Dr Romesh Raina
The wheel of time is never stationery, it moves on and on leaving its footprints on everything that comes its way, especially on the journey of Kashmir in all its dimensions. As a consequence, Kashmir today is a transformed polity bearing little resemblance to its pre-nineties persona when the entire society was bereft of hard edges of religion and politics that it developed later. It has had an impact on Kashmiri society with deep distrust having taken roots in the hearts and minds of the people. This has resulted in the heightened manifestation of political movement where religious and political thought is one of the most contested and explosive subjects.
Minorities in Kashmir have come to realize that the nature of politics has changed since pre-ninety times particularly after KP minority faced sudden and unprovoked exodus from their homes in the valley. It provides an insight of how much the contemporary society has travelled into silent mode about the complex challenges to the minority existence. This, over the years, has become intrinsic to the political culture of the place. For the minorities, of the State this question is looming large on their consciousness. Far from being addressed, it continues to be swept under the carpet only to be neglected. Whether it is their importance in the electoral politics or political irrelevance, it continues to be an area of contention even today.
It raises hard questions about the political rights of minorities. Specific to their rights is the denial of their political claims and accommodation. Options for addressing their concerns means greater civic and political inclusion which seems to have been buckled under the force of the circumstances as a consequence of separatism and fundamentalism. It has generated a dynamics of its own which refuses to stem its flow. It is the harbinger of new public thinking contributory to the evolution of a significant political message which is to keep the minoritiy communities in the time warp with all its brutal consequences. A clear fallout is their existential threat.
Wary of the anxieties of minorities, a modest attempt was made by the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) in recommending a Minority status for Hindu minorities of J&K state. In identical letters (CD/4/98/NCM and CH/4/98/NCM) dated 12th January 1999 addressed to Ministry of Home Affairs Govt. of India and the J&K Govt, Prof Tahir Mahmood, then Chairman of the NCM had said “this commission being a national body overseeing the protection of the minorities, is under an obligation to help all the minorities, both at the national and state levels. Our Hindu brethren are a minority in the state of Jammu and Kashmir and in five other states. We owe them the sacred responsibility of doing all that is necessary to protect their lives, human rights and civil liberties”.
This letter called upon the Govt. of Jammu and Kashmir to accept and implement them through appropriate legislative and executive measures.
It was the first significant response to the horrors of history heaped on the displaced minority community from a statutory body. The Ministry for Minority Affairs picked up the issue from where it was left by NCM. As a first step, it held an interactive session with Kashmiri migrants residing in Delhi NCR at India Inrernational Centre on 15th April 2006. The idea was to have a dialogue with Kashmiri Pandits on the problems confronting them. The author of this piece was one of the key speakers on the occasion. The session was chaired A. R. Antulay, the then Minister for Minority Affaiars who inter alia said: “perhaps grant of minority status to Kashmiri Pandits would go a long way in solving their day to day problems”. As a follow up, Antulay actively pursued the matter with the Prime Minister of India who, acknowledged his communication of 13th May 2006 “regarding granting Minority status to Hindus in Jammu & Kashmir” on 17h May 2006. A somewhat similar response from Smt Sonia Gandhi to his letter of 13th May 2006 said “she had taken note of your views and suggestions in this regard”.
Relevant to the subject, it would be pertinent to draw the attention of readers to the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in CA NO 4730 of 1999 Bal Patil & Anr vs UOI & Ors announced on 8-8-2005, in the case of TMA Pai Foundation (2oo2(8) scc481. This case pertained to the declaration of Jain community as a minority community under section 2(c) of NCM act of 1992. It was also about the question of minorities and their rights.
In this case, among other questions, the Bench was faced with the question “what is the meaning and content of the expression of minority in Article 30 of the Constitution of India? While dealing with the question, the majority in the Bench observed” Linguistic and Religious minorities are covered by the expression ‘minority’ under Article 30 of the Constitution. Since re-organisation of the states in India has been on linguistic lines, therefore, for the purpose of determining the minority the unit will be the State and not the whole of India. Thus religious and linguistic minorities who have been put on par in Article 30 have to be considered State wise” (Emphasis added)
The Court further examined the concept of minorities under the Constitution of India. It felt that “the expression ‘minority’ has been used in Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution but it has nowhere been defined. The Preamble of the constitution proclaims to guarantee every citizen the liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. Group of Articles 25 to 30 guarantee protection of religious. cultural, and educational rights to both majority and minority communities. It appears that keeping in view the constitutional guarantees for protection of cultural, educational and religious rights of all citizens, it was not felt necessary to define ‘minority’. ‘Minority’, as understood from constitutional scheme, signifies an identifiable group of people or community who were seen as deserving protection from likely deprivation of their religious, cultural and educational rights by other communities who happen to be in majority and likely to gain power in a democratic form of Government based on election”. “The definition of ‘minority’ given under the Act in section 2(c) is in fact not a definition as such but only provision enabling the Central Government to identify a community as a ‘minority’ which in the considered opinion of the Central Government deserves to be notified for the purpose of protecting and monitoring its progress and development through the commission”
In view of the above, there is an imperative need to create an environment of understanding about the minority concerns, something which our society badly needs. This is rooted in the reluctance to address the displaced minority question consistent with the minority management of the rest of the country. Implicit in this argument is the blood-soaked story of a section of the society who are struggling to remain relevant to Kashmir and its politics and as such seek all the legitimate democratic and secular means for the redressal of their grievances. There is a fundamental need for re-assessment and Articles 29 & 30 of Indian Constitution, if read together, could provide a lead. This provides an ideal framework for minorities sufficient to build momentum on the issue. The whole idea is political protection to minorities through constitutional means.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel