The bogey of majority in India – Michel Danino

Constitution of India

Prof Michel DaninoThere is, in reality, no Hindu majority; it is a construct of the colonial powers, who never missed a chance to pit Hindus against Muslims. – Prof Michel Danino

In a previous article (The Great Secular Confusion, March 19), I challenged the secular definition of the Indian nation: there is, in fact, no such definition, nor are the nation’s institutions and Constitution genuinely secular, since they discriminate among the followers of different religions. At the core of the issue lies a binary that has been accepted as a political axiom, though occasionally challenged as we will see: that of majority vs. minority, inherited from the colonial era and enshrined in Articles 28 and 29 of our Constitution. On the face of it, minorities appear to be identifiable enough: no one doubts the existence of a Parsi or Jewish minority.

Christians claim to be a minority, too—but are they? Numerically, no doubt, but should that be the sole criterion? When I lived in the Nilgiris of Tamil Nadu in the 1980s and 1990s, the largest and most beautiful estates and bungalows belonged to Christian individuals or institutions; so did most of the hospitals and schools; my own town had over 40 churches, against three or four Hindu temples; foreign-funded Bible “colleges” kept mushrooming.

Whether such an economically and culturally dominant group qualifies as a “minority”, with the attached tag of vulnerability, is problematic (and proselytising Christian groups are known to play the vulnerability card to the full among their well-wishers abroad: no other fund-raising is required). Equally ambiguous is the concept of a Muslim “minority” of about 195 millions (extrapolating from the 2011 Census), nearly three times the population of UK.

But the concept of majority is even more problematic, as the word suggests a monolithic Hindu population, primarily identifying itself as Hindu. This is contrary to India’s ground situation, where an assumed Hinduness is just one strand of a complex identity, others strands being community, language and region; for some Hindus, caste matters more than religion; for others, it is their region; for yet others, language. Their identity is but the ever-changing interplay of those four strands. That explains why Hindus have never reacted en bloc to any issue; even the Ayodhya movement, which possibly saw the largest Hindu mobilisation in recent times, involved only a small fraction of Hindu Indians.

There is, in reality, no Hindu majority; it is a construct of the colonial powers, who never missed a chance to pit Hindus against Muslims. It is true, as Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo, Tagore and even Nehru pointed out (apart from most Western Indologists) that Indic schools of thought and belief gave Indian civilization a unique cultural stamp, but those never translated into political power centres. It is also true that the religious strand comes to the fore at critical junctures, especially at times of inter-religious conflicts, but this does not mean that “majorityism” rules India, as is often glibly and irresponsibly asserted.

If it did, why should groups claiming to defend Hindu causes, such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), continue to voice the same demands decade after decade, with no sign of their ever being granted? Intriguingly, some of those demands have been impeccably secular in their spirit: abrogation of special Constitutional rights to minorities, of Article 370, implementation (as suggested by the Supreme Court on several occasions) of a Common Civil Code. One may add, if we are serious about building a truly secular nation, that there should be no room for a National Commission for Minorities or a Ministry of Minority Affairs with its special “schemes for welfare of minorities.”

The RSS is not isolated in making such demands. In his presidential address to the 53rd session of the Indian National Congress at Ramgarh in 1940, Abul Kalam Azad asked, “Can anyone who has any conception of the actual working of a democratic constitution, allow himself to be led astray by this false issue of majority and minority?” Eight years later, the Constituent Assembly initiated a long and vigorous debate on special rights for minorities. Tajamul Hussain, a Muslim member from Bihar, felt compelled to intervene: “I want to tell the House, Sir, that there is no minority in this country. I do not consider myself a minority.

In a secular state, there is no such thing as minority. I have got the same rights, status and obligations as anybody else. I wish those who consider themselves as the majority community would forget that there is any minority today in this country.” Damodar Swarup Seth, a member from United Provinces, concurred, “I feel, Sir, that in a secular state minorities based on religion or community should not be recognised. If they are given recognition then I submit that we cannot claim that ours is a secular state. Recognition of minorities based on religion or community is the very negation of secularism.” H. C. Mookherjee, a member from West Bengal, asked, “Are we really honest when we say that we are seeking to establish a secular state? … If your idea is to have a secular state it follows inevitably that we cannot afford to recognise minorities based upon religion.”

Finally, on 25 May 1949, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, to the applause of the Assembly, concluded, “In the long run, it would be in the interest of all to forget that there is anything like majority or minority in this country and [to accept] that in India there is only one community.” Perhaps the tragedy of post- Independence India is that such sane voices—both Muslim and Hindu—were ignored, although they spoke for true secularism, and have since been sidelined by our self-styled “secular”, “liberal” statesmen and intellectuals. I will examine in later articles some of the perverse consequences of this choice. – The New Indian Express, 2 April 2018

» Michel Danino is an author, guest professor at IIT Gandhinagar and a member of the Indian Council of Historical Research.

 

World Muslim Population


Advertisements

One Response

  1. NCM Chief Syed Ghayorul Hasan Rizvi

    No Minority Status for Hindus at National Level, Says NCM Panel in Interim Report – Debayan Roy – News18.com – May 25, 2018

    New Delhi: A sub-committee of the National Commission for Minorities, which was looking into whether Hindus can be granted minority status in eight states, has said in its interim report that “Hindus cannot be granted minority status at the national level due to Constitutional boundaries”.

    The NCM had set up a three-member committee on the question of granting minority status to Hindus in seven states and 1 Union Territory where they account for less than 50% of the population.

    The committee, led by NCM Vice Chairman George Kurien, has been given three months to submit its report.

    NCM chairman Syed Ghayorul Hasan Rizvi told News18 that the panel has concluded in an interim report that “since the Constitution mandates minority status to be granted to only six communities, there can be no further alteration in that. However, states are at liberty to implement their own minority classification.”

    The Constitution of India has not defined word ‘minority’ and only refers to ‘minorities’, but speaks of those ‘based on religion or language’ and rights of minorities have been spelt out in Constitution in detail.

    Six religious communities — Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Zoroastrians (Parsis) and Jains — have been notified in Gazette of India as minority communities by the Union Government all over India.

    The sub-committee has now fixed June 14 as the date to have a full commission to understand the “real picture behind the issue”.

    The NCM decision to set up the sub-committee was based on a plea filed by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyaya, whose petition on the matter was rejected by the Supreme Court on November 10. The court had directed him to approach the NCM.

    Upadhyay has been invited to take part in the sub-committee meeting on June 14 so that the “points made by the petitioner can be heard in detail”, Rizvi told News18.

    According to the 2011 Census, Hindus are in monitory in eight states — Lakshadweep (2.5%), Mizoram (2.75%), Nagaland (8.75%), Meghalaya (11.53%), J&K (28.44%), Arunachal Pradesh (29%), Manipur (31.39%), and Punjab (38.40%).

    The petitioner has argued that in the absence of “minority” status to Hindus in these states, benefits meant for minority communities were being given away to majority community in “illegal and arbitrary manner”.

    The petitioner claimed that the “propagation of Islam and the five tenets of Islam” was why Hindus were a minority. “According to the 3rd tenet, even a Muslim driver honestly donates his 2% annual income to promote and propagate Islam. This is the reason Islam is majority in 62 countries in just 1,400 years. And the world’s oldest Sanatan Dharma is not even one country. Now Hindus are minority in eight states,” Upadhyay said.

Comments are moderated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: