Defining Minorities
In
A Democratic Setup
By Ram Puniyani
10 October, 2005
Countercurrents.org
Indian
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.