Who Is a Minority?

IN ACCORDANCE WITH A Maharashtra government resolution (GR) passed in 2004, slaughterhouses are closed and the sale of meat banned for two days in Mumbai every year during the Jain religious observance of Paryushan, a time of spiritual contem­plation and purification. A year after the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-Shiv Sena government assumed office in Maharashtra in 2014, noisy protests erupted, led by opposition parties—the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), Congress, and Samajwadi Party (SP)—against the restriction. The protests saw live chicken be­ing held up along with plates and knives. The Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) held a ‘sale’ of raw chicken and fish outside a Jain place of worship. Although a part of the ruling coali­tion, the Sena also weighed in, asking Jains not to insist on the meat ban, with party mouthpiece Saamana offering advice that the community risked cutting itself off from the “mainstream” like Muslims. Saamana further reminded Jains that they were saved during the 1992-93 riots by the use of violence to answer violence. How could adherence to the principle of non-violence become a reason for a meat ban? MNS then accused Jains of building large temples in residential areas that obstructed other communities. A success­ful and prosperous community, Mumbai is one of few cities in In­dia where the Jain population is in excess of one lakh. But even so, the number of persons professing to be Jains is small. An uninitiated observer would wonder just how Jains came to be the subject of such a fierce dis­cussion, arraigned on the charge of intolerance and chauvinism.

The High Court of Bombay put an end to the affair, upholding a two-day ban while refusing its extension to two other days, but not before handing out homilies about Mumbai being a progressive city and expressing concerns about small traders being saddled with leftover meat. The court took objection to the sale ban, noting that till the last year only slaughter had been restricted. The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), meanwhile, amended the order, a move hailed as a win for modernity. The turn of events was replete with ironies well beyond political opportunism, though that was no less striking. The issue really wasn’t about whether the ban itself or the number of days was being extended. (In 2019, the high court held that closure of abattoirs and sale was not unconstitutional.) In normal course, the meat ban would have passed without much comment. Claims that 95 per cent of Mumbai residents eat meat round the year were clearly wrong given a significant Gujarati popula­tion which is mostly vegetarian. Many meat shops are shut during Navratri as consumption of non-vegetarian food plummets. And Paryushan-related BMC resolutions go back to 1964 and 1994. Yet, more recent commentary suggests that the community’s ‘disproportionate’ clout as influential traders and busi­nesspersons is a reason for the passage of the resolutions.

It was revealing that the Jain community, caught in an unexpected crossfire, was virtually accused of being both anti-majority and anti-minority. Both the Senas as well as their ideological adversaries NCP, Congress, and SP agreed that the ban must go. Even if the clout of the community were to account for the ban in the first place, could not respecting the sentiments of this minuscule minority be an act of considerateness? A gesture acknowledging the solemnity of Pary­ushan and the community’s contribution to Mumbai’s success may not have been alien to the original decision. Instead, Jains were pilloried as unreasonable and subjected to intimidation while no animal activist or commentator objected to live chicken and raw meat being displayed in public, purportedly as an act of protest. The installation of a BJP-led government was evidently the trigger for the militant concern for the rights of meat eaters. Out of office after two terms, NCP and Congress had a knife to sharpen. After BJP emerged the largest party by a wide margin in the 2014 Maharashtra Assembly election, the Sena ate humble pie and agreed to being allies again. But the party found it hard to reconcile itself to being a junior partner and latched onto the meat ban to embarrass its ally. Then Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis said the state government had not amended the 2004 decision of the Congress-NCP government. Any additional day was the decision of respective corporations. The circumstances can help explain motives but the nub of the issue lay elsewhere. Jains were a soft target, as in electoral terms they are numerically insignificant. They would not be the first minority community to discover that all minorities are not only not equal but some are expendable.

It is the duty of the state and indeed the obligation of the majority, however defined, to protect minorities. India’s essential DNA advances diversity and offers refuge to the down-and-out

Share this on

During the 26/11 attacks on Mumbai in November 2008, the Chabad House near the city’s Colaba area was a specific target. Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Toiba controller Sajjid Mir issued detailed instructions on phone directing the slaughter of its Jewish occupants. Those who died were foreign nationals but Mumbai’s Jewish community is much smaller than the Jains, totalling around 3,500-4,000 according to the website worldjewishtravel.org. Even amid the carnage of 26/11, the Chabad House killings stood out for their brutality. Despite enhanced security measures, Chabad House remains a terror target with photographs and the GPS location of the place recovered from an Islamist cell in Pune in July 2023. Though many parts of the world are threatened by terrorism, Jews are particularly so.

The history and grievances of Israel and Palestine are subject to lengthy and often interminable discussion. The savagery of Hamas raiders on October 7 is undeniable. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza thereafter is stark and indisputable too. But the history of Judea does not lend itself to black-and-white interpreta­tions. Just as Palestinians have a right to a homeland, accounts painting Jews as usurpers are simply not true either. Looking for ‘root causes’ in disputes can be a hazardous business, and is often a selective exercise. What is unambiguous is that the current war in Gaza began with the Hamas attack. Yet, even the latest United Nations (UN) resolution of December 12, calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire and supported by a large majority (153-10), does not contain any refer­ence to Hamas. While calling for all parties to adhere to international law, the UN resolution does not offer any indication as to how the security concerns of Israel would be addressed. The UN has not reprimanded Hamas or clearly called it out for the murders, rapes, and kidnappings that occurred on October 7. Nor is there any recognition that the group’s leaders are essentially rejectionists and the main obstacle to any peace in Palestine. The weight of narratives and street protests tar Jews as aggressors, as people who had it coming. Is the Jewish state blameless in the violence since the 1940s? Can its settlement policy be questioned? All of this can be debated though an eye-for-an-eye policy has an obvious downside. The problem is that facts are not under scrutiny. The anger on the Arab street has silenced governments in the Middle East which were moving towards what might have been a historic peace with Israel. Many pro- Palestine demonstrations at Western universi­ties and cities come across as support for Hamas. The cry for liberating land from the “river to the sea” (the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea) is a chilling call to eliminate the Jewish people. All the fabled wealth and influence of Jewish lobbies—fodder for a myriad conspiracy theo­ries—cannot protect the community from the threat of physical harm. A kangaroo court has pronounced its verdict. Although numerically small and exposed to existential threats, Jews are not eligible to be victims of crimes committed in broad daylight.

IT IS EVIDENT THAT EVEN WHEN IT comes to minorities, numbers matter. There are large minorities that behave in an authoritarian manner, seeking to impose their culture and beliefs on others. Sometimes, the word minority comes to mean a single community to the exclusion of other smaller faiths. Even within a community, a particular sect can dominate to the extent of overshadow­ing other strands. This is true within religious denominations as well as caste groupings, such as Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) in India. Decades ago, the UN identified broad categories of minorities, such as nation­al, ethnic, linguistic and religious. The defini­tions have, by and large, served well. They do suffer from the above-mentioned infirmities but can be recognisable as categories that can be identified and enumerated. In recent years, these lines have blurred as calls to promote and protect diversity grew louder and became a new benchmark. There has always been a case for diversity given the lack of representation of some social groups in political and economic spheres in almost every society. This though can lead to a diminution of minority rights as race, gender, sexuality, age, disability, and cul­ture enter the diversity-minorities debate.

Jains were a soft target, as in electoral terms they are numerically insignificant. They would not be the first minority community to discover that all minorities are not only not equal but some are expendable

Share this on

The relevance of different types of diversity in workplaces and avenues of national life is obvious and more sensitivity on these counts is Chabad House killings stood out for their brutality. Despite enhanced security measures, Chabad House remains a terror target with photographs and the GPS location of the place recovered from an Islamist cell in Pune in July 2023. Though many parts of the world are threatened by terrorism, Jews are particularly so.

The history and grievances of Israel and Palestine are subject to lengthy and often interminable discussion. The savagery of Hamas raiders on October 7 is undeniable. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza thereafter is stark and indisputable too. But the history of Judea does not lend itself to black-and-white interpreta­tions. Just as Palestinians have a right to a homeland, accounts painting Jews as usurpers are simply not true either. Looking for ‘root causes’ in disputes can be a hazardous business, and is often a selective exercise. What is unambiguous is that the current war in Gaza began with the Hamas attack. Yet, even the latest United Nations (UN) resolution of December 12, calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire and supported by a large majority (153-10), does not contain any refer­ence to Hamas. While calling for all parties to adhere to international law, the UN resolution does not offer any indication as to how the security concerns of Israel would be addressed. The UN has not reprimanded Hamas or clearly called it out for the murders, rapes, and kidnappings that occurred on October 7. Nor is there any recognition that the group’s leaders are essentially rejectionists and the main obstacle to any peace in Palestine. The weight of narratives and street protests tar Jews as aggressors, as people who had it coming. Is the Jewish state welcome. The sectionalising can, however, be­come an end in itself, and deny more vulnerable minorities (for example, the particularly vulner­able tribal groups) attention and resources. As studies reveal, diversity programmes undertak­en by the private sector have delivered limited results. Reservations in government employ­ment, as in India, are driven by legislation and do result in greater representation for the under­privileged. But there remain troubling questions about rights of minorities who falter at the first step itself, either due to remote geographies or entry-level barriers, such as a lack of education.

