoritism).
This is causing more hostility and antagonism between the two communities.
Members of the larger community are feeling quite uneasy-they tend to feel
that the government is more concerned about the minorities that constitute
only 20% of the population.
In the field of education, public
health and social welfare, the groupism between the different communities
has created such a deep chasm, that national unity may be in jeopardy.
To secure monetary benefits, different groups (ranging from Arya Samaj
to the Jains) have joined the race to qualify as 'minorities'. The government
is exhorting the citizens to be broad-minded and to think beyond religion
and caste. Yet every community or sect is going away from the national
mainstream and is more focused on grabbing the benefits/concessions available
to a 'minority' group.
The metropolis of Mumbai has very
few schools / colleges / hospitals. As a result, individuals belonging
to the majority community find it well neigh impossible to be admitted
to one of these bodies. However, some groups classified themselves as (minorities)
and have promoted a number of such institutions for admission of only their
clan. Members of such (minorities) have got it made and this count is rapidly
going up. Unknowingly, we are promoting casteism and regionalism among
the young, impressionable students.
Setting aside national objectives,
in today's competitive world, more and more persons are forming themselves
into a 'minority' group. If one goes by the concessions and privileges
provided to the convent schools, it appears that the government is working
on behalf of the missionaries, to promote Christianity. Consequently Indian
culture and values are slowly but steadily getting eroded away.
Individuals belonging to the majority
community feel like strangers in their own land, India and their number
is rising. The riots and disputes which take place in the country, are
mostly the result of a conflict between the majority and minority communities.
I believe that the patience of the Hindu community is fast running out
and it is going to be a real challenge to prevent this phenomenon from
gaining ground and get out of hand.
