MINORITIES AND THEIR STAUS IN INDIA

Definition
In order to understand the rights and position of a particular community or a group such as
women, migrant workers, children or minorities, the first hurdle one encounters is the aspect
of figuring out how exactly we define them. What are the boundaries in which we must see
them? The definition of a group allows us to identify boundaries and decouple variables so
that their qualities, needs, problems, and potential solutions may be discovered and evaluated.
A group's definition also aids in distinguishing it from other similar or rival organisations
fighting for space and attention in society's planning and programme implementation. In
other words, a clear, unambiguous understanding of the group emerges from a concise
definition. Before delving at other characteristics of minorities, it is necessary to establish a
definition of who, or what, defines a minority group as such. However, while it may appear
that defining the term minority is necessary for our understanding, it should be highlighted
that academics and legal practitioners have yet to come up with a universally acceptable,
legally binding, and intelligible definition of the term minority. Instead, we have a widely
accepted academic meaning of the term "minority" as well as a collection of lesser-known but
relevant definitions.
The currently widely accepted definition would include a minority as a subgroup of the
population that differs from the majority in regard to social, religious, cultural, linguistic,
and/or other features. Whether or whether the group is a numerical minority, the phrase
usually refers to any group that is subjected to oppression and discrimination by others in
more powerful social positions. African Americans, women, and immigrants are just a few
examples of groups who have been labelled as minorities. The reluctance of member states to
grant different group status to minorities arises from an underlying worry that doing so would
encourage them to develop a distinct legal personality, which might fire their desire for self-
determination. Many member states contend that a common understanding of minorities as a
group, as well as their legal and normative recognition, has the potential to lead to state
dissolution in the long run. It also stymies the nation-building process because it raises the
possibility of demand and political participation for self-determination based on particular
identity.
The following are included in the UN's definition of a minority, according to the United
Nations. (a) Indigenous peoples may be linguistically, religiously, or ethnically minorities in
the states where they live. Both are not mutually exclusive, nor do they infringe on any
minority or indigenous people's rights. (b) When deciding whether a group is a linguistic,
religious, or ethnic minority, the "territory" to consider is the full territory of a State, not one
of its political or geographical subdivisions; (c) A numerical criterion is one of the most
important objective criteria for evaluating whether a group is a minority in a state. A minority
in a state’s territory denotes the absence of a majority. That signifies that an ethnic, religious,
or linguistic group accounts for less than 50% of a country's population.
A minority is seldom used to describe a group created primarily for economic reasons, such
as a labour union. Some minorities, on the other hand, have chosen or been forced to occupy
distinct economic niches in society. Because they are socially separated or segregated from
the dominant forces, members of a minority group are frequently cut off from full
participation in society's workings and an equal share of society's rewards. As a result, the
role of minority groups varies from society to society, depending on the structure of the social
system and the relative power of the minority group. The social mobility of a member of a
minority group, for example, is governed by whether his society is closed or open. . A closed
society, such as the traditional Hindu caste system, is one in which a person's place and
function may never change. In an open society, on the other hand, an individual can change
his function and benefit from changes in status. In contrast to a closed society, where
hierarchical cooperation between social groups is emphasised, an open society permits
different social groups to compete for the same resources, making their interactions
competitive. In an open society, an individual's rank is more important than the ranking of his
social group. Members of minority groups face discrimination in their own nations and
cultures, which is why the phrase "minority group" is commonly used in civil and collective
rights debate.
Minorities face discrimination in many areas of life, including housing, employment,
healthcare, and education, to mention a few. Individual discrimination is conceivable, but
systemic inequities, in which not everyone has equal access to rights and opportunities, are
also possible. Minority rights refers to legislation that aims to protect minorities from
discrimination and provide them with the same social status as the majority group.
When it comes to the Indian constitution, The term ‘minority' was only referenced twice in
the constitution, in Article 29 and Article 30, but it was never defined and no attempt was
made to define it. It was left to the discretion of the federal government to define what
constitutes minorities, and they discovered five religious minorities in India, ignoring the
reality that these minorities are majority in only a few states. The United Nations defines
minorities as "any group or community that is socially, politically, or economically non-
dominant and has a lower population." The Indian Constitution, which went into effect about
seventy years ago, grants particular fundamental rights to minorities in India for their
protection and advancement. The phrase "minority" is, nevertheless, undefined under the
Constitution.
Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, Jain, and Zoroastrians (Parsis) have been classified as
minority communities under Section 2 (c) of the National Commission for Minorities Act,
1992. Minorities make up roughly 19.3 percent of the country's total population, according to
the 2011 Census. Muslims make up 14.2% of the population, whereas Christians make up 2.3
percent, Sikhs 1.7 percent, Buddhists 0.7 percent, Jain 0.4 percent, and Parsis 0.006%.
In terms of international law and global populations, the 1992 United Nations Minorities
Declaration aims to promote and protect the rights of people belonging to national or ethnic
minorities, as well as religious and linguistic minorities, in order to contribute to the political
and social stability of the countries in which they live. There is no unanimous agreement on
what constitutes a minority. A minority's existence is a reality impacted by both objective
(such as shared ethnicity, language, or religion) and subjective features. In 1948, the United
Nations General Assembly determined that it could no longer ignore the fate of minorities.
The Declaration was inspired by Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, which is often recognised as the most legally obligatory section on
minorities. A few provisions of the Indian Constitution address the rights and privileges of
minorities, either explicitly or implicitly.
Article 38 requires the state to establish a social order based on justice—social, economic,
and political—in order to promote the welfare of individuals and to reduce inequalities in
income, status, resources, and opportunities. Free legal assistance and equitable justice in
different dimensions are stated in Article 39. It instructs the government to ensure that all
people have a secure livelihood, as well as a fair distribution of material assets for the
common welfare. It also provides for the prevention of wealth concentration, fair
compensation for equal effort, and the provision of opportunities and facilities for the
development of children. The Gandhian principles are discussed in Article 46. It stipulates
that the government may adopt whatever measures are required to promote the educational
and economic advancement of the weaker parts of the population, as well as to safeguard
them from social injustice and exploitation. Article 347 empowers the President to formally
recognise a language spoken by a significant portion of the population. Articles 331, 333,
334, 336, and 337 provide unique provisions ensuring Anglo Indian representation in federal
and state legislatures. The appointment of a Special Officer for Linguistic Minorities is
provided for in Article 350(B).
How has minorities been defined by various thinkers
Arnold Rose defined minority without any numeric connotations in the International
Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences. He describes it as "a group of people who are distinct
from others in the same society by race, country, religion, or language, who saw themselves
as a differentiated group and are perceived as a differentiated group with negative
implications by others." Furthermore, because of their relative lack of power, they are
subjected to various exclusions, discrimination, and other disparate treatment.' Religious
groupings can now be separated into linguistic divisions and vice versa in every country.
Cross-cutting cleavage is the term for this phenomenon. As a result, someone can be a
member of a religious minority while also belonging to a linguistic majority, or vice versa.
The way such a person acts is determined by his or her interests, which change from problem
to issue. Jagnath Pathy (1988) has also outlined the characteristics that define a minority
community.
Minorities, he believes, are: z subordinate to the majority in some way, distinguishable from
the majority on the basis of physical or cultural characteristics, collectively regarded and
treated as different and inferior on these characteristics, and z excluded from full participation
in society's life. In a Greco-Bulgarian dispute regarding minority community emigration
during the interwar era, the Permanent Court of International Justice tried to define the term
minority. When the topic of definition came up for debate in the UN Sub-Commission on the
Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities, the PCIJ definition was on the
table.
This definition was comprehensive in that it included common traditions, as well as education
and rearing of children in line with those traditions, as one of the bases for identifying a
minority group. It covered objective (race, religion, and language) as well as subjective
elements (sentiment of solidarity and mutual assistance). However, the criterion of numerical
inferiority and the status of such a group in a certain country or locality are absent from this
definition (in terms of dominance or non-dominance). It is important to emphasise that this
definition does not bind minorities to a certain nationality; instead, they may be deemed
minorities in respect to the area in which they live. Some members of the UN Sub
Commission, however, did not agree with this description. As a result, in 1971, the Sub-
Commission appointed Special Rapporteur Francesco Capotorti with the task of studying the
idea of minority and developing an acceptable definition. Capotorti conducted a thorough
investigation of numerous minority groups around the world and proposed a definition based
on it in his UN report. As a result, the UN had two definitions of minority to begin with: the
first provided by the PCIJ (mentioned above), and the second commissioned from Capotorti.
The latter proposed a definition of minority based on a thorough examination of the PCIJ's
case law, government opinions and ideas, as well as consultations and debates held within the
Sub-Commission.
Definition given by Francesco Capotorti
According to Francesco Capotorti, a minority is "a group statistically inferior to the rest of a
State's population, in a nondominant position, whose members – being State nationals –
possess ethnic, linguistic, and cultural features." Religious or linguistic characteristics that are
unique from those of the broader population and reflect a sense of solidarity aimed at
preserving their culture, even if only indirectly. Culture includes things like traditions,
religion, and language.
A minority, according to Francesco Capotorti, is "a group numerically inferior to the rest of
the population of a State, in a nondominant position, whose members – being nationals of the
State – possess ethnic, religious, or linguistic characteristics differing from those of the rest of
the population and show, if only implicitly, a sense of solidarity directed toward the
preservation of their culture, traditions, religion, or language." Like the PCIJ definition, the
above-mentioned definition approaches ‘minority' from both objective and subjective
grounds. Objective criteria verified by factual and empirical techniques would include
numerical inferiority, non-dominance, and common ethnic, religious, and linguistic traits.
The subjective element of a group's solidarity toward preserving its common culture,
customs, religion, or language indicates a knowledge of, and willingness to preserve, the
group's distinctive characteristics from the rest of the population. A minority is distinguished
from those groups willing to assimilate with the majority by this subjective factor of the
willingness to keep one's particular features. This definition has acquired a lot of scholarly
support and acceptance over the years as the most frequently accepted definition. In support
of the definition, Thornberry considers it’ realistic' in compared to other '[b]roader and more
restrictive approaches' available on the topic.
Capotorti's definition has received both praise and criticism. Capotorti's concept of numerical
inferiority, according to Fortman, is "arithmetic gibberish" that ignores the problem of "abuse
of dominating positions based on exclusive group identities."  Because there is no definitive,
absolute, or set size of a group that can be laid as a qualifying criterion for aspiring minority
groups to achieve, numerical inferiority does not help in assessing a group's status as a
minority. The group's numerical strength must be sufficient to preserve its cultural traits.
Second, Capotorti's concentration on "state nationals" has prompted criticism that it makes
minority rights protection contingent on nationality, excluding non-national minorities who
are not recognised by the state. This gives the state leverage to deny citizenship to potential
minority groups and declare that there are no minorities in the state that need to be protected.
Finally, there's the issue of’ reversed' minorities to consider. Reversed minorities are groups
that exhibit the characteristics of a minority but differ from minorities in one key way: they
have a dominating position in comparison to the rest of the state's population. There are
several examples of minority groups wielding power and ruling over a majority population
based on ethnic, religious, linguistic, or sectarian distinctions. Finally, Capotorti overlooks
the difference between voluntary and involuntary minority groups. Not all minority groups
choose to be so. Involuntary minority groups may not be interested in keeping their distinct
qualities, but rather in integrating into greater society with only the promise of non-
discrimination from the state. Policies aimed at preventing prejudice are more relevant and
eagerly expected for such minority groups than protection as minorities. 9 Kurds in Turkey
are a good example of this.
During the development of the Draft Declaration on Minorities in 1985, Jules Dechênes, a
Canadian member of the UN Sub-Commission, presented a small variation of Capotorti's
definition. He defined minority as "a group of citizens of a State who are a numerical
minority and are in a nondominant position in that State, endowed with ethnic, religious, or
linguistic characteristics that differ from those of the majority of the population, who have a
sense of solidarity with one another, who are motivated, if only implicitly, by a collective will
to survive and whose goal is to achieve equality with the majority in fact and in law." There
was also no agreement on this definition. Dechênes substituted a finite representation of
'constituting numerical minority' for Capotorti's proportionate expression of’ numerically
inferior to the rest of the population of state.' However, it's worth noting that Dechênes
doesn't use an absolute number to assess a group's minority status. This definition also
eliminates the phrase 'inferior' from Capotorti's definition, 'despite the fact that it plainly
refers to a number and is not a cultural value-judgment in Capotorti.'
Dechênes prefers the term 'citizens' over 'nationals' (of a state), removing any potential
criticism of the Capotorti term's ambiguity13 while preserving all the problems that
minorities experience when dismembered by their own state. Dechênes does not believe that
a spirit of togetherness is necessary for minority communities to maintain their identity.
Rather, the definition simply alluded to 'a sense of solidarity with one another, motivated, if
only implicitly, by a collective will to live (emphasis added)'. The fundamental motivation of
a minority group, according to Dechênes, is to 'gain equality with the majority in actuality
and in law,' as well as a sense of survival, rather than the preservation of identity.
The term ‘minority' in India is not defined in the Constitution, nor are its geographical,
demographic, or cultural characteristics considered in relation to any of the clauses. The
Constituent Assembly did not discuss the definition of minority while debating Article 23 of
the Draft Constitution, which today corresponds to Articles 29 and 30 of Chapter III on
Fundamental Rights, which guarantee educational and cultural rights to minorities. In fact,
the original draught of Article 23 submitted by the Sub-Committee on Fundamental Rights
did not include any mention of the term minority or the right that now appears in the form of
Article 30(1); it was later incorporated via a letter submitted to the Minorities Sub-Committee
by K M Munshi, who meant existing national minorities.
As a result, the term minority exists in Article 30(1), which empowers a minority community
to create and run educational institutions of their choice based on religion or language. The
founding architects of the Constitution appeared to have left the question of who or what
qualifies as a "minority" in a purely technical sense to be decided by the courts later. Instead,
the debates in the Constituent Assembly focused on the nature of the political safeguards
(rights of representation) that should be provided to minorities.
What were the constituent assembly’s thoughts on minorities?
The Working Committee of the Indian National Congress suggested a Constituent Assembly
"elected on the basis of adult franchise or as near to it as possible" in 1934. Since 1934, the
Congress Party has always held this position. On May 16, 1946, the British administration
responded by publishing a Cabinet Mission State document, which served as the framework
for the Constituent Assembly. Elections to the Constituent Assembly of India were conducted
in July 1946, in line with the Cabinet Mission Plan of May 16, 1946. According to the Plan,
"the cession of sovereignty to the Indian people on the basis of a constitution established by
the Assembly would be conditioned on appropriate steps being taken to protect minorities."
According to the Cabinet Mission's suggestion, members were chosen by secret vote by
members of the Provincial Legislative Assemblies. Muslim, Sikh, and general (Hindus and
others) members of three communities each chose their own MPs using the single
transferable vote proportional representation method. Following the country's division, the
Congress and the Muslim League obtained a huge majority of General and Muslim seats,
mirroring the makeup of provincial legislatures, with the Congress's Assembly majority
increasing to 82 percent.
The delegates to the CA were chosen in the following order: (a) Provincial Legislative
Assemblies elected 292 members; (b) 93 members represented Indian Princely States; and (c)
4 members represented Chief Commissioners' Provinces. As a consequence, the Assembly
would have 389 members in total. However, as a result of the partition under the Mountbatten
Plan of 3 June 1947, a separate Constituent Assembly for Pakistan was constituted, and MPs
from many provinces ceased to be members of the Assembly. As a result, the Assembly's
membership has been reduced to 299 people. The Constituent Assembly met for the first time
on December 9, 1946, in New Delhi, at the Constitution Hall, today known as the Central
Hall of Parliament House. Only 210 people attended the preliminary session out of a total of
296. The Muslim League boycotted the CA proceedings and was notable in its absence,
causing Winston Churchill, England's former Prime Minister, to compare it to the bride not
being present at the wedding.
The task of constructing a constitution with the purpose of furthering the common good while
simultaneously satisfying the desires and assuaging the anxieties of minorities in a
communally charged context was difficult at the time of Independence, when the country was
divided along community lines. The Constitution's founders, on the other hand, shown
foresight and judgement in drafting a document that fosters national unity while still valuing
variety. The most important components of the Constitution in this respect are secularism,
democratic equality, and basic rights, with specific and extra safeguards for weaker segments
of society like as SC, ST, Other Backward Classes, and minorities. The Constitution of India
has been amended to reflect the fact that India is a melting pot of minorities.
On January 22, 1947, the Constituent Assembly passed this Resolution by a large margin. All
Indians were promised social, economic, and political justice, as well as equality of position,
opportunity, and treatment under the law, as well as freedom of expression, belief, faith,
worship, vocation, association, and action under to law and public morality. It also promised
adequate safeguards for minorities, backward and indigenous populations, as well as
depressed and other economically disadvantaged individuals. 3 In this sense, the Objectives
Resolution, which described the Constitution's essential structure and philosophy in broad
terms, offered reluctant minority hope that the Constitution would preserve their interests.
The Constituent Assembly then formed an Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights,
Minorities, and Other Issues, led by Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel. The Advisory Committee
convened on February 27, 1947, and was divided into four sub-committees: (a) Fundamental
Rights; (b) Minorities; (c) Northeast Frontier Tribal Areas and Assam Excluded and Partially
Excluded Areas; and (iv) Excluded and Partially Excluded Areas (Other than those in
Assam). Govind Ballabh Pant's statement, delivered while introducing a motion to form an
Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights and Minorities, displays the independence
movement's genuine commitment to minorities' rights.
The Sub-Committee on Minorities, led by H.C. Mookerjee, and the Sub-Committee on
Fundamental Rights, chaired by J.B. Kriplani, debated, reasoned, and addressed minorities'
concerns and protections. K.M. Munshi drafted and circulated a Questionnaire to the Sub-
Committee on Minorities, which was entrusted with assessing and recommending rights and
safeguards for inclusion in the Constitution.
On August 29, 1947, the Constituent Assembly appointed a Drafting Committee, chaired by
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, to draught a draught constitution for India. During its debates on the
draught Constitution, the Assembly moved, reviewed, and voted on 2,473 of the 7,635
amendments that were proposed. Based on the recommendations of the appropriate
committees and the decisions of the Constituent Assembly, the Drafting Committee formed
the different provisions dealing to minorities into 10 Articles (292-301) and put them in Part
XIV under the title "Special Provisions Relating to Minorities."
1. Articles 292, Muslims, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes have seats reserved in the
House of People, as well as Indian Christians in the States of Madras and Bombay.
2. Article 293 gave the President the authority to designate no more than two members of the
Anglo-Indian community to the House of People if he considers the group is
underrepresented.
3. Article 294 Reservation of seats in the Legislative Assemblies of States (specified in Part I
of the First Schedule) for Muslims, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes, as well as
Indian Christians in the States of Madras and Bombay.
4. Article 295 If the Governor of a State considers the Anglo-Indian community is
underrepresented in the Legislative Assembly, he may propose as many members of the
Anglo-Indian community as he sees fit.
5. According to Article 296 of the Constitution, all minorities' claims must be addressed
while maintaining administrative efficiency in the employment of public servants.
6. Article 297, which maintains the same reserve of posts for Anglo-Indians in the railways,
customs, postal, and telegraph services as before 15 August 1947. It was supposed to endure
ten years.
7. Article 298 of the Constitution created particular provisions for educational grants for
Anglo-Indians.
8. Article 299 established procedures for the Union and States to nominate Special Officers
for Minorities.
9. Article 300 provided the President the power to create a Commission to investigate the
management of Scheduled Areas and the welfare of Scheduled Tribes in the states designated
in Part I of the First Schedule.
10. Article 301 empowered the President to form a Commission to investigate the social and
educational situations of the underprivileged.
“As can be seen from the clauses listed above, the Draft Constitution ensured proper
representation of minorities in the federal and state legislatures, as well as in the public
sector. It also established an institutional system for the efficient execution of these
protections by allowing for the appointment of Special Officers for Minorities in the Union
and States. This demonstrates the leaders in the Constituent Assembly's great dedication to
the cause of minorities. However, as events unfolded in the aftermath of the country's split,
the tone of the Constituent Assembly changed, and the special provisions in the Draft
Constitution related to minorities underwent significant revisions.”
In fact, before taking on the current form of minority rights in the Indian Constitution, the
Constituent Assembly of India went through three stages of deliberation on minorities' rights:
• First Stage: Separate electorates are rejected, and combined electorates are adopted, with
seats reserved in legislative bodies and public services for minorities, Scheduled Castes, and
Scheduled Tribes.
