Legitimising discrimination
by KR Phanda, Daily Pioneer, January 4, 2005
While piloting the Minority Educational Institutions Bill in the Rajya Sabha on December 21, the Union Human Resources Development Minister, Mr Arjun Singh, is reported to have observed that the NDA Government had been "trampling upon the rights of the minorities" as enshrined in the Constitution (The Pioneer, December 22).
Whether the NDA Government did trample upon the rights of minorities is a matter of debate, but what is certain is that the rights given to the minorities under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution have reduced the majority community into second class citizens in their own land. How many people are aware that these rights were introduced in 1946 in the Constituent Assembly at the instance of Jawaharlal Nehru to dissuade the Muslim League from insisting on division of India? It is unfortunate that these rights were allowed to stay on in the Constitution even after the creation of Pakistan in 1947.
This policy of appeasement of Muslims is nothing new. Mahatma Gandhi was the first Congress leader who openly sacrificed the Hindu interest to win the favour of Muslims. He initiated his political career in India by leading the Khilafat movement, a patently anti-Hindu and an anti-national act. Before he got killed, he had threatened to go on fast unto death to pressurise the Government to release Rs 55 crore to Pakistan. The Government has withheld the amount because Pakistan had invaded Kashmir.
Those who talk about the need to provide additional rights to Muslims conveniently ignore the fact that it is the same minority of 10 per cent which killed and plundered the Hindus; demolished their culture and civilisation and sold their women and children in the slave markets of Damascus and Baghdad during Muslim rule for seven centuries in India. It is the same minority which is still in occupation of the holiest places of the Hindus. Is it not the same minority which ultimately forced the British before their departure to create a separate homeland for the Indian ummah in 1947?
Even after independence, this minority has more rights and privileges than the majority. Hindus were treated as dhimmis and paid jizya to survive during the Muslim rule. With the British advent, Hindus were brought on par with Muslims as equal subjects of the British empire. After independence Hindus are again asked to pay jizya in the shape of contribution to Haj subsidy; the running of madarsas and the continuance of wakfs. Hindus have a right to ask: Under which provision of international law have the Indian Muslims been given a separate homeland? Under which provision of international law have the Muslims been allowed to stay on in India after the creation of Pakistan? Muslims, for example, are a minority in Germany, France and England. Do these countries provide special privileges to the Muslim minority? Recently, France has disallowed the use of head scarves by Muslim girls in Government schools. No masjids are allowed to be constructed without the prior approval of the local Government. Nowhere in the world has a minority been allowed to trample upon the character of the majority, as in India.
In a truly secular State, a Muslim should have no advantage which a Hindu doesn't have. Indian democracy functions on the basis of one-man, one vote. Only an Islamic State distinguishes and discriminates between residents on the basis of religion. In India, "Minority is to be no justification for privilege and majority is to be no ground for penalty"
While piloting the Minority Educational Institutions Bill in the Rajya Sabha on December 21, the Union Human Resources Development Minister, Mr Arjun Singh, is reported to have observed that the NDA Government had been "trampling upon the rights of the minorities" as enshrined in the Constitution (The Pioneer, December 22).
Whether the NDA Government did trample upon the rights of minorities is a matter of debate, but what is certain is that the rights given to the minorities under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution have reduced the majority community into second class citizens in their own land. How many people are aware that these rights were introduced in 1946 in the Constituent Assembly at the instance of Jawaharlal Nehru to dissuade the Muslim League from insisting on division of India? It is unfortunate that these rights were allowed to stay on in the Constitution even after the creation of Pakistan in 1947.
This policy of appeasement of Muslims is nothing new. Mahatma Gandhi was the first Congress leader who openly sacrificed the Hindu interest to win the favour of Muslims. He initiated his political career in India by leading the Khilafat movement, a patently anti-Hindu and an anti-national act. Before he got killed, he had threatened to go on fast unto death to pressurise the Government to release Rs 55 crore to Pakistan. The Government has withheld the amount because Pakistan had invaded Kashmir.
Those who talk about the need to provide additional rights to Muslims conveniently ignore the fact that it is the same minority of 10 per cent which killed and plundered the Hindus; demolished their culture and civilisation and sold their women and children in the slave markets of Damascus and Baghdad during Muslim rule for seven centuries in India. It is the same minority which is still in occupation of the holiest places of the Hindus. Is it not the same minority which ultimately forced the British before their departure to create a separate homeland for the Indian ummah in 1947?
Even after independence, this minority has more rights and privileges than the majority. Hindus were treated as dhimmis and paid jizya to survive during the Muslim rule. With the British advent, Hindus were brought on par with Muslims as equal subjects of the British empire. After independence Hindus are again asked to pay jizya in the shape of contribution to Haj subsidy; the running of madarsas and the continuance of wakfs. Hindus have a right to ask: Under which provision of international law have the Indian Muslims been given a separate homeland? Under which provision of international law have the Muslims been allowed to stay on in India after the creation of Pakistan? Muslims, for example, are a minority in Germany, France and England. Do these countries provide special privileges to the Muslim minority? Recently, France has disallowed the use of head scarves by Muslim girls in Government schools. No masjids are allowed to be constructed without the prior approval of the local Government. Nowhere in the world has a minority been allowed to trample upon the character of the majority, as in India.
In a truly secular State, a Muslim should have no advantage which a Hindu doesn't have. Indian democracy functions on the basis of one-man, one vote. Only an Islamic State distinguishes and discriminates between residents on the basis of religion. In India, "Minority is to be no justification for privilege and majority is to be no ground for penalty"
Labels: Hindu Human Rights, Minority Appeasement
1 Comments:
The reverse is true.
Post a Comment
<< Home