The relentless exploitation and misuse of the word ‘minority’ is the bitter truth of Indian politics. This arbitrariness has sowed the seeds of distrust, disharmony and alienation between the two communities – Hindu and Muslim. Today, in the farewell time of the politics of appeasement, identifying the “real minorities” should be given protection and encouragement. At the same time, “uniform civil code” should also be implemented while ensuring equal rights for all Indians. Senior advocate Ashwini Upadhyay has filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking to repeal the National Commission for Minorities Act-1992 and the Minority Educational Institutions Act-2005. He has also said in his same petition that if these baseless, unfair, illogical and unconstitutional Acts cannot be abolished, then the benefit of these provisions should also be given to Hindus in those states where they are ‘minority’.
In this petition, a just and expedient demand has been made in the Constitution to define the word minority used in a specific context and to make a clear guide / manual thereof. In fact, the word minority has been used in Articles 29, 30 and 350 of the Constitution. But it has not been explained there. Taking advantage of this, the Congress government, in 1992, at the time of the formation of the Minorities Commission, did vote bank politics of arbitrariness. Questioning the prevailing definition, Ashwini Upadhyay says that according to the prevailing definition, today there should be hundreds of religious minority groups and thousands of linguistic minority groups in the country. But why has this status been given to only a handful of communities? Isn’t this a rare example of the politics of communal appeasement? The Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, Parsi and Christian communities have been treated as minorities under Section 2(c) of the National Commission for Minorities. In 2014, the Jain community was also given minority status.
In the context of this petition, the Ministry of Minorities, Government of India, while filing its affidavit in the Supreme Court, has clarified that it is not only the Central Government that has the right to grant minority status; Rather, the state government can also give this status to a community on the basis of its numbers and socio-cultural status. The Ministry of Minorities has clarified that according to the 2011 census, Jammu and Kashmir, Lakshadweep, Punjab, Mizoram, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, The number of Hindus is very less in the states/UTs like Arunachal Pradesh and Ladakh, so they fulfill the eligibility of being a minority. The concerned state government can provide privileges and protection by declaring them a minority within their geographical limits. It has also started by giving minority status to the Jews in their state. Similarly, the Gujarat government has also given minority status to the Jain community here.
In the above background, it is necessary to formulate a comprehensive manual giving a more inclusive and rational definition of ‘minority’, so that the Center / States do not misuse this provision at their arbitrariness. While filing this petition, Ashwini Upadhyay has based the historic judgment given in 2003 by an 11-member Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case ‘TM A Pai Foundation Vs Union of India’. In this judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had clarified that only the State can determine the religious or linguistic minority. Even for making central laws related to minorities, the unit will be the state, not the whole country. Therefore, the nomination of religious and linguistic minorities should be on the basis of the population of the states, that is, considering the particular state as a unit. is important.
It is interesting but strange that the number of Muslims living in India (194 million) is more than Pakistan (18.4). Then why and how are they a minority; This is a question worth considering. The statement made by Najma Heptulla when she took over as the Ministry of Minority Affairs in May 2014 is extremely important. He then said that Muslims are in such a large number in India that they cannot be called a minority. In this context, the definition of ‘minority’ given by the United Nations is noteworthy. According to the United Nations, “A community which has no social, economic and political influence and whose population is negligible, shall be called a minority.” Similarly, while mentioning the word minority in the Indian Constitution, the endangered or endangered communities should be referred to as their religion and There has been talk of giving protection and protection for the observance of customs. There is no talk of giving more or less rights to any community in the constitution. It clearly talks about giving equal rights to all the communities. But in the above two Acts, the wrong tradition of giving special facilities, rights and preference to a particular community by giving minority status arbitrarily outside the spirit of the Constitution has started. It is worth mentioning that according to the definition of the United Nations and the spirit of the constitution, is the Muslim community entitled to minority status?
Taking serious note of the above facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court should take a necessary initiative to check the misuse of the provisions of the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992 and the Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2005. Affidavit of the Central Government proposes an alternative in this direction. This historical injustice can be mitigated by governments identifying and naming religious minorities within the geographical boundaries of their states. So far, those who are in majority in terms of numbers in a particular state, they have been a minority in the schemes of the state and central governments. But for a complete solution to the problem, it is necessary to lay down a just, logical and clear manual and guidelines by the Court to define and grant this status to the minority communities and to ensure the privileges and protections to be enjoyed under its provisions. Some people are also talking about giving minority status at the district level by making the population of the districts the basis/unit.
This will not eliminate the problem; Rather, there will be a lot of chaos and disorder. India is a diverse country. It has immense linguistic diversity. That is why it is called ‘Kos-kos par paani badale, char kos par vani’. Therefore, the proposal of granting minority status at the state level is more logical and expedient by making the state population the basis/unit. Apart from numbers, participation and attendance in socio-cultural life and governance should also be made the basis. In Lakshadweep (96.2%), Assam (34.2%), West Bengal (27%), Kerala (26.6%), Uttar Pradesh (19.3%) and Bihar (17%), the population and participation/share of the Muslim community is marginally lower. They have a fair share in various spheres of public life, from legislatures to bureaucracy, but in some states like Assam, West Bengal, non-Muslim communities are fearful and insecure due to Muslim appeasement and disproportionate share. Taking cognizance of this fact, the Allahabad High Court in one of its important judgments in 2005 had held that Muslims are not a minority because they are large in numbers and they are also powerful.
They don’t even have an existential crisis. It is very important to keep in mind the basic spirit of the Constitution while formulating the definition of minority and the Directive Principles of Policy. It should be noted that small numbers are a basis for being a minority, but not the only basis. Just as the position of a particular caste varies from state to state in the determination of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes, why does the situation not change in the case of minorities in the same way? The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment needs to propose an exact solution to all these discrepancies and irony, so that Sabka Saath and Sabka Vikas can take place in the country. Also, the constitutional provisions should be used to ensure proper participation of the communities concerned, and not for the appeasement of the particular community and vote bank politics. Undoubtedly, Jammu and Kashmir is the prime example of misuse of these provisions.