• Second Stage: Joint electorates are rejected, with seats in legislative bodies reserved for
minorities and general agreement on reservations for minorities in public services, as well as
SC and ST in both public services and legislative bodies.
• Third Stage: Rejecting reservations for minorities in public services but maintaining
reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in government positions and
legislative bodies, as well as recognition of minorities' religious, educational, cultural, and
linguistic rights.
It has been noted that the Constituent Assembly initially approached the topic of minority
rights with a very friendly and generous attitude. Members of the Assembly were debating
whether minorities should be granted special rights in order to assure effective political
representation, social and economic security, as well as religious, cultural, and educational
rights.
The Constitution of India, which was finally adopted by the Constituent Assembly of India in
November 1949 and took effect on January 26, 1950, included reservations for Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes in legislative bodies and public services, while deleting similar
provisions for religious minorities in the final stages of the Constitution's completion.
Religious minorities are increasingly demanding special treatment in educational institutions,
government agencies, and legislative bodies after six decades of independence.
Surprisingly, the Government of India's committees and commissions tasked with studying
minorities' socioeconomic and educational backwardness and recommending remedial
actions have endorsed reservations for minorities in public sectors and educational
institutions. It should be recalled that the Constituent Assembly eventually rejected the
proposed legislation. However, when discussing preferential treatment for backward classes
of citizens, the framers of the Constitution made it clear that this included religious
minorities, implying that the state is constitutionally authorised to make special provisions for
religious minorities based on their backwardness.
National minority commission
A Ministry of Home Affairs Resolution created the Minorities Commission (MC) in 1978. In
1984, the MC was split from the Ministry of Home Affairs and put under the newly founded
Ministry of Welfare, which withdrew linguistic minorities from the Commission's jurisdiction
in 1988. When the NCM Act was approved in 1992, the MC became a statutory organisation
and was called the NCM. In 1993, the first Statutory National Commission was constituted,
and Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Zoroastrians were classified as minority
communities (Parsis). In 2014, Jains were also recognised as a minority group.
The NCM is made up of a Chairperson, a Vice-Chairperson, and five members, all of whom
must be from minority communities. The Central Government should nominate a total of 7
people from among people of eminence, ability, and integrity. Each Member is elected for a
three-year term beginning on the day he or she is sworn in. the functions of the national
minority commission include the following duties - Evaluation of the Union's and States'
progress in the development of minorities. Monitoring the efficacy of the Constitution's and
Parliament's and state legislatures' provisions for minorities. It oversees the implementation
of the Prime Minister's 15-Point Plan for the Welfare of Minorities and minority community
programmes. Making recommendations to the federal and state governments on how to
effectively implement protections to protect the interests of minorities. Investigating and
bringing to the notice of the competent authorities specific complaints of denial of minority
rights and protections. Investigates unrest and racial and religious tensions. The panel
investigated sectarian disturbances in Bharatpur in 2011 and Bodo-Muslim clashes in Assam
in 2012, for example, and reported to the government. Every year on December 18th, the
United Nations commemorates the approval of the "Declaration on the Rights of Persons
Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious, or Linguistic Minorities" by the UN in 1992.
"A community notified as such by the Central government," according to the NCM Act.
Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsis (Zoroastrians), and Jain have all been
designated as religious minorities in India by the Indian government. Our constitution also
gives rise to the national commission for minority education institution Act, 2004 which
gives minority status in terms of education to the classes and groups of people classified as
minorities by the government. The term minority per se is not defined explicitly in the
constitution by it does recognize religions and linguistic minorities and this can be seen from
the various provisions given to them in the constitution therein. These constitution provisions
are as follows:
Articles 15 and 16 ban discrimination against residents based on religion, race, caste, sex, or
place of birth. Citizens' right to "equality of opportunity" in matters pertaining to employment
or appointment to any State office, with discrimination prohibited on the grounds of religion,
race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Articles 25 (1), 26 and 28 defend people's freedom of
conscience and right to freely profess, practice, and disseminate religion. Every religious
denomination or section has the right to create and maintain religious and charitable
organisations, to govern its own religious affairs, and to possess and administer property.
People's right to attend religious instruction or worship in educational institutions run,
recognised, or aided fully by the government. Article 29: It specifies that every group of
people living in India who speak a distinct language, script, or culture has the right to
maintain that language, script, or culture. It offers religious and linguistic minorities with
safety. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, concluded that this article's reach is not
restricted to minorities because the term "part of citizens" in the Article relates to both
minorities and the majority. Article 30: Every minority has the freedom to establish and
operate its own educational institutions. The protection provided by Article 30 is confined to
religious and linguistic minorities and does not extend to the general public (as under Article
29). Article 350-B: This article was added by the 7th Constitutional (Amendment) Act 1956,
which allows the President of India to designate a Special Officer for Linguistic Minorities.
The Special Officer's role would be to investigate any and all matters connected to linguistic
minority' constitutional guarantees.
Instances where NCM played a role
The Commission looked into the communal disturbances in Bharatpur in 2011. A team was
dispatched to Assam in 2012 to investigate the Bodo-Muslim hostilities, and the findings
were presented to the government. The NCM is a vital institution in our country because it
allows minority to air their problems. It does, however, have a number of flaws.