In India, too, recognising minorities is challenging, not least because political connotations can obscure more objective social criteria. Being a minority involves, to varying extents, identifying oneself as such. Prickliness about being assimilated (with an accompany­ing loss of identity) can sit alongside a desire to belong. The Sikh and Hindu religions are related; the newer faith drew on the latter, but developed its own characteristics and symbols. To say Sikhs are almost akin to Hindus can sound patronising even if the reference is not so intended. For a minority, a sense of being encompassed may evoke fear of dilution of faith. Yet, a constant iteration of being different may not be healthy. It can be seen in Kash­mir where religious and regional separatism turned neighbours into foes. The majority in Kashmir, however, is a minority elsewhere. In next-door Ladakh, Buddhists are a majority in Leh district but nationally a small minority. Bereft of linkages to a larger group of coreligionists within India, the Buddhists of Ladakh are very much a minority. Within Ladakh, the Muslim population of Kargil district outnumbers Buddhists who also contend with a daunting landscape. If there is one Lok Sabha seat which should be represented by a Buddhist, it is Ladakh. A hard-working, god-fearing people, their voice was seldom heard until Ladakh became a Union territory in 2019. Loyal citizens, they were unlikely to rebel, and so failed to gain the attention of governments in New Delhi. They resented the domination of Kashmir Valley politicians who, ironically enough, were not shy of invoking their (national) minority status.

During the 26/11 attacks on Mumbai in November 2008, the Chabad House near the city’s Colaba area was a specific target. Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Toiba controller Sajjid Mir issued detailed instructions on phone directing the slaughter of its Jewish occupants

Share this on

To return to the discussion on identity, the role of the clergy is important. The Constitution offers freedom of religion but what happens when reli­gious preachers, in a bid to conserve a distinct identity, end up promoting separateness? Constantly dinning into the ears of the laity the need to beware of assimilation can result in encouraging divisiveness. Minority separatism can verge on disparaging majority beliefs as inferior. This in turn spurs majority consolidation—witness unending battles between Christian evangelists and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and other Hindu organisations over conversions. Such differences may not remain polemical, and result in violence as between Hindus and Muslims before and since Partition. Pro-minority poli­cies—promoted by majority-community politicians—purportedly to secure minority rights end up catering to more conservative and partisan elements.

Conservative clergy are seen as representatives of their communities. If there is one thing this does not do, it is advancing the real interests of minori­ties, particular the minority within a minority—women. It ends up creating ghettos and raises walls of suspicion and substitutes religious indoctrination for social emancipation. No greater harm is done to the cause of minority rights than by minorityism. As we have seen, the crossfire of political interests can render even prosperous minorities into hapless targets.

Decades after social justice parties prevailed in Tamil Nadu, upper castes con­tinue to be fair game. At the same time, violence against Dalits, even during the tenure of social-justice parties, remains unexplained. The language of retribution can sometimes be as hate-filled as the original acts of discrimination, making it difficult to recognise the alleged oppressor. As we evaluate new markers for inclusiveness, the really vulnerable minorities continue to be at risk of falling through the gaps in measuring diversity. Transgenders who beg at traffic lights are the lowest of the low, and stand on the absolute margins of society. Their recourse to the protection of the law is minimal and they are part of a degrad­ing sex trade where they are at risk of the worst forms of physical harm and disease. Street children, too, are at the receiving end of violence, ex­posed to crime, drugs and hunger at an age when they need the protective cocoon of a family. Neither transgen­ders nor street children are a ‘small’ minority, as they number in lakhs. But they are peculiarly powerless, or to use the overused modern idiom, without agency. Street children can­not vote and party manifestos have nothing for them. The social life of transgenders is all but invisible and their problems are as basic as getting a valid identity document.

There are, therefore, minorities and minorities. It is the duty of the state and indeed the obligation of the majority, however defined, to protect minorities. India’s essential DNA advances diversity and offers refuge to the down-and-out. It is not a surprise that thousands of displaced Afghans earn a livelihood in Indian cities, and India is the home base for the Afghanistan cricket team, even as returning to their homeland is ruled out. The Indian way, to sum it up, is not prescriptive. There is, of course, a balance in society that is not always set out in tomes of law. It lies in recogni­tion and respect of one another’s beliefs and a preparedness to accept some common princi­ples of nationhood. It is not as difficult as it may sound. An even-handed application of rights and duties will help just as carving out excep­tions for opportunistic gains is short-sighted and in the long run, counter-productive. A fair evaluation of social disparities is also likely to be a sensitive appraisal. It will vastly improve the chances of helping minorities who need the aid and attention of the state and society and prevent justice being denied or applied uneven­ly. It took a while coming, but the High Court of Bombay finally upheld the Paryushan meat ban, saying, “Keeping in view the sentiments of a section of society, the ban on slaughter and sale for a short duration, should not be uncon­stitutional.” In other words, the ban met the condition of a “reasonable restriction” set out in the Constitution. This should have always been self-evident.

About The Author

Rajeev Deshpande

•