News

[News][twocolumns]

Daily Current Affairs

[Daily Current Affairs][bigposts]

General Knowledge

[General Knowledge][twocolumns]

National

[National][twocolumns]

international

[International][twocolumns]

Technology

[Technology][twocolumns]

It is necessary to define minority

minorty community children

Minority in India 

The same thing happened on the minority issue which has been happening for decades. The petition filed in the Supreme Court sought to clarify the concept of a minority so that the arbitrary and injustice under the guise at various levels in government functioning could be stopped. But as is the experience so far, all the parts of Tantra perform Hylahvali even in doing some proper work related to a particularism or community. The same thing happened in this and the Supreme Court handed over the task of defining it to the Minorities Commission as if he was the lecturer of the Constitution! Whereas only the Parliament or Supreme Court can define the term 'minority' present in the Constitution. It is also a sad situation that the court which decides on even the smallest issue, bites the court by adjudicating on a constitutional provision and the wrongdoing that has been going on for decades. 

In fact, this too is an indication of the seriousness of this problem. This is the problem in India with which all other problems are connected. In the language of the Upanishads, it is the key to solve many of our complex problems. But all the organs of power refrain from thinking openly on this, while the opinion of the country wants that the legal disparity between definition and distortion of 'minority' and 'majority' should be removed, because under the guise of this ambiguity, different parties here, indi- Foreign organizations and activists have been making a huge mess. This is neither in any other country in the world, nor was it in our original constitution.

In contemporary discourse, the meaning of the term minority has narrowed. The committee headed by Justice Rajendra Sachar used the terms 'minority' and 'Muslim' as synonyms of each other in government documents. Such understanding was not in the original constitution. Nevertheless, the previous UPA government ignored it and decided to implement the recommendations of the Sachar Committee. Such a view has made two types of citizens in the country, making the constitutional aspect of 'equality before law' secondary. A few years ago, the top police officer of West Bengal had fearlessly said that he sees or does not take action on incidents related to violence. This is also the case with the political fraternity. This gives a mockery of civil equality. All this was done by leaving the word 'minority' legally ambiguous. 

Minority in India

It is also an unprecedented situation that in a country the minority should get the rights which the majority does not have. In Western democracies, the goal of 'minority protection' is not to deprive anyone of the rights that others are comfortable with. This concept has been reversed in India, where there is talk of privileges for minorities. This pathology divides citizens between India into two varieties. One is those who have double rights and the other who have the same rights as the first. It has proved fatal for our country and society, which is dissolving poison in many sections of society.

The truth is that there was no need for this concept in India which is born out of a history of racist or community oppression in European societies. While this was not so during the British Raj in India. Here the British, ie the minorities, had very special rights! Before that, even if there was a deprived community under the Mughal rule, it was the Hindus who had to pay religious taxes like Jizya. In such a situation, the concept of 'minority protection' was adopted in India, without any reference to it. Nevertheless, even when it was taken from the West, it does not mean that minorities should not have the said majority if they are given such privileges. The third flaw associated with this is that there is no mention of 'majority' in the Constitution or the law. For this reason, it does not exist legally! This is a bizarre irony because nothing is self-evident in law. When there are huge differences in the meaning of written streams, then what is unwritten can only be estimated on that front. That is why no one, as a 'majority', is anywhere in our Constitution. Many political, legal disturbances are flourishing here.

It is necessary to define minority

Here a Muslim or Christian person holds both Indian citizens and minorities, but a Hindu only as a citizen. As a Hindu, he cannot ask the court for anything, because there is no recognition of Hindu or majority in the constitution. Of course, the framers of our constitution did not intend this, but at some points due to such vacancy and contradiction today, this effect is being seen. For example, Section 29 of the Constitution gives religion, race, caste and language four grounds in the context of the minority. Whereas Section 30 only mentions religion and language. Then on what basis should the identity of the minority? This is unanswered. Therefore, unless it is clarified, all acts in the name of 'minority' are unfair. This is not only common sense, discretion and judicial approach but also constitutional sense.

The arbitrariness issued in the name of minorities today was inconceivable to the framers of the Constitution. They were advocates of equal rights for all. Since the definition of minorities remained incomplete in the constitution, by misusing them, leaders started taking care of their interests. This injustice was basically due to the power of power and ignorance of the people. This also happened because a basic question is completely and neglected from the beginning, who is the majority? In such a situation, the notion of minority becomes impossible, because 'minor' and 'multiple' is comparative concepts. There cannot be another without one.

The simplest and undisputed solution to this is to remove the statutory ambiguity by passing a bill in Parliament. It should be declared that the rights mentioned in Sections 25 to 30 of the Constitution were given to ensure equality for all communities. This is their intention. Such a legal system will not take away anything of a minority, rather others will get their right which was taken away from them by political deceit. If our Parliament, Supreme Court or Union Council of Ministers abolish it, then the path of all community discrimination, communalism and desolate, vote-bank politics will be opened.

No comments:

Post a comment

Pleasse do not enter any spam link in the comment box.