Issues faced by the NCM
NCM does not have a constitutional status (it is a statutory body), which, if granted, would
provide it with the autonomy and power it needs to carry out its functions successfully. Lack
of constitutional authority: The Commission's lack of constitutional authority to conduct
independent inquiries or investigations into violations of minorities' rights, particularly in
incidents of communal violence, renders it legally unable of performing its duties. This
restriction was also noted in a recommendation in the Commission's annual reports for 2007-
08, 2008-09, and 2010-11. Toothless tiger: It hasn't been given any legal "teeth" to carry out
its constitutional task. The district and high courts have the power to overrule the
Commission's judgement. There are no reports on the table: The annual report, "along with
the memoranda of action taken on the suggestions contained therein," as well as the reasons
for non-acceptance of the proposals, must be brought before Parliament every year, according
to Section 13 of the NCM Act. These reports haven't been tabled in Parliament since 2010,
according to sources. Furthermore, its recommendations are frequently ignored or just filed
away. Partisan representation: There has been a change in the composition of the body's
members. Former chief justices, public servants, academicians, and others have been
appointed in the past, but recent appointees have primarily been "social activists" with ties to
the ruling party. Partisan representation: The composition of the body has changed.
Former chief justices, public workers, academicians, and others have been appointed in the
past, but recent appointees have primarily been "social activists" with ties to the ruling party.
Human resource insufficiency, as is the situation currently, is one of the capacity-related
difficulties. When critical Commission member posts remain vacant, the Commission is
unable to efficiently carry out its mandate. The Commission designated to conduct hearings,
for example, is unable to process the large number of cases it receives. Underuse of
technology: There is no real-time communication of hearing schedules and appointments
with complainants, resulting in time and money waste. There are only a few minority
commissions in each state: The Annual Conference of State Minorities Commissions (2008)
made a major recommendation: "State governments should likewise establish State
Minorities Commissions on similar lines (as the NCM)." Only 16 states, however, have
established such commissions. Due to a lack of human resource capacity and the absence of a
regular monitoring system of the State Commissions' operations, they, too, are understaffed
and generally dysfunctional. Pressure on the NCM: As a result of ineffective State Finance
Commissions, the pressure falls on the NCM, causing it to lose efficiency. Inadequate powers
for State Minority Commissions: Under the Prime Minister's 15 Point Program for
Minorities, State Minority Commissions are not granted adequate authorities to execute,
monitor, and review developmental initiatives and welfare schemes. Lack of research:
Despite the fact that conducting "studies, research, and analysis on issues relevant to the
socio-economic and educational development of minorities" is one of NCM's key duties, only
a small percentage of the Commission's budgeted money is spent on research activities.
Measures to make NCM more effective
The Commission should define certain baseline targets linked to case pendency rates to
reduce case pendency at the organizational level. Conducting a staffing needs assessment at
regular periods could be a good way to deal with the problem of unfilled leadership roles.
Regardless of the outcome, NCM should produce a Stakeholder Satisfaction Survey to allow
parties to anonymously offer comments on how their appeal was handled. Investment in more
sophisticated information management systems, as well as technological advancements,
could assist the Commission minimize the number of cases that are pending, such as e-
hearings. Strengthening State Commissions and establishing new state-level commissions
where none exist will assist reduce pending cases and improve the effectiveness of the
Commission's sessions. If the Commission is given more legal and constitutional authority,
the NCM will be able to carry out its purpose. The Commission could be more effective if it
had broader ability to conduct independent investigations into minority' rights violations1.

How were minorities treated in ancient India?

The contemporary caste system, with its attendant societal injustice, is a blot on India and
completely contradicts our ancient culture's notion. Some say that our ancient writings
support the contemporary caste system. This is not correct. In his academic work 'Who were
the Shudras?,' B R Ambedkar used Indian scriptures and manuscripts to establish that ancient
India had highly revered Shudra kings, and that repressive biblical words defending
discrimination and a caste system based on birth were subsequently spliced into the books.
The four varnas were established based on guna (attributes) and karma, according to Lord
Krishna in the Bhagwad Gita; birth is not stated. Rishis, or sages, had the greatest status in
ancient India, and two of our most renowned epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, were
authored by Rishis who were not born Brahmins.

1
https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/national-commission-for-minorities-1
Valmiki was born a Shudra, while Krishna Dwaipayana (also known as Ved Vyas) was born
to a fisherwoman. Satyakam Jabali, the supposed author of the Jabali Upanishad, had no
known father and was born to an unmarried Shudra mother. According to the Valmiki
Ramayana, Jabali was an officiating priest and counsellor to the Ayodhya rulers during Lord
Ram's reign. Caste rigidity and prejudice, according to Arvind Sharma, a comparative
religion professor at McGill University, began in the Smriti era (from after the birth of Jesus
Christ until 1200 CE) and were challenged in the mediaeval period by the bhakti movement
led by numerous non-upper caste saints. Even great empires led by Shudra rulers, such as the
Kakatiyas, existed at the period. The birth-based caste system then became rigorous once
more during the time of the British colonial period. It has stayed the same since then.
The lack of a caste system based on birth is substantiated by scientific data provided by
genetic research. A significant component of this caste system based on birth is the restriction
of inter-marriage in the name of 'caste purity.' Inter-breeding among different genetic groups
was extremely common in India for thousands of years until it stopped around the year 0 CE
to 400 CE, according to various scientific papers published in journals such as the American
Journal of Human Genetics, Nature, and the National Academy of Sciences Journal
(intriguingly, this is in sync with the period when Sharma says caste discrimination arose for
the first time in recorded history). The inference is self-evident. As a skewed mix of jati
(one's birth-community) and varna (one's nature based on guna and karma), the modern caste
system emerged around between 1,600 and 2,000 years ago. It has never existed before. It's
worth mentioning that the word "caste" comes from the Portuguese/Spanish word "casta,"
which meaning "bred" or "race." The founding founders of the Indian republic were happy to
acknowledge the negative effects of the birth-based caste system on Indian society. The
Indian Constitution has lofty objectives. However, while government programmes like
reservations have made a difference, they are clearly insufficient today.
According to Dalit researcher Chandra Bhan Prasad's research, the post-1991 economic
reforms programme made a significant contribution to addressing this issue. According to the
2006-07 All-India MSME Census, SC/ST entrepreneurs own almost 14% of all businesses in
the country, and they employ nearly 8 million people! Today, the figure is most likely far
higher. Many argue that the reservations programme has failed to address the needs of upper
caste impoverished and rural landless people. This could be true in some cases. However, this
is mostly owing to a lack of adequate education and career prospects, which leads to rationing
of the few options that do exist. Reforms implemented after 1991 have undoubtedly reduced
these deficits, but they have not gone far enough. Many claim that reforming policies will
benefit not only the Dalits, but also the upper-caste poor in rural and urban areas. As Prasad
has frequently stated, more economic reforms and urbanization, as opposed to government
measures, will go a long way toward alleviating caste discrimination and poverty in general.
For the sake of our nation's essence, however, caste discrimination must be condemned and
combated by all Indians. At a societal level, we must collectively fight to eliminate the caste
system based on birth. With this fight, we shall pay homage to our historic tradition. We'll
also put an end to something that's just plain wrong. There were two varnas in the time of the
Rigveda: arya varna and dasa varna.
Tribal divisions prompted the differentiation in the first place. The noble Vedic tribes were
known as arya (the noble ones), whereas the competitor tribes were known as dasa, dasyu,
and pani. The dasas were frequent allies of the Aryan tribes, and they were most likely
absorbed into Aryan civilization, resulting in a class divide. Many dasas, on the other hand,
were in a servile position, giving rise to the term dasa's later meaning of servant or slave.
Occupations were not important in Rigvedic civilization. A variety of crafts were practised by
many husbandmen and artists. The chariot-maker (rathakara) and metal craftsman (karmara)
held important roles and were not stigmatized. Carpenters, tanners, weavers, and others make
similar discoveries.
Toward the conclusion of the Atharvaveda era, new social distinctions emerged. Former
dasas are called Shudras, most likely to distinguish them from dasa's contemporary
connotation of slave. New varnas are constructed for the new elite classes of Brahmins
(priests) and Kshatriyas, and the aryas are called vis or Vaishya (meaning tribe members)
(warriors). The Shudras featured both former dasas and indigenous tribes who were
assimilated into Aryan civilization as it spread into Gangetic villages. There is no indication
of dietary or marriage restrictions throughout the Vedic period. In an early Upanishad,
Shudra is referred to as Pşan, or nourisher, meaning that Shudras were the soil tillers.
Shudras, on the other hand, are no longer considered taxpaying citizens and are thought to be
given away with the land when it is donated. Although their work was not demonstrated to be
disliked, the bulk of the artisans were also degraded to Shudra rank. The Brahmins and
Kshatriyas are given a special position in the ceremonies, distinguishing them from both the
Vaishyas and the Shudras. The Shudra is said to be "beaten at will," whereas the Vaishya is
believed to be "oppressed at will."
The varna system was a prominent component of the Jain community during Parshvanatha's
reign in the seventh century BCE, according to Jain scriptures. According to the Jain
literature Arhat vacana, karma is brhmaa, ksatriya, vaiya, and udra. When Arab Muslim
armies invaded the northwest Indian subcontinent in the early and mid-twentieth centuries,
Muslim historians such as Hashimi in 1927 and Qureshi in 1962 claimed that the "caste
system" and "nomadic savage lifestyle" in the region were the primary reasons why Sindhi
non-Muslims "embraced Islam in flocks." Lower caste Hindus and Mahayana Buddhists who
had been "corroded from inside by the invasion of Hindu ideas and practises," according to
this hypothesis, were the ones who converted in large numbers. The varna system was a
prominent component of the Jain community during Parshvanatha's reign in the seventh
century BCE, according to Jain scriptures. According to the Jain literature Arhat vacana,
karma is brhmaa, ksatriya, vaiya, and udra. When Arab Muslim armies invaded the northwest
Indian subcontinent in the early and mid-twentieth centuries, Muslim historians such as
Hashimi in 1927 and Qureshi in 1962 claimed that the "caste system" and "nomadic savage
lifestyle" in the region were the primary reasons why Sindhi non-Muslims "embraced Islam
in flocks." Lower caste Hindus and Mahayana Buddhists who had been "corroded from inside
by the invasion of Hindu ideas and practises," according to this hypothesis, were the ones
who converted in large numbers. The assumption of a rigid Hindu caste structure and the
enslavement of lesser castes in India's pre-Islamic era, according to Richard Eaton, a history
professor at Berkley, is the basis for "mass conversion to Islam" during the mediaeval era.
