• Home
  • About Us
  • Events
  • Submissions
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
  • NewsVoir
  • Newswire
  • Nasheman Urdu ePaper

Nasheman

India's largest selling Urdu weekly, now also in English

  • News & Politics
    • India
    • Indian Muslims
    • Muslim World
  • Culture & Society
  • Opinion
  • In Focus
  • Human Rights
  • Photo Essays
  • Multimedia
    • Infographics
    • Podcasts
You are here: Home / Archives for Hindus

Silencing Caste, Sanitising Oppression – Understanding ’Swachh Bharat Abhiyan’

October 10, 2014 by Nasheman

– by Subhash Gatade

What is important to note that the Conference of the Untouchables which met in Mahad resolved that no untouchable shall skin the dead animals of the Hindus, shall carry it or eat the carrion. The object of these resolutions was twofold. The one object was to foster among the Untouchables self respect and self esteem. This was a minor object. The major object was to strike a blow at the Hindu Social Order.

The Hindu Social Order is based upon a division of labour which reserves for the Hindus clean and respectable jobs and assigns to the untouchables dirty and mean jobs and thereby clothes the Hindus with dignity and heaps ignominy upon the untouchables.

(The Revolt of the Untouchables, Excerpted from Essays on Untouchables and Untouchability : Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches, Vol 5 (Mumbai : Govt of Maharashtra, 1989, 256-58)

  1. The inauguration of the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, (Clean India Campaign) with much fanfare, with ministers, bureaucrats and others holding Jhadoos evoked an interesting reaction from a ragpicker Sanjay who lives in Mehrauli with his parents. “These are the same people from whose houses we pick up garbage every day. This is part of our life. We don’t really understand why they are making it such a big deal,” (PM’s Swachch Bharat Abhiyan has no place for Delhi’s 3 lakh rag pickers,Mallica Joshi , Hindustan Times New Delhi, October 03, 2014))

Sanjay happens to be one among a population of around 3,00,000 rag pickers (according to rough estimates) in Delhi, who are largely invisible and as expected live on the margins of society. It is a different matter that they play a major role in garbage management – right from collecting waste to segregating it for recycling. NGOs working with them feel that the city can easily come to a halt without them because they are the one ’who perform the basic task of taking garbage from people’s houses to dumps in most parts of the city.’ At the time of Commonwealth Games held in Delhi few years back, the then state government had even provided few hundred ragpickers with dress and safety equipment etc ’acknowledging’ the services they rendered to keep the city clean.

Time seems to have changed now. As the above mentioned report further adds :

’The government seems to be in complete denial of their presence even as they reap the benefits of their hard work.’ (-do-)

The complete marginalisation of the ragpickers from the much tommed tommed Swachh Bharat Abhiyan does not appear surprising. It is rather symptomatic of the many other ’silences’, ’erasures’ which accompanied its launching. While analysts have rightly pointed out the manner in which legacy of the Mahatma is being ’reduced’ to cleanliness obliterating his lifelong struggle against colonialism and communalisms of every kind and for an inclusive polity not much attention has been paid to the fact that the thrust of the campaign is to project a very samras (harmonious) picture of our society where cleanliness or the lack of it is connected with our ’duty’ (Kartavya) towards ’Bharat Mata’.

Perhaps one can have a look at the oath administered by the PM to everyone who joined this campaign.

“Ab hamara kartavya hain ki gandagi ko dhoor karke Bharat Mata ki sewa karein.” (Now, it is our duty to serve Mother India by removing the dirt.)

Did anyone hear any word about the pernicious ’caste system’ during all the media frenzy which witnessed its launching ? Definitely not. In fact caste and related discriminations have become so common and ingrained in our psyche that the media did not find anything newsworthy in it. Perhaps when every other officer was getting ready to have his/her own moment with a broom in hand the mediawallahs decided not to talk about this unique system of hierarchy – legitimised by the wider society and sanctified by religion -which has condemned a section of its own people to the ’profession’ of cleaning, sweeping and scavenging. What to tell the outside world that half of India still defecates in the open and there are lakhs of people who are still engaged in this ’profession’ of shit collection. In fact, we have designated communities who have been ’forced’ in this dehumanising work since centuries together

On closer look we can find that they go by many names in various parts of the country. As Gita Ramaswamy discusses in her book ’India Stinking’ (Navayana, 2007) : They are Bhangi, Valmiki, methar, chuhra in Delhi, Dhanuk in UP, han, hadi in Bengal; mehtar, bhangi in Assam; methar in Hyderabad; Paki in coastal Andhra ; thotti in Tamil Nadu; mira, lalbegi, chuhra, balashahi in Punjab. Names may be different but they share the same fate : they belong to the bottom of the Hindu social hierarchy and are untouchables. And under the caste hierarchy, castes that consider themselves superior does enjoy a wider range of choice of occupations but the erstwhile untouchables, today’s dalits have the least desirable occupations – removal of human excreta, cleaning, sweeping, leatherwork, skinning of dead animals, removal of human and cattle corpses, rearing of pigs etc.

We know that despite sixty plus years of independence, while moneybags here can easily compete with moneybags in the advanced world, while rulers of India yearn to make 21 st century as India’s century, there has not been any qualitative change in the lifeworlds of the majority of the dalits who are still lying at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Yes, a small section among them has definitely taken advantage of the affirmative action programme and is on the path of upward mobility, but for the majority amongst them, their is no qualitative change in their situation marked by deprivation and discrimination.

2. Interestingly in his hurry to ’do a Gandhi’ Mr Modi launched the campaign from the same Valmiki Basti where Gandhi had stayed for a while, without bothering that such a move would further stigmatise the community. And this at a time when there is a great churning going on within the community especially its youth to leave this ’profession’ and take up other dignified work. Not very many people outside the community are even aware that there is growing talk of ’Jhadu Chodo, Kalam Uthao ( Leave the Broom, Hold the Pen) reverberating within them. Organisations like Safai Karmachari Andolan and others have even undertaken the task of demolition of dry latrines at various places and there have been occasions when people have spontaneously come forward to collectively burn the broom and basket which is used in scavenging.

While media did not bother to question the venue chosen by PM to start his campaign, many close watchers of the situation did not feel surprised as they knew how Mr Modi, looks at this occupation, which finds mention in his book ’Karmyog’ where he calls it as some kind of “spiritual experience”.

Not very people know that it was the year 2007 when collection of Narendra Modi’s speeches to IAS officials at various points of time were compiled in a book form named ’Karmyog’ and were published by the Gujarat government. Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation, a top ranking PSU was roped in to fund 5,000 copies of the book. (http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/true-lies/entry/modi-s-spiritual-potion-to-woo-karmayogis). Sample one of his speech, where talking about the Safai Kamdars Modi exhorts:

“I do not believe that they have been doing this job just to sustain their livelihood. Had this been so, they would not have continued with this type of job generation after generation….At some point of time, somebody must have got the enlightenment that it is their (Valmikis’) duty to work for the happiness of the entire society and the Gods; that they have to do this job bestowed upon them by Gods; and that this job of cleaning up should continue as an internal spiritual activity for centuries. This should have continued generation after generation. It is impossible to believe that their ancestors did not have the choice of adopting any other work or business.” (Page 48-49, Karmyog)

Later Modi’s remark got published in the Times of India in mid-November 2007, which were translated and republished in few Tamil newspapers. There was a massive reaction of Dalits in Tamil Nadu for calling their menial job “spiritual experience”. Modi’s effigies were burnt in different parts of the state. Sensing trouble Modi immediately withdrew 5,000 copies of the book, but still sticked to his opinion. Two years later, addressing 9,000-odd safai karmacharis, (cleanliness workers) he likened the safai karmacharis’ job of cleaning up others dirt’ to that of a temple priest. He told them,

“A priest cleans a temple every day before prayers, you also clean the city like a temple. You and the temple priest work alike.”

It would have been enlightening for Mr Modi if he could have browsed through Dr Ambedkar’s writings just to know how he had reacted when Mahatma Gandhi had similarly praised ’scavenging as the noblest service to society’ and said ’How sacred is this work of cleanliness !’(Navajivan, 8 th January 1925)

To preach that poverty is good for the Shudra and for none else, to preach that scavenging is good for the untouchables and for none else and to make them accept these onerous impositions as voluntary purposes of life, by appeal to their failings is an outrage and a cruel joke on the helpless classes which none but Mr Gandhi can perpetuate with equanimity and impunity. In this connection one is reminded of the words of Voltaire ..:”Oh! mockery to say to people that the sufferings of some brings joy to others and works good to the whole. What solace is it to a dying man to know that from his decaying body a thousand worms will come into life.”

(What Congress and Gandhi have done to the Untouchables, Dr Ambedkar : Writings and Speeches, Vol 9, (Mumbai : Govt of Maharashtra, 1990) P. 290-93

3. The ’silencing’ or ’sanitising’ of the discourse of caste in the packaging and presentation of Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, or the dominant discourse around it reminds one of the persistence of untouchability in Gujarat and the manner in which it was made to ’disppear’ sometime back . (As an aside it may be mentioned here that Modi served as chief minister of Gujarat from the year 2001 to 2014.)

Appears unbelievable?

Perhaps you can have a look at a Gujarat government sponsored report titled “Impact of Caste Discrimination and Distinctions on Equal Opportunities: A Study of Gujarat”, authored by Centre for Environment Planning and Technology University (CEPT) University scholars led by Prof R Parthasarathy, which calls caste discrimination a matter of “perceptions”.

In his blog ’True Lies’ senior journalist Rajiv Shah (http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/true-lies/entry/untouchability-and-modi-s-babus) has provided detailed critique of this study.

To put in a nutshell this CEPT report was a governmental response to an exhaustive study titled ’Understanding Untouchability’ done by Ahmedabad based NGO ’Navsarjan Trust’ with the help of Robert F Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights. (2009) which demonstrated with concrete data the wide prevalence of untouchability both in public and private spheres in interaction between scheduled castes (SCs) and non-scheduled castes (non-SCs), as well as within SCs: among the several jatis in rural Gujarat.

It is important to note that the results of the Navsarjan study were widely covered by the media .

Looking at the fact that the ongoing debate had the potential of putting a spanner in the well cultivated image of a Samras (harmonious) Gujarat under Modi, a panicky government asked CEPT to review and verify Navsarjan’s findings. In fact, the government seemed so keen to give a clean chit to itself that it adopted a two pronged approach to tackle the uncomfortable situation in which it found itself. Apart from commissioning the above mentioned study it constituted a committee under the chairmanship of the then minister for social justice, Fakirbhai Vaghela and secretaries of different concerned departments to refute the findings of the report. The government instructed its officers to get affidavits from scheduled caste village residents regarding non-existence of untouchability.

Commenting on the report Rajiv Shah says that

“[t]he nearly 300-page report, ..far from being a review of “Understanding Untouchability”, is more of an effort to justify the evil practice.”

As opposed to the survey of 1,589 villages done by Navsarjan, the CEPT team was made to survey just five villages, dig out a plethora of caste-wise data on agriculture, irrigation, employment and distribution of government schemes but were instructed not to collect any data on “”caste discrimination” – a term used by them in lieu of untouchability.

The reluctance of the scholars to even mention the U(ntouchability) word can be gauged from the observations made by leading sociologist Ghanshyam Shah as well, who has also written a critique of the CEPT report ’Understanding or ignoring untouchability? How Gujarat government-sponsored study examines discrimination in a ‘very casual way’’ (in www.counterview.org, Nov 13, 2013) :

..[i]n the scholars’ view (and that of the government) there is nothing wrong if the Dalits are forced to carry own vessels or are made to be served at fag end of the festivity. In fact, if the scholars are to be believed, Dalit elders advise the “younger ones” not to participate in village festivals like Navratri or Garba, celebrated in other localities, “for fear of possible quarrel with non-Dalits.” The youth agree in order to maintain social peace and order. To quote from the report, “Those Dalit youth who go there, do so as spectators and not participate in Garba…”

He also adds :

“CEPT has completely ignored to study the practice of untouchability. Perhaps for them like the Government of Gujarat it is a non-issue. And, they have carried out mainly a socio-economic survey in five villages. The authors do not feel the need to argue why they have confined their study to socio-economic survey. Why have they not correlated socio-economic data with the presence or absence of untouchability?”

While the CEPT experts could not discover untouchability in the five villages covered, the Navsarjan team which toured these villages in June 2013 found how the dalits live under subjugation and a state of helplessness as they know that the government would not protect them if they assert for their rights. Ghanshyam Shah adds:

In fact, an important omission from the CEPT report was that of Valmikis themselves, who are considered lowest in the social ladder under a Varnacracy. As opposed to these worst victims of untouchability, the report focuses on the Vankars, a “socially acceptable” Dalit community, a weaving class.

The omission of Valmikis in a report commissioned by the government cannot be considered inadvertent. Their still remaining confined largely to the work of sweeping and cleaning ; collecting and handling dust, garbage and filth of the cities, towns and villages to make them livable for other dwellers and in the process facing daily humiliations and even deaths by ’accidents’ or getting afflicted with occupational diseases is a reality which cannot be ignored anymore. Perhaps the scholars might have felt that their sheer presence in a governmental report was anachronous to the media propelled image of ’a best-governed state, occupying number one position in the country on ‘development’’.

4. Commenting on the ’Clean India Campaign’ Rohit Prajapati, an environmental activist from Gujarat, has raised an altogether different point in his writeup ’Mr. Modi Preaches a Clean India, But His Record on Waste management and Pollution in Gujarat is Dirty’ (http://sacw.net/article9679.html). He has discussed a similar campaign launched by him in 2007 calling it ’Nirmal Gujarat -2007’ and looked at the track record of his government in controlling pollution. According to him Modi similarly made ’..tall claims during that campaign. But reality is best seen in Ahmedabad at illegal solid waste dumping site, the ‘Gyaspur-Pirana Dumping Site’ – a Waste Mountain near Sabarmati River adjacent to the main road.’

The writeup discusses basic facts as they were revealed in the ‘Report of the Task Force on Waste to Energy’ dated 12 May 2014 by the Planning Commission of India which states

“As per CPCB report 2012 – 13 municipal areas in the country generate 1,33,760 metric tonnes per day of MSW, of which only 91,152 TPD waste is collected and 25,884 TPD treated.”..“Further, if the current 62 million tonnes annual generation of MSW continues to be dumped without treatment; it will need 3,40,000 cubic meter of landfill space everyday (1240 hectare per year). Considering the projected waste generation of 165 million tonnes by 2031, the requirement of land for setting up landfill for 20 years (considering 10 meter high waste pile) could be as high as 66 thousand hectares of precious land, which our country cannot afford to waste.”

It would be opportune here to quote a large extract from the said writeup here :

Mr. Modi, things are not as simple as you say. This waste generation figure covers only 31.15% population of India. Considering the waste generation figures of all of India, these figures will be even more daunting. The Planning Commission (which Mr. Modi wishes to abolish) of India’s report further states “A study, of the status of implementation of the MSW Rules 2000 by the mandated deadline by the States, was carried out in class 1 cities of the country. It revealed that in 128 cities except for street sweeping and transportation, compliance was less than 50% and in respect of disposal compliance was a dismal 1.4 %.”What about the government’s major role in policy making for the reduction of waste and implementation of ‘The Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules 2000’? Your track record in the implementation of these rules in the Gujarat is worst.

The consistent follow up by the pollution-affected people, people’s organisations and NGOs regarding the increasing pollution levels in the industrial areas of India forced the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and the State Pollution Control Board in 1989 to initiate the process of indexing the critically polluted areas. At that time 24 industrial areas, including Vapi, Ankleshwar, Ludhiana, were declared ‘critically polluted’. In 2009 the CPCB and IIT-Delhi, in consistence with the demands of the people’s organisation’s working on environmental issues decided to use a new method of ‘indexing the pollution levels’ of these areas, which is now known as the ‘Comprehensive Environmental Pollution Index’ (CEPI). The CEPI includes air, water, land pollution and health risks to the people living in the area. However, our demand has been to include the health of the workers, productivity of land and quality of food / agriculture produce in the index since the presence of high levels of chemicals and heavy metals in food produce has severe health implications. This is affecting not only people living around the industrial area but anyone consuming it – hence not restricting the impact to the particular industrial area.

In December 2009 the CEPI of 88 polluted industrial clusters was measured; it was then that the CPCB and the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) of Government of India were forced to declare 43 of those as ‘critically polluted clusters’ and another 32 industrial areas as ‘severely polluted clusters’.[6] Following this study the MoEF on 13 January 2010 was forced to issue a moratorium (prohibition on opening new industries and/or increasing the production capacity of the existing industries) on the 43 critically polluted areas. Similar reports were prepared by CPCB in 2011 and 2013 but these reports are completely ignored by past government and also by Modi Government.

In the concluding part of the article the writer discusses how after assuming reins of power, Mr Modi instead of undertaking the task of improving environment of these 88 industrial clusters, the government led by him started ’lifting of the moratorium of industrial cluster like Ghaziabad (UP), Indore (M.P.), Jharsuguda (Orissa), Ludhiana (Punjab), Panipat (Haryana), Patancheru – Bollaram (A.P.), Singrauli (UP & MP) and Vapi (Gujarat) as a first order of business on 10 June 2014. He underlines Vapi’s track records which demand more ‘stringent action’ against the polluting industries of Vapi & concerned officers of Gujarat Pollution Control Board and definitely not lifting of moratorium from Vapi. According to him ’the murky politics and economics of ‘GDP growth’ continue to prevail over the cause of ‘life and livelihood’ of ordinary people and ‘environment & conservation.’

His write-up concludes with few more figures and a BIG question:

In 2009, the Ankleswar’s industrial area, with 88.50 CEPI, topped the list of ‘critically polluted areas’ of India.

In 2011 and 2013, Vapi industrial area, with CEPI of 85.31, topped this list.

Thus Gujarat is able to top in 2009 in ‘critically polluted areas’ in India and continues to maintain its position in 2011 & 2013.

The Government of Gujarat deliberately ignored to comment or engages ever on these issues.

Mr. Modi what about the clean up of these industrial clusters of India? Do you have any plan to clean up this CRITICALLY and SEVERELY POLLUTED INDUSTRIAL CLUSTERS OF INDIA?

5. To conclude, one can talk of similar silences, erasures if we probe further deep.

But that is not the aim of the article. The nationwide campaign which has been taken up is going to involve tremendous human as well as financial resources. We are being told that government employees are being exhorted to devote at least 100 hours every year – or two hours a week – to do this work and send proof to their seniors. It is going to cost 620 billion rupees ($10bn; £6.1bn) – the government has earmarked 146 m rupees and expects to get the remaining amount from the corporate sector, international development organisations and elsewhere. It is also being said that main goal of the programme, is to end open defecation in the country – as nearly half of India’s 1.2 billion people have no access to toilets.

All sounds good and especially very soothing to the ears of NRIs who seem to be worried over the image India carries in the comity of nations.

But all these efforts do not seem to go anywhere because as we already said there is a conscious attempt not to address the key issues.

It appears that Mr Modi seems to be in a big hurry to leave an impact on history.

He might be successful like his predecessors. If today we remember or associate Garibi Hatao with Ms Indira Gandhi or ’Age of Computers’ with Rajeev Gandhi, similarly future generations would remember or associate the ’Clean India Campaign’ with Modi while still debating the ’dirtiest country in the world’ tag associated with the country.

Subhash Gatade is the author of Pahad Se Uncha Aadmi (2010), Godse’s Children: Hindutva Terror in India,(2011) and The Saffron Condition: The Politics of Repression and Exclusion in Neoliberal India (2011). He is also the Convener of New Socialist Initiative.

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: Caste, Dalits, Gujarat, Hinduism, Hindus, Karmyog, Narendra Modi, Nirmal Gujarat, Safai Karmachari Andolan, Swachh Bharat Abhiyaan

Is the face of Hinduism changing?

October 7, 2014 by Ram Puniyani

With the growing fanaticism in Hinduism, is the core idea of tolerance in Hinduism fading off ?

Yogi Adityanath

Fali S. Nariman recently made a very significant observation on the current political situation in India.

The distinguished Constitutional jurist noted: “Hinduism has traditionally been the most tolerant of all Indian faiths. But, recurrent instances of religious tension, fanned by fanaticism and hate speech, have shown that the Hindu tradition of tolerance is showing signs of strain … my apprehension is that Hinduism is somehow changing its benign face…”

There is no doubt that Mr. Nariman’s observation came in reaction to recent outpourings from some organizations or establishments that subscribe to the ideology of RSS. He is concerned about the aggressive Hindutva ideology of those who seek to turn India into a Hindu nation or asserting that it is indeed a Hindu nation.

Hinduism is a religion, while Hindutva is a political ideology.

Recently, we have witnessed innumerable outbursts of hate speeches from some self-styled champions of Hindutva on issues ranging from the propaganda of what they call ‘love jihad’ to the ideological assertions that in India ‘we are all Hindus’.

They have also unleashed an attack on the liberal Hinduism. They are telling those Hindus, who accept Shirdi Sai Baba- a Sufi born in Muslim family, as their God, that they are doing it wrong.

In a broad pattern of their attack they target the religious minorities in one way or the other. The basic question we need to address is whether the voices coming from the RSS combine represent actual Hinduism or they are related to the new practice of politics in the name of Hinduism? The question becomes more pertinent when we see group like Al Qaeda or ISIS acting against humanity, in the name of Islam.

During the freedom movement, we saw men such as Gandhi and Maulana Azad, who, despite being deeply steeped in their religions, came forward and led a political movement, which was secular to the core. During the time we also saw people like Jinnah and Savarkar, who were not religious in the real sense, but they led the politics in the name of Islam and Hinduism, respectively.

RSS combine identifies Hinduism mainly with the narrow stream of Hinduism, or rather, Brahmanism. Hinduism is not based on a single book, prophet or a clergy. Polytheism being at its root, the religion has many theologies, practices and a plethora of holy scriptures.

Gandhi followed a liberal tradition of Hinduism and while laying the foundation of Indian nationalism during the freedom movement, he did not let religion intrude the politics. In contrast, the Hindu nationalism, which is being propounded by those claiming to be representing Hindus- Hindu Mahasabha, RSS and their offshoots – is narrow and intolerant.

Since large sections of Hindus were following Gandhi, the illiberal Hindu Mahasabha-RSS brand of Hinduism, remained on the margins during those days. But, during the last three decades, starting with the Ram Temple agitation, the Hindu nationalist-driven political campaign has thrown up the intolerant propaganda about the ‘others’ in a blatant way. With the current dispensation where BJP is leading the coalition, the leaders of the ruling Hindu nationalist party and its affiliate organizations are being patronized by the state, which has helped them intensify the hate propaganda against the country’s religious minorities.

Their pronouncements are aimed to intimidate those who do not agree to their version of state and politics. The politics of RSS is not just intimidating the ‘others’ but also to threaten the liberal Hindus.

As religion is being pushed deeper into politics the intolerance level in the society is going up. The challenge of our times is to distinguish between the politics in the name of religion and religion per se.

Mr. Nariman’s statement reflects how the veteran jurist is disappointed with the democratic liberal ethos being challenged by the rising assertion of the Hindutva politics led by the RSS combine.

On a personal note I have long been receiving good number of hate mails routinely, as these articles are critical of politics in the name of Hinduism, or politics in the name of any religion for that matter. I know that another article on RSS and Hindu nationalism is going to uptick the quota of the hate mails for me.

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: BJP, Fali Nariman, Hinduism, Hindus, Hindutva, Muslims, Narendra Modi, Nationalism, RSS

"Minorities at cross roads: Comments on judicial pronouncements" by Fali S. Nariman

September 15, 2014 by Nasheman

Fali-Nariman

Transcript of Mr. Fali S. Nariman’s 7th Annual Lecture of National Commission of Minorites: “Minorities at Cross Roads: Comments on Judicial Pronouncements” delivered on Friday, 12th September, 2014 at Speaker Hall (Annexe), Constitution Club of India, Rafi Marg, New Delhi. Organized by The National Commission of Minorities

The elections in April-May, 2014 this year have put a strong majoritarian Government in power at the Centre. I welcome it.

Whilst I welcome a single-party majority government, I also fear it.

I fear it because of past experience with a majoritarian government in the nineteen sixties and nineteen seventies: when the then all-Congress Government had unjustifiably imposed the Internal Emergency of June 1975. And rode rough shod over the liberties of citizens. I cannot forget it nor can I condone it.

My wife and I have lived through it and we know how a very large number of people suffered.

Traditionally Hinduism has been the most tolerant of all Indian faiths. But – recurrent instances of religious tension fanned by fanaticism and hate-speech has shown that the Hindu tradition of tolerance is showing signs of strain. And let me say this frankly – my apprehension is that Hinduism is somehow changing its benign face because, and only because it is believed and proudly proclaimed by a few (and not contradicted by those at the top): that it is because of their faith and belief that HINDUS have been now put in the driving seat of governance.

Jawahar Lal Nehru was a Hindu.

But he never looked upon the diverse and varied peoples of India from the stand point of Hinduism. He wrote in that most inspiring book “The Discovery of India” that “it was fascinating to find how the Bengalis, the Canarese, the Malayalis, the Sindhis, the Punjabis, the Pathans, the Kashmiris, the Rajputs, and the great central block comprising of Hindustani–speaking people, had retained their particular characteristics for hundreds of years, with more or less the same virtues and failings, and yet they had been throughout these ages distinctively Indian,with the same national heritage and the same set of moral and mental qualities.

Ancient India, like ancient China (he wrote), was a world in itself. Their culture and civilization gave shape to all things. Foreign influences poured in and often influenced that culture, but they were absorbed. Disruptive tendencies gave rise immediately to an attempt to find a synthesis.

It was some kind of a dream of unity that occupied the mind of India, and of the Indian, since the dawn of civilization. And that unity was not conceived as something imposed from outside. It was something deeper; within its fold, the widest tolerance of beliefs and customs was practiced and every variety was acknowledged and even encouraged. This was Nehru’s great vision of the diversity and unity of India.

When someone told Panditji that Hindi was the predominant language of India, he agreed although he said he would have preferred it if it was Hindustani, and then he added (and I ask you to note what he added):

(I quote)

“Quite frankly I do not understand the way some people are afraid of the Urdu language. I just do not understand why in any State inIndia people should consider Urdu a foreign language and something which invades their own domain. Urdu is a language mentioned in our Constitution. I object to any narrow mindedness in regard to Urdu….”

And how right he was. These words were said by him in December 1955. They have proved prophetic. Almost 60 years later, just last week, a Constitution Bench of 5 Judges of India’s Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to Urdu being made the second regional language in the State of Uttar Pradesh, where it is widely read and spoken.

It is a step and a very important step in the right direction.

Some day in the future – for the good of the integration of India- Urdu deserves to be included not just in the Eighth Schedule where it lies with 21 other recognized Indian languages, but upfront in a trinity of National languages of India i.e. Hindi, Urdu and English.

When speaking of minorities. Do remember that in some countries there is no linguistic equivalent for the expression. In an official communication to the U.N. Sub-Commission (on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities), the Government of Thailand stated that the concept of “minorities” was unknown in that country. The communication said (and I quote):

“Although this word has a Thai translation from the English for the purpose of communication with the outside world, it has no social or cultural connotation whatever”![1]

But for us in India we have a written Constitution and there is no difficulty in knowing who are reckoned as “minorities”. Article 29 read with Article 30 provides that any section of citizens of India residing in India or any part of the territory of India having a distinct religion, language,script or culture of their own are minorities with the right– a fundamental right – to conserve their religion language script and culture. One culture was anathema to the Founding Fathers.

Religious and linguistic minorities not only have a separate status under our Constitution. They have also been conferred an additional fundamental right – a right which no ordinary law can take away – viz. to “establish and administer educational institutions of their choice”.

The intention of the framers of the Constitution was to use the term ‘minorities’ in the widest sense.

In the Constituent Assembly debates you will find mention of this intent (you will find it in Vol.VII of the Constituent Assembly Debates at pages 922-923). It is recorded there(and this is an example given by our Founding Fathers in the debate during Constitution-making) – that Maharashtrians settled in Bengal or Bengalis settled in Maharashtra – even though Hindus settled amongst Hindus and hence not a religious minority in either State – are nonetheless linguistic minorities in each of the respective States and so have a fundamental right to protect their own language and culture; and additionally, to establish educational institutions “of their choice” to foster that language and culture.

By its very existence, then – and our Constitution recognizes this- every minority group whether religious linguistic or cultural in any part of India poses a challenge to – the predominantly majority community – a challenge to what has been elsewhere described as:

“the dynamics of governance amidst pluralism”.

This is the challenge for every government including a majority government, even a majority government that has a 2/3rd majority in Parliament. It is – still pledged to safeguard and enhance minority rights – The Constitution has ensured that the dynamics of Governance amidst pluralism has to be tackled peacefully and with vision.

In every nation intolerance towards someone who looks, talks or worships differently (or who even lives or dresses differently) from the majority community has always been a basic human infirmity.

Every tribal society in almost every part of the world has chosen a word to denote “foreigner” or “outsider”.[2] In Bhutan and Sikkim when most of the foreign visitors were from India – they still are from India – the term GYAGAR (Tibetan for “Indian”) was adopted to denote the “outsider” – an innocent term in itself, but the tone of voice or accent with which it was expressed conveyed something derogatory or contemptuous.

Whatever the source from which a minority derives its existence,religious, ethnic or linguistic, the rest of society has to make a conscious effort in coming to terms with it: but the fact of life is that the larger the majority community with greater political power the lesser the inclination to make efforts to build bridges.

Which explains – why generally speaking minorities because they are minorities are not well-treated, or at least do not feel well-treated,in different parts of the world – This is a theme that has been explored more fully in a recently published book by a Lebanese author M. Amin Maalouf (The book is titled “In the name of Identity”)[3]. He points out that those who claim a complex identity are often marginalised because others perceive them through the lens of only one aspect of their identity: their religion.

Maalouf grew up in Lebanon and moved to France in 1976, at a young age. He sees himself as both Lebanese and French. He celebrates the ability of humans to maintain numerous identities. He does not like the singular (what he calls) tribal identity of fanatics who are (as he says) “easily transformed into butchers”. About fanatics he writes that any doctrine with which they identify can be and is perverted, including liberalism, nationalism, atheism and communism. He believes in (what he calls) calming identity conflicts because as he says:

“it will mean making people, especially minorities, feel included”

a useful guide for us in India – if we all,majority and minority, move towards calming identity conflicts. We need it particularly now when we are poised for greater economic development.

History shows several ways in which members of a society havetried to solve the problems posed by the presence of a minority group(“section of citizens”, as our Constitution describes them). These ways or methods are four in number.

(1) The first method is: forceful suppression and eradication:

  • Will Durant records in his Story of Civilization[4]– that in India in the middle–ages during the alien despotism of the Sultanates of Delhi, Sultan Ahmad Shah boastfully feasted for three days whenever the number of defenceless Hindus slain in his territories reached twenty thousand!

The same method was adopted even in modern times as witnessed in the planned liquidation of six million Jews;

(2) The second method is: coercive or hostile toleration:

  • Which is like the treatment of a sect of Muslims known as Quadianis (or Ahmediyas) in Modern day Pakistan. The Ahmediyas, because they were in a minority and because the rest of the Muslims in their Parliament were in a majority, were declared officially and statutorily as non-Muslims in the Islamic State of Pakistan. Today they are hardly “tolerated” – even as non-Muslims!

(3) The third method is: by voluntary or involuntary assimilation or absorption.

  • As witnessed by forced conversion in the middle-ages which effectively destroyed the identity of religious minority groups. The Ismaili Khojas and the Cutchi Memons of today were originally Hindus – who were forcibly converted to Islam during the invasions of Mahomed of Ghazni (AD 971 to 1030) and his successors. They are now a recognized sect of Muslims in India, who practice the religion of the Prophet.

Our Constitution has consciously rejected these first 3 methods as contrary to the Indian ethos:

(4) Our Constitution has consciously adopted the fourth way – Affirmative action for protection and preservation – as the only way – because at the time of the framing of the Constitution and for many years after that, this was the Hindu ethos i.e. – the true Indian ethos.

In the Indian Constitution, the provisions of Part III have been so drafted as not only to prevent disability for, or discrimination against minorities, but to create positive and enforceable rights on them. And then Parliament has put in place since 1992 the National Commission of Minorities Act – the role of the Commission is to protect and preserve the minorities from attacks from outside.

It is this liberal approach to Fundamental Rights and protection of minorities that has helped – the minorities in India to progress, so far – as well as to conserve and protect their guaranteed rights. Then why are the minorities at the cross-roads today?

It is because the body set up by Parliament to protect minorities has omitted to take effective steps to protect them.

We have been hearing on television and reading in newspapers almost on a daily basis a tirade by one or more individuals or groups against one or another section of citizens who belong to a religious minority and the criticism has been that the majority government at the centre has done nothing to stop this tirade. I agree.

But do remember that every government whether at the Centre or State – whether composed of one political party or another – will do or not do whatever it considers expedient to advance its own political interests. This is why in my view Parliament has in its wisdom set up an independent Minorities Commission to look after the interest of Minorities. It is true that the National Commission for Minorities has functions defined in Section 9 of the Act, but the functions would definitely not preclude the Commission issuing Press Statements or filing criminal complaints regarding diatribes against minorities or protesting against hate speeches against minorities in general or against any particular minority community. The Commission is specifically empowered to do two things:

(i) To look into specific complaints regarding deprivation of rights and safeguards of the minorities and take upsuch matter with the Authorities; and

(ii) Suggest appropriate measures in respect of any minority to be undertaken by the Central Government or the State Government.

I would implore the distinguished members of the National Commission for Minorities (and believe me they are influential and distinguished) to read the Statement of Objects and Reasons for enacting the National Commission for Minorities Act. This is what the Statement of Objects and Reasons says: (I Quote)

“The main task of the Commission – mark you – the main task of the Commission – shall be to evaluate the progress of the development of minorities, monitor the working of the safeguards provided in the Constitution for the protection of the interests of minorities and in laws enacted by the Central Government or State Governments,besides looking into specific complaints regarding deprivation of rights and safeguards of the minorities.”

So the main task of the Commission is“protecting the interests of minorities”. And how does one protect the interest of minorities who (or a section of which) are on a daily basis lampooned and ridiculed or spoken against in derogatory language? The answer is by invoking the provisions of enacted law – law enacted in the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code. Otherwise the Commission is not fulfilling its main task which is the protection of the interests of the minorities.

I do implore the Commission and its distinguished members to take steps as an independent Commission set up by Parliament and not controlled by government, to actively move to safeguard the interests of the minorities. It is as important as giving educational facilities and improving the economic condition of the minorities which the Commission and Government are rightly pursuing.

Those who indulge in hate speech must be prevented by Court processes initiated at the instance of the Commission because that is the body that represents Minorities in India. Whoever indulges in such hate speech or vilification (whatever the community to which they belong) they must be proceeded against and the proceeding must be widely publicized. It is only then that the confidence of the minorities in the National Commission for the Minorities will get restored.

I would respectfully suggest that if we minorities (through the statutory body set up by Parliament) do not stand up for the rights of minorities and protest against such hate speeches and diatribes how do we expect the Government to do so -?

A majoritarian Government is elected and exists mainly on the vote of the majority community. On the other hand the Commission is an independent statutory body. Its Chairman is not a Minister of Government. And though it receives grants from the Central Government it is not expected to be a mere mouthpiece of that Government.

I come now to the second part of my talk this evening – about judicial pronouncements.

Before the nineteen nineties – and I emphasize this because it means that for almost forty long years after independence – on almost every occasion on which the minorities approached the Supreme Court of India complaining of State or Central legislation or executive action as infringing their fundamental rights, the challenge was upheld. It was most heartening. The Supreme Court of India functioned as a Super Minorities Commission – as it was meant to: this was long before a Minorities Commission got established by law made by Parliament.

For instance, way back in 1952 a small minority group known as Anglo-Indians, who ran many reputed schools in Bombay,were adversely affected by an order passed by the then Government of Bombay. The Order forbade state-aided schools using English as a medium of instruction to admit pupils other than Anglo-Indians or citizens-of-non-Asiatic descent. Anglo-Indians could maintain and administer their schools and teach in English but only to Anglo-Indians; if they admitted other Indians they forfeited State aid – unless of course, they switched over to Hindi as the medium of instruction. The effort was to encourage the use of the National language (Hindi) –which is a constitutional prescription.

Although the object was laudable, the order was struck down by the Supreme Court because under the Constitution –Anglo-Indians which had a distinct language (which was English) had a fundamental right to conserve, the same and because the direct effect of the Order was to prevent Indians from entering Anglo-Indian Schools on grounds of race and language[5].

Seven years later, (in 1959), the same Supreme Court of India thwarted an attempt by the Communist-controlled Government of Kerala to take over the management of Christian Schools contrary to Article30. In an Advisory opinion given by a bench of seven Judges of India’s Supreme Court – rendered in a Presidential reference – large parts of the Kerala Education Bill were declared unconstitutional.[6] This is well-known. What is not so well-known is what Chief Justice S.R. Das (a devout Hindu) said in his judgment when (presiding over a Bench of 7 Judges). He gave a peroration at the end of his judgment: which he wrote for himself and for five of his colleagues on the Bench. This is how it read:

“There can be no manner of doubt that our Constitution has guaranteed certain cherished rights of the minorities concerning their language, culture and religion. These concessions must have been made to them for good and valid reasons. Article 45,no doubt, requires the State to provide for free and compulsory, education for all children, but there is nothing to prevent the State from discharging that solemn obligation through Government and Government-aided schools and Art.45 does not require that obligation to be discharged at the expense of the minority communities. So long as the Constitution stands as it is and is not altered, it is, we conceive, the duty of this Court to uphold the fundamental rights and thereby honour our sacred obligation to the minority communities who are of our own.” (Unquote).

He then ended his peroration with these words:

“The genius of India has been able to find unity in diversity by assimilating the best of all creeds and cultures. Our Constitution accordingly recognises our sacred obligation to the minorities.”

Notice that the expression “our sacred obligation to the minorities” was used not once but twice in the same judgment.

Even the Judge who did not entirely agree with the views of Chief Justice S.R. Das and of his 5 Companion Justices – in the Kerala Education Bill case – (he was Justice Venkatarama Aiyar (a Brahmin whose portrait hangs in Court No.3)) had said (and I quote):

“But what is the policy behind Art.30(1)? As I conceive it, it is that it should not be in the power of the majority in a State to destroy or to impair the rights of the minorities, religious or linguistic. That is a policy which permeates all Modern Constitutions, and its purpose is to encourage individuals to preserve and develop their own distinct culture.”

Mark the words: “their own distinct culture”.

After the Kerala Education Bill Case, some State Governments said they found it increasingly difficult to regulate educational standards, and so the Highest Court in 1974 was requested to constitute a larger Constitution Bench to reconsider its previous decisions. It did.

Certain provisions of the Gujarat University Act 1949 had laid down statutory conditions for affiliation of colleges in Gujarat to the Gujarat University; they applied to all educational institutions including those run by minorities; they provided that teaching and training in all colleges affiliated to the University would be conducted and imparted by teachers appointed only by the University. Since the provisions interfered with the minorities’ right to administer and run educational institutions “of their choice” – a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 30 – these provisions were challenged by the Ahmadabad St. Xavier’s College (managed by Jesuits).

The Court heard the case – this time sitting in a larger Bench of nine judges[7] – for reconsidering the decision in the Kerala Education Bill case.

But this Bench of 9 Judges in the end re-affirmed what was said by the Bench of 7 judges in the Kerala Education Bill case. It struck down the offending provisions as inapplicable to minority-run colleges. One of the Judges sitting on the Bench was Mr. Justice H.R. Khanna, one of the most famous and the most noble of India’s Judges. He was a votary of the Bharat Vikas Parishad which is a functioning social organization now chaired by Mr. Justice Rama Jois – a distinguished BJP Member of Parliament.

In the St. Xavier’s College case Justice H.R.Khanna delivered a memorable judgment giving reasons why minority interests are so zealously protected in every society – especially in India. This is what he said:

“The safeguards of the interest of the minorities amongst sections of the population is as important as the protection of the interest amongst individuals or persons who are below the age of majority or are otherwise suffering from some kind of infirmity. The Constitution and the laws made by civilized nations, therefore, generally contain provisions for the protection of those interests. It can, indeed,be said to be an index of the level of civilization and catholicity of a nation as to how far their minorities feel secure and are not subject to any discrimination or suppression.”

Khanna knew that it was the feeling amongst minorities about their security and about non-discrimination tha tmattered.

In an excellent treatise on the Role of the Supreme Court in American Government, Prof. Archibald Cox has written that constitutional adjudication depends upon a delicate symbiotic relation –

“The court must know us better than we know ourselves. Its opinions may sometimes be the voice of the spirit, reminding us of our better selves”

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the St. Xavier’s College case reminded all Indians of their “better selves”.

State-aided Minority Educational Institutions (MEIs) however, did not receive, the same favourable reception from the Supreme Court when Article 30 was invoked in the case of institutions of higher learning – in postgraduate courses in medicine, engineering and the like.

In these groups of cases (where I had been briefed and had appeared for some of the MEIs), different benches of the Supreme Court – at first – wavered as to how much, or how little, autonomy should be conceded to such minority educational institutions. The cases shuttled from a bench of two justices, to a bench of five justices, then from a bench of five justices to a bench of seven justices (on 19th March 1994), and were ultimately referred to a bench of 11 justices (in TMA Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka).

With the mandatory constitutional age of retirement of Supreme Court judges (at 65), the composition of the bench was entirely different from what it was in 1974! In 2002 the difficulty the bench of 11 justices felt (in TMA Pai) – that’s what they said – was how to reconcile the provisions of Article 30(1) with the seemingly contrary provisions contained in Article 29(2):

Article 30(1) provided:

“(1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.”

But Article 29(2) provided as follows:

“(2).. No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them.”

But in the Kerala Education Bill case (1958),an attempt had been made at a reconciliation – this is what the Court in the Kerala case said:

“The real import of Article 29(2) and Article 30(1) seems to us to be that they clearly contemplate a minority (educational) institution with a sprinkling of outsiders admitted into it’;”

The expression ‘sprinkling of outsiders’ was later explained (in bench decisions of the Supreme Court) as not restricting the number of outsiders so long as the minority character of the institution was not affected.

