Today’s edition of the Hindu features an article by Professor Zoya Hasan, who teaches at JNU, and is a member of the National Commission of Minorities (click here for her profile as well as those of other members of the current Commission). Her article argues against the prevailing consensus among the three wings of government (reflected in the reported Cabinet approval of the new policy in May 2007, which is itself based on recent Supreme Court decisions) on the proper approach to defining minorities in India. Here are extracts from the article highlighting the persuasive arguments advanced by Professor Hasan:
“The Constitution (103rd Amendment) Bill, 2004 to grant constitutional status to the National Commission for Minorities envisages a change in the way minorities are specified. The Cabinet has reportedly approved a proposal (May 2007) to define minorities State-wise in line with several Supreme Court judgments, most notably that in T.M.A. Pai. For the purpose of this legislation, minority will be specified as such in relation to a particular State/Union Territory by a presidential notification issued after consultation with the State Government; this will be in addition to the five minorities (Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Parsis) referred to in the NCM Act, 1992. The new approach is not consistent with the understanding developed in the Constituent Assembly on the protection of minorities and the constitutional compact between the State and minority groups. Although the Constitution does not define a minority or provide details relating to the geographical and numerical specification of the concept, it is clear that the constitutional scheme envisages this to be determined at the national level. Periodic judicial interventions and categorisation has had major repercussions. Over the years, judicial pronouncements have sought to give a restricted meaning to minority rights by limiting them to education and defining minorities at the State level in terms of protection under Article 30 which provides religious minorities the right to set up educational institutions of their choice. The legitimation of a restrictive conception of minority rights can also be noticed, in this context, in the Central Government’s proposal to adopt a State-specific notion of minorities…. … … At the heart of the current controversy is confusion about which groups qualify as minorities and regarding the nature of the unit of determination under this rubric. However, internationally, some agreement exists. Commonly cited characteristics that make groups distinctive and expose them to discrimination include religion, language, culture, and gender. There is also a unanimous opinion that the term ‘minority’ refers to a power relationship. In this, the size of a group may bear some relation to the degree of power it wields, but presumably because other factors are also involved in the equation, the relationship of group size is not all that significant. Contrary to this widely accepted perception of minorities, the Government’s new proposal for State-specific minorities is driven by a statistical or numerical approach. The size of the group is not what should concern our policy-makers or those committed to eradication of inequity, prejudice, and discrimination. This is because numbers per se merely quantify and describe the proportion of a group in a population; they do not tell us anything about whether a particular minority group is powerful or powerless, advantaged or disadvantaged, represented or under-represented. A more meaningful conception of minority status would include sections of people who, on account of their non-dominant position in the country as a whole (not a specific State), and because of their religion, language, caste or gender, are targets of discrimination and therefore deserving of special consideration. The statistical approach disregards the crucial qualitative condition of vulnerability and disadvantage…. … … In the circumstances, defining and confining the category ‘minority’ to States is not the best way forward; it would be far more helpful to recognise the comprehensive character of minority rights, in consonance with the demands of substantive equality, to include them by revisiting the concept of affirmative action. This would be in step with the slew of policies and measures currently under consideration to address the economic, social, and educational deprivation that minorities experience.”
Written by
Arun Thiruvengadam
While I agree that the statistical approach is potentially anomalous, I don’t quite agree with Prof. Zoya’s ‘power relationship’ perspective qua minorities.
For one, the mandate of Arts. 29 and 30 is not to alleviate the conditions of minorities ala SC/STs, but only to allow them to safeguard their culture and to protect them from State discrimination on account of their distinctiveness.
Also, introducing the subjective element of ‘deprivation’ compared to the relatively objective statistical measure currently employed, could make ‘minority status’ go the way of ‘SC?ST?OBC status’ i.e. mainly a political bargaining chip around which vote banks will coalesce. I’d rather have the anomalies.
The concluding part of Professor Hasan’s article reads:
In the circumstances, defining and confining the category ‘minority’ to States is not the best way forward; it would be far more helpful to recognise the comprehensive character of minority rights, in consonance with the demands of substantive equality, to include them by revisiting the concept of affirmative action. This would be in step with the slew of policies and measures currently under consideration to address the economic, social, and educational deprivation that minorities experience.
I do wish that Professor Hasan did not write as if she were addressing her fellow sociologists. Can someone translate? I am afraid at the end of the article, all I can say that I understand that there are problems with the way “minority” is defined currently in the Indian context; however, it also seems to me that any alternative method will also run into some problem or the other. We are a very diverse society and the problem we have in defining what groups are “minorities” is a consequence of that. There is no getting around the diversity of our society.
The relevant question is what system should replace the current, admittedly imperfect one. Professor Hasan has nothing concrete to offer here. To quote her, she wants “us” to “recognise the comprehensive character of minority rights, in consonance with the demands of substantive equality, to include them by revisiting the concept of affirmative action.” Say what? More quotas to more groups? Specifically, quotas for Muslims also? Is that it? Why not say so explicitly?
Apologies in advance for the tone of the post but such writings irritate me. It is better to keep things simple if you are writing for a general audience. Reserve these convoluted constructions for your fellow sociologists.
Suresh.
Lovely article. But, given the diversity in various parts of India (setting aside the concerns about the “unity and integrity” of the country that would inevitably arise, even if the purpose is “statistical”; then again, preparation for an offence is not a crime unless there is an attempt), how can there be a reasonable/proper ‘national’ minority classification? Maybe I’m just too daft to understand, but the thing is, when religion/ethnic origin is what is being used as the criterion, wouldn’t it vary tremendously from state to state? There may be a lot of Parsis in Mumbai, but hardly any in Ranchi. Christians might not be a minority in Kerala or Goa, but they most definitely are in Uttar Pradesh or Assam. The former would not need protection, while the latter will (assuming there is need for such protection). Wouldn’t a state-wise classification make more sense? If an all-India count is taken, would it not become too generalised?
That aside, would this not make the task of religious zealots/fanatics planning genocide much easier (stretching one’s imagination to include a bit of paranoia, that is)? If you have concrete numbers of the people you want to eliminate along with their locations…
Isn’t this just another process to encourage the ever-widening chasm between the different sects in the country? We are a society ridden with religion and caste…and instead of harmony, seeds of discord are being spread. What is the need for such statistical data? We Indians are not so different physically as the white Americans and the African-Americans to need different kinds of medicines. Should the protection not be for the under-priviledged class of people generally, without getting into whether they belong to the minority or majority? Who is in need of protection – a poor Hindu Brahmin, starving and begging on the streets of Benares, or a billionaire industrialist, who happens to belong to ‘minority’?
completely agreed with Ms.Jayantika Ganguly ….