According to this assertion, "no evidence can be found in favour of the idea, and it is
exceedingly irrational."
The existence of a caste system as being responsible for Hindu weakness in resisting plunder
by Islamic armies during the mediaeval Delhi Sultanate period (1200 to 1500) may appear
appealing at first glance, but "they do not withstand closer scrutiny and historical evidence,"
writes Peter Jackson, a professor of Medieval History and Muslim India. According to
Jackson, historical evidence shows that Hindu combatants and soldiers during the Middle
Ages included members of other castes such as Vaishyas and Shudras, contradicting the
theoretical idea of caste, which said that only Kshatriyas could be warriors and soldiers.
"There is also no evidence that there was ever a mass conversion to Islam at the turn of the
century," Jackson says. According to Jackson, historical evidence shows that throughout the
mediaeval era, Hindu combatants and soldiers included members of other castes such as
Vaishyas and Shudras, contradicting the theoretical idea of caste, which said that only
Kshatriyas could be warriors and soldiers. "There is no evidence that there was ever a
substantial conversion to Islam by Hindus of lower caste at the turn of the twelfth century,"
Jackson adds. According to Jamal Malik, an Islamic studies researcher, "never in history have
Hindus of low caste converted en masse to Islam." According to Jamal Malik, despite the fact
that caste as a social stratification system is a well-studied Indian system, evidence shows
that hierarchical ideas, class awareness, and social stratification existed in Islam before Islam
arrived in India. Several Islamic authors of mediaeval India, according to Malik, reference the
notion of caste, or 'qaum,' although these observations are tied to the dispersion of Muslim
culture in India. Only two Islamic court historians, Zia al-Din al-Barani of the Delhi Sultanate
and Abu al-Fadl of Akbar's Mughal Empire court, discuss caste in their Fatawa-ye Jahandari.
However, Zia al-Din al-talk Barani's concern is not with non-Muslim castes, but with the
superiority of the Ashraf caste over the Ardhal caste among Muslims, which he defends in
Quranic scripture by claiming that "aristocratic birth and superior pedigree are the most vital
aspects of a human." According to Irfan Habib, an Indian historian, Abu al-Ain-i Fazl's
Akbari provides a historical record and census of the Jat peasant caste of Hindus in northern
India, where in the 16th century, the tax-collecting noble classes (Zamindars), the armed
cavalry and infantry (warrior class), doubling as the farming peasants (working class), were
all of the same Jat caste. According to Habib, these occupationally varied members of one
caste served one another either in response to Muslim rulers' taxation pressure or simply
because they were from the same caste. Peasant social stratification and caste lines, according
to Habib, were employed to collect taxes in Islamic nations.
According to Richard Eaton, the birth of the contemporary caste system in India can be traced
back to this time period in the Bengal region. Islamic Sultanates in India used social
stratification to dominate and collect tax income from non-Muslims during the mediaeval era.
"Looking at Bengal's Hindu culture as a whole, it is likely that the caste system—far from
representing the ancient and unchanging essence of Indian civilization as centuries of
Orientalists believed—emerged into something approximating its contemporary form only in
the period 1200–1500," Eaton writes.

Later Mughal period (1700 to 1850)

According to researcher Susan Bayly, the caste system as we know it now, as a "ritualised
structure of social stratification," evolved in two stages during the post-Mughal period, in the
18th and early 19th centuries. Its evolution was influenced by priestly authority, royalty, and
armed ascetics. Following the disintegration of the Islamic Mughal empire in the 18th
century, post-Mughal ruling elites and new dynasties from a variety of religious,
geographical, and linguistic backgrounds strove to establish supremacy across India.
According to Bayly, these shadowy post-Mughal elites collaborated with kings, priests, and
ascetics to divide and dominate their subjects using caste and family symbols. Furthermore,
in this stateless environment, several formerly casteless sections of society organised
themselves2.
According to Bayly, India-wide networks of merchants, armed ascetics, and armed tribal
people frequently defied caste ideas in the 18th century. Rather of accepting caste rules as
absolutes, most individuals challenged, negotiated, and changed them to fit their
circumstances, according to Bayly. Communities created "collective classing" in certain
regions of India to influence social stratification in order to maximise assets and protect
themselves from loss. At a time when the governmental machinery was fragmenting,
unreliable, and fluctuating, and rights and life were unpredictable, the "caste, class,
community" system that evolved was vital.
According to Rosalind O'Hanlon, an Indian history professor, freshly arrived East India
Company colonial administrators attempted to develop economic interests in India by
balancing Hindu and Muslim clashing interests and uniting with provincial rulers and big
assemblies of military monks. East India Company officials imposed religion and caste-based
constitutional measures. The legal system and colonial administrative practise were
dominated by Muslim and Hindu law, which contained laws for Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs.
During this transitional time, Brahmins, together with scribes, ascetics, and merchants who
accepted Hindu social and spiritual principles, were the deferred-to-authority on Hindu
literature, law, and administration of Hindu problems.
While legal codes and state administration were forming in India in response to the rising
might of European powers, Dirks claims that late-eighteenth-century British literature on
India primarily cover territorial conquest, alliances, combat, and diplomacy in India. Colin
Mackenzie, a British social