But the inarticulate major premise underlying the ultimate decision of the justices who constituted the majority in the 11-judgebench in TMA Pai Foundation (2002) was the strong suspicion that many of the MEIs, in receipt of state aid, were selling seats to the highest bidder and were thus disentitled to invoke the Fundamental Right to‘administer’ the MEI in question. In the Kerala Education Bill case(1958), Chief Justice S. R. Das had warned that the Fundamental Right guaranteed by Article 30 to administer educational institutions would not include the right to ‘maladminister’ them.

In the view of most of the judges on the bench (in TMA Pai Foundation), state-aided MEIs, which had established institutions for postgraduate courses in medicine, engineering and the like, were claiming a Fundamental Right to administer them almost solely with a view to profiteering in the matter of admissions and allotment of seats. It was money and not merit that mattered to them. ‘Maladministration’ therefore became a convenient stick with which to beat the MEIs – not unjustifiably, at times – but only at times:not every time!

In my view, the ultimate majority decision in TMA Pai Foundation was not so much the result of a textual interpretation ofthe constitutional provisions as of the apprehension of the judges that treating the right of minorities under Article 30 as ‘absolute’ (as it had been described in the earlier cases) would totally negate the claim of the states to regulate MEIs – especially in higher education. My plea to the judges that not suspicion, but only concrete allegations and proof of such allegations in individual cases could deprive MEIs of their Fundamental Right to administer minority educational institutions established by them, was invariably met with stony silence!

Prior to the decision in TMA Pai Foundation (2002) Courts in India – i.e. our Judges – had shown a special solicitude for minorities since (ordinarily) they would not beable to find protection in the normal political process. In other countries also, there has been atendency for Courts, when dealing with minority rights, to conceptualize their role to that of a political party in opposition.[8] In his foreword to a book written by Justice K.K. Mathew titled: Democracy Equality and Freedom published by Eastern Book Company way back in 1976, Prof.Upendra Baxi said that the Supreme Court of India regarded minority rights as one of the “preferred freedoms”. He was right. But he wrote this more than 40 years ago.

Minority rights are still regarded by the Courts (as they have to be) as fundamental rights, but (and I say this with regret) they are no longer regarded by the Judges of today as “preferred freedoms”.

The decision in TMA Pai was a un-mitigated disaster for the minorities. Let me tell you why. Article 30 (the right of minorities,religious and linguistic to establish and maintain education institutions of their choice) has now been placed by Court decision on a much lower pedestal than it was – or was intended to be. It has been equated only with a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g)– i.e. a mere right to an occupation (running an educational institution the Judges said is an “occupation” like any other):

Even though the fundamental right under Article 30 had been expressly made – deliberately made – not subject to any reasonable restrictions at all, the Bench of 11 Judges (by majority) relegated this right to a right to an occupation guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) i.e.therefore subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in public interest– i.e. subject to State regulation.

The Fundamental Right of MEIs have got devalued, because approximating the provisions in Article 30 to the provisions contained in Article 19(1)(g) mean, that as a matter of perception, the ‘reasonable restrictions’ imposed by ordinary law on this Fundamental Right – permissible under Article 19(6) – has also got subsumed in what was an otherwise unrestricted Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 30!

With the result that when the Right to Education Act2009 – was challenged as unconstitutional before a Bench of 3 judges of the Supreme Court it was upheld – two of out of the Bench of three judges holding that even admissions to minority education institutions governed by Article 30 were required to conform to its provisions – however, it was only in May 2014 that the majority view on this limited point has been over-turned by a unanimous Bench decision of five Judges.[9]

As I said before – initially, when dealing with minority rights, courts in India had invariably conceptualized their role as that of a political party in opposition – until one of the political parties, the Bharatiya Janata Party (the BJP), in the early 1990s characterized the policy of the Congress Party (the ruling party in power at the Centre for more than 40 years) as an “appeasement of the minorities”. The label stuck; “minority” became and has become an unpopular word.

And after the same political party had included in its Election Manifesto in the general election of May-June 1991 the party’s resolve if and when it came into power to amend Article 30 to the disadvantage of minorities, ‘minority rights’ got less and less protected by Courts (including the Supreme Court of India) than they were before.

A large number of Judges of the Supreme Court today no longer pay much attention to what the great Chief Justice S. R. Das had said at the end of his judgment in the Kerala Education case.

NOW – SOME CONCLUSIONS –

Way back in 1836 a lively Anglican priest and social reformer, the Rev. Sydney Smith[10]perceived the dangers of giving political power to the people. Preaching in St.Paul’s Cathedral he ventured to suggest that:

“It would be an entertaining change in human affairs to determine everything by minorities. They are almost always in the right.”

But the great democrat, Abraham Lincoln,frowned on such heresy. In his First Inaugural Address in March 1861 he said that “the rule of a minority as a permanent arrangement is wholly inadmissible; so that rejecting the majority principle, anarchy and despotism in some form is all that is left”

So you see – for as long as people aspire to govern according to majoritarian values in terms of assumptions held by the majority, the minorities must always suffer – anywhere and everywhere. Even Abraham Lincoln said so.

But with respect, I suggest that neither the view of the lively Anglican priest nor of the great democrat are valid.

In my humble view there is – there has to be – a middle way.

Some years ago I read an article in the Times of India: an interview with Sulak Sivaraksa of Thailand. He is a prominent activist and had been persecuted by many dictatorships in Thailand. He has been forced into exile. He was asked whether he felt that the major world religions needed to reinvent themselves in order to be more effective in “these troubled times”? And Sulak Sivaraksa answered that every religion must go back to its original teachings and make itself more relevant today.

He was then asked why there were great disparities in the way Buddhism was being practised? And his answer was significant, and for us all -crucial. This is what he said:

“I make a distinction between Buddhism with a Capital ‘B’ and buddhism with a small ‘b’. Sri Lanka has the former, in which the state uses Buddhism as an instrument of power, so there are even Buddhists monks who say the Tamils should be eliminated. Thai Buddhists are not perfect either. Some Thai Buddhist monks have compromised and possess cars and other luxuries. In many Buddhist countries,the emphasis is on being goody-goody, which is not good enough. I am for buddhism with a small ‘b’ which is non-violent, practical and aims to eliminate the cause of suffering…”

If I were to project myself into the mind of the founding fathers and review what they thought were the rights of minorities in the context of freedom of religion, I would lay great emphasis on the fact that whilst most of them started the business of Constitution making, by defining minorities with a big ‘M’, within a few years, they began to accept the fact that, in the vast Indian Union, in the smooth working of the Constitution the minorities had a great future if their sights were lowered – if they chose to accept“minority” with a small ‘m’.

In 1984, at a conference in New Zealand to which I was invited, I heard its human rights commissioner (Justice John Wallace) say: ‘the minority view is generally right, provided the minority can carry the majority with it.’ His was the voice of mature experience, not of mere human-rights rhetoric.

When we in India discuss the state of our nation, we should never forget the historical context: Minority with a small ‘m’ must be the watchword. Because minority with a small ‘m’ may help to carry the majority with it– provided always that the majority has the humility and statesmanship also to accept “majority” as a word with a small m. ‘Majority’ with a small ‘m’ helps to instill a sense of confidence in the minorities. The possibility of conflict arises only when one or other of these groups stresses the big ‘M’ factor.

Sorry for the bits of plain – speaking this evening. Ladies and Gentlemen.

But I must tell you Hon’ble Minister that when a delegation of some members of the Commission came over some days ago to invite me to speak I alerted them and told them that they would not like to hear my views; I told them that I was pretty critical in my approach to minority rights. But they insisted that I come and speak. This is the reason why parts of this talk may not have gone down well with some of you. I am sorry but I assure you I did not mean to offend anyone.

In a book written by a distinguished advocate of old Mr. P. B. Vachha, which is a judicial history of the Bombay High Court during the British period, the book had been commissioned by the Judges of the Bombay High Court but then they did not approve of certain passages in the book and asked Vachha to remove them. He refused. So a group of us advocates got together and financed the publication privately. In his Preface Vachha wrote that in writing the history of the Bombay high Court he had adopted the advice given to India’s great historian Ferishta, by Ibrahim Adilshah, when Ferishta migrated from the Nizamshahi Court at Ahmednagar to the Adilshahi Court at Bijapur. Famous words:

“Write”, said the Monarch, “write without fear or flattery.”

Fear and flattery of the powers that be are the worst enemies of historical truth, and vitiate an opinion at its very source.

I have always been impressed by these brave words. It is better to be unpopular than to be untruthful.


[1] CFUN Study (E/CN Sub. 2/348Rev. 1) on the Rights of Persons belonging to Ethnic Religious and Linguistic Minorities (1979) by Francesco Capotorti, Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities– P-13.

[2] In ancient Greece the word “Barbaros” (foreigner) was reserved by the Athenians for their traditional enemies the Persians; after the insular City States of Greece the same word was invoked to denounce Philip of Macedon – though Greek, he was considered outside the cultural pale of Athenian society!

[3] Published in 1996 in French with English translation published in the year2000.

[4] Vol.-I page 461.

[5] State of Bombay vs. Bombay Education Society AIR 1954 SC 561.

[6] In re Kerala Education Bill1957. AIR 1958 S.C. 956.

[7] St. Xavier’s Collage Vs.State of Gujarat. AIR 1974 S.C. 1389.

[8] Judicial deference to legislative wisdom must not be allowed to undercut the normal democratic processes by legislators to display “prejudice against discrete and insular minorities” – See Chief Justice Stone’s famous footnote in U.S. V. Carolene Products Co. 304 U.S. 4, 152 = 82 L.Ed. 1234 at p-1242.

[9] Pramati Educational and cultural Trust vs. UOI – judgment dated6.5.2014 – 2014 (7) Scale 306 (para 40).

[10] “The Smith of Smiths” – by Hesketh Pearson, Published by Penguin Books, 1948 at P.248.

Filed Under: India Tagged With: BJP, Fali Nariman, Hindus, Hindutva, Muslims, Narendra Modi

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

KNOW US

  • About Us
  • Corporate News
  • FAQs
  • NewsVoir
  • Newswire
  • Realtor arrested for NRI businessman’s murder in Andhra Pradesh

GET INVOLVED

  • Corporate News
  • Letters to Editor
  • NewsVoir
  • Newswire
  • Realtor arrested for NRI businessman’s murder in Andhra Pradesh
  • Submissions

PROMOTE

  • Advertise
  • Corporate News
  • Events
  • NewsVoir
  • Newswire
  • Realtor arrested for NRI businessman’s murder in Andhra Pradesh

Archives

  • May 2025 (9)
  • April 2025 (50)
  • March 2025 (35)
  • February 2025 (34)
  • January 2025 (43)
  • December 2024 (83)
  • November 2024 (82)
  • October 2024 (156)
  • September 2024 (202)
  • August 2024 (165)
  • July 2024 (169)
  • June 2024 (161)
  • May 2024 (107)
  • April 2024 (104)
  • March 2024 (222)
  • February 2024 (229)
  • January 2024 (102)
  • December 2023 (142)
  • November 2023 (69)
  • October 2023 (74)
  • September 2023 (93)
  • August 2023 (118)
  • July 2023 (139)
  • June 2023 (52)
  • May 2023 (38)
  • April 2023 (48)
  • March 2023 (166)
  • February 2023 (207)
  • January 2023 (183)
  • December 2022 (165)
  • November 2022 (229)
  • October 2022 (224)
  • September 2022 (177)
  • August 2022 (155)
  • July 2022 (123)
  • June 2022 (190)
  • May 2022 (204)
  • April 2022 (310)
  • March 2022 (273)
  • February 2022 (311)
  • January 2022 (329)
  • December 2021 (296)
  • November 2021 (277)
  • October 2021 (237)
  • September 2021 (234)
  • August 2021 (221)
  • July 2021 (237)
  • June 2021 (364)
  • May 2021 (282)
  • April 2021 (278)
  • March 2021 (293)
  • February 2021 (192)
  • January 2021 (222)
  • December 2020 (170)
  • November 2020 (172)
  • October 2020 (187)
  • September 2020 (194)
  • August 2020 (61)
  • July 2020 (58)
  • June 2020 (56)
  • May 2020 (36)
  • March 2020 (48)
  • February 2020 (109)
  • January 2020 (162)
  • December 2019 (174)
  • November 2019 (120)
  • October 2019 (104)
  • September 2019 (88)
  • August 2019 (159)
  • July 2019 (122)
  • June 2019 (66)
  • May 2019 (276)
  • April 2019 (393)
  • March 2019 (477)
  • February 2019 (448)
  • January 2019 (693)
  • December 2018 (736)
  • November 2018 (572)
  • October 2018 (611)
  • September 2018 (692)
  • August 2018 (667)
  • July 2018 (469)
  • June 2018 (440)
  • May 2018 (616)
  • April 2018 (774)
  • March 2018 (338)
  • February 2018 (159)
  • January 2018 (189)
  • December 2017 (142)
  • November 2017 (122)
  • October 2017 (146)
  • September 2017 (178)
  • August 2017 (201)
  • July 2017 (222)
  • June 2017 (155)
  • May 2017 (205)
  • April 2017 (156)
  • March 2017 (178)
  • February 2017 (195)
  • January 2017 (149)
  • December 2016 (143)
  • November 2016 (169)
  • October 2016 (167)
  • September 2016 (137)
  • August 2016 (115)
  • July 2016 (117)
  • June 2016 (125)
  • May 2016 (171)
  • April 2016 (152)
  • March 2016 (201)
  • February 2016 (202)
  • January 2016 (217)
  • December 2015 (210)
  • November 2015 (177)
  • October 2015 (284)
  • September 2015 (243)
  • August 2015 (250)
  • July 2015 (188)
  • June 2015 (216)
  • May 2015 (281)
  • April 2015 (306)
  • March 2015 (297)
  • February 2015 (280)
  • January 2015 (245)
  • December 2014 (287)
  • November 2014 (254)
  • October 2014 (185)
  • September 2014 (98)
  • August 2014 (8)

Copyright © 2025 · News Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in