The lopsided decision of the Karnataka Government to create an unnatural division among the Veershaiva and Lingayats and according Lingayats the minority status has again opened the Pandora’s box of artificial but politically sensitive majority-minority question. An affidavit by the Union Government to oppose the minority status to Jamia Milia University has further added spice to the discussion. These two issues may look different but are intrinsically connected to each other.
It is beyond doubt that the decision of declaring any community as a minority on the basis of religion has to be in consultation with the religious leaders and that prerogative is of the Union Government. It is also true that historically and philosophically there is no distinction between the Veerashaiva-Lingayats and other Hindu practices. Even the Congress-led UPA Government had rejected the representation by a group in 2013 saying that “the Veerashaiva-Lingayat are a sect of Hindus and not an independent religion”. So, the sudden unilateral decision by the Siddaramaiah Government has a definite political tinge with Assembly elections are around the corner. The religious and legal experts will certainly have their own opinions. The key question is why certain sections of the larger Hindu fold prefer to call themselves a ‘minority’.
The answer lies in the Jamia Milia case. The University that was created by the Parliament Act and later recognised as a minority institution in 2011. With a stroke of simple notification, fifty per cent seats are now reserved for the so-called minority community. At the same time, the institution gets exemption from the provisions of reservations for SCs, STs and OBCs in admission as well as appointments, creating a gross Constitutional anomaly. The exemption of such minority institution for implementation of the provision under the Right to Education Act to secure at least twenty-five per cent of admissions for the socially and economically backward sections has applied this discrimination to the school-level education also. The trusts under Hindu fold also face the similar interevention and restriction in managing temples and other social activities, unlike the minority community managed institutions.
Though the Constitution has given fundamental rights to religious and linguistic minorities to create, manage and administer their own institutions, the logic was not to create a perpetual competition for creating new minority communities, as suggested by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. More importantly, these institutions are expected to be started by the community and not with the Government aid. As remaining in the so-called majority fold does not allow you to manage your own educational and religious affairs, to enjoy autonomy from Government interventions, this new race for minoritism has gained momentum.
Not just the provisions but also the spirit behind the Articles enshrined in the Constitution is important. This kind of discrimination and division on various majority-minority categories would further encourage identity based separatism. The British employed the same ploy and Partition was the outcome. So the question is not limited to granting a minority status to one community or not. The larger issue is whether the legal discriminations between and among the private and public institutions founded with the same objectives on majority-minority basis would strengthen the integrationist tendencies or not. Unless we address this root cause, the race for minoritism would continue and political parties would harvest votes by promoting artificial divisions.
