Sat Nov 4, 2006
The word "minority" has not been defined
in the Constitution. The Motilal Nehru Report,
1928, showed a prominent desire to afford protection
to minorities, but did not define the _expression.
The Sapru Report, 1945, also proposed, inter
alia, a Minorities Commission, which exists
today, but did not define minority. The Yar
Book of Human Rights, 1950, page 490, the UN
Sub-commission on Prevention of Discrimination
and Protection of Minorities has defined 'minoruty
(by an inclusive definition) as "The term
'minority' includes only those non-dominant
groups in a population which possess and wish
to preserve stable ethnic, religious or linguistic
traditions or characteristics markedly different
from those of the rest of the population; (ii)
such minorities should properly include a number
of persons sufficient by themselves to preserve
such traditions and characteristics; and (iii)
such minorities must be loyal to the State of
which they are nationals."
Article of the International Covenant on Civil
and political Rights does not define the _expression
but gives the right :"In those States in
which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities
exist, pesons belonging to such minorities shall
not be denied the right, in community with the
oter members of their group, to enjoy their
own culture, to profess and practise their own
religion or to use their own language."
It is beleived that the UN too has not said
anything on 'who constitutes a minority.' There
is an absolute necessity to define ' wno can
be called a Minority' in the Constitution, whether
this be based on a percentage of the total population
in the country or whether it be on religious
or caste basis. Then we would have another problem
crop up in the states of Punjab, where Sikhs
are in a majority, in J & K, where Muslims
are in a majority and in parts of the North
East where Christians are in a majority. Then
with the growing conversions to Buddhism, a
few States could find themselves in a quandary.
As such who is a Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Jain,
Buddhist, Parsi, etc as then we have to look
at the large number of castes. When figures
are taken into consideration, then SCs/STs including
Dalits would constitute percentages well over
the limited percentage. We find that the government,
in a craze for votes, attaches more
significance to Muslims, even at the cost of
the Dalit Christians. And all this is very dangerous
in the years ahead. But if the government and
Political parties are sincere and faithful to
the Constitution of India, they would ensure
that Liberty, Equality, Justice & Fraternity
are strictly adhered to; all kinds of 'doling
out' should be purely on economic basis as there
are more numbers from the majority community
who are 'hand to mouth'. And yes, the creamy
layer should always be excluded. Reservations,
special facilities and kindness should go to
the 'have- nots, downtrodden, marginalised sections
irrespective of aaaffiliation to religion, caste,
etc - Being an Indian should be the top-most
priority.
Today the Communists too are wooing the Muslims,
not the minority communities. What a shame we
are losing out, everywhere, everytime.
Denzil B Atkinson (ex M.P.)
<denatkin@yahoo. co.in>
