Defining Minorities In
A Democratic SetupBy Ram Puniyani
10 October, 2005
Countercurrents.orgIndian democracy was the outcome of the freedom movement, which in turn was based on the values of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity (community). During the freedom movement there were marginal streams which did not subscribe to these values and they stood out as Muslim League on one side and Hindu Mahasabha and RSS on the other. The Indian nation inherited the celebratory ethos of pluralism and diversity. Few sections whose interests stood to be threatened due to democracy and accompanying social and political relations did raise hula boo about their religion coming under the threat. Indian constitution, like most of the progressive modern constitutions provided the concept of affirmative action for weaker sections of society (SCs and STs) and certain other type of provisions for security of minorities (religious, linguistic and ethnic). Later to keep in tune with the concurrent developments and articulations in the concepts of human rights, India did endorse the recommendations of various UN bodies on this issue.
The idea of these was that the religious, ethnic or linguistic groups which are numerically smaller should not feel intimidated, should not feel out of the place and should feel free from the fear of being swept aside by the dominance of majority community. Indian constitution while giving the minority status to the religious denominations did recognize most of the religions with smaller following as minorities. The base of this provision was numerical weakness and social disadvantage due to various reasons. Accordingly Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Parsis and Jews amongst others were logical religious minorities. Some religions, like Jainsim, were initially denied this minority status as the dominant political forces asserted that it is not an independent religion but is a mere sect of Hinduism. The statement by Sudarshan that Sikhism is a sect of Hinduism did create turmoil in large section of Sikh community.
Whatever be the position of Indian Constitution, RSS, which does not subscribe to the values of Indian constitution, naturally stands opposed to that. It is in this context that RSS Chief K.Sudarshan, who earlier had asked for doing away with this constitution and bringing in the one based on Holy Hindu books, has gone on to lay down a new basis of the concept of minorities. As per him, (I.E. Sept. 30, 2005) Parsis and Jews are the only religions, which are minorities, as these are the only people who have come from 'outside'. By doing this, through a clever maneuver the whole notion and basis of minorities is turned upside down, its purpose is thrown to the wind and 'insider-outsider' duo is used to define and label the minorities.
This is a dangerous terrain. The concept of outsider-insider is problematic on several scores. To begin with what is the cut off date of this label? As per the ideas of founding fathers of our state, all those living here are insiders, the lawful, equal citizens. History has witnessed different communities migrating from one part of the globe to the other and making that its home. In case of India despite the 'intellectual' jugglery performed by Golawalkar and later Hindutva ideologues the current understanding is that Aryans came here in the series of waves of migration. Tilak began with the theory of Arctic home of Aryans, Golwalkar went to change it to state that Arctic home was right here in Bihar and Orissa region and later this landmass shifted northwards, leaving behind the Aryans as the original inhabitants of India. To substantiate this intellectual feat by modern techniques, one computer scientist, who also duplicates as Hindutva ideologue, N.S. Rajaram, went on to manipulate the seal of bull found in Mohanjodaro. The head of bull was substituted by the head of horse; the animal associated with Aryans, so as to prove that Aryans were the natives of this land and so are the logical owners of this land. All this has been done Golwalkar onwards to prove that Aryan Hindus are the real natives, so the real natives the Adivisis are called as Vanvasis in this scheme of things. Constitution and in turn the Indian nation has given the minority not on the insider- outsider basis, nor it has gone in to the past to give th deifintion of this. The date of India's birth here is 15th August, and matters regarding as to who is an Indian begin from that date and not from the vague amorphous past, which has been constructed by some for their the sake of their political agenda If Sudarshan's definition is to be believed, which incidentally has no legitimacy as per the Indian ethos, as the Aryans are the immigrants, than Hindus are the minority, whatever that means.
One should not blame Mr. Sudarshan beyond a point. As he and his RSS do not subscribe to the Indian constitution and have Hindu nation, Hindu Rashtra, running in their blood. We need to ensure that such illegitimate ideas have no place in our modern democracy. The whole concept of minority is essentially meant to provide security to numerically vulnerable groups. Again it cannot be taken in the straightjacket manner. Democracy has to give paramount importance to the individual rights. Group rights come in only as a defense in certain situations and also for the reason that minorities are not subjugated by the dominant communal streams. Unfortunately in India due to the prevalence of communal violence, due to bringing to fore the issues related to religion and the identity politics, the threat perception amongst religious minorities has gone up and many of them may be seeking further strengthening of these group identities. Ideally such group identities have to loosen up and become secondary over a period of time, with the Indian national and Human identity taking precedence over the other one's. Dr. Ambedkar tried to overcome this dilemma by suggesting that majorities should create a situation where the minority does not have to seek shelter under the minority tag and minorities should try to overcome that label and avoid taking recourse to being a minority.
The onus seems to be on the state, which ideally should not let the majoritarian discourse sweep away the democratic agenda and norms, while providing the assurances and proper protection to the minorities. In this direction the conduct of Indian state has been abysmal. It has let the dominant tendencies run riot, its components, police, bureaucracy and even at times judiciary have compromised with the norms of democratic conduct as per the law, resulting in the violence against minorities and the consequent strengthening of minority identity to the extent of ghettoisation of minorities at places.
By asserting that only Jews and Parsis are minorities, Mr. Sudarshan, true to his Hindu Nation theory, wants to do away with the safeguards for weaker religious denominations, especially Muslims and Christians, who are the major victims of RSS progeny's Trishuls and Lathis. Doing away the provisions for Muslims in particular be exrememly harmful as the community has been thrown back on the scales of human development, be it socio economic stuts or education, housing, jobs and what have you the Muslims are lagging behind. The clauses which can improve their condtion are already being opposed tooth and nail by majoritarin tendencies and on the top of that the very clause of minority will be reomoved if Mr. Sudarshan's Hindu nationalism is to be accepted. Such anti Minority designs need to be curbed so that we can have the flowering of democracy in a more egalitarian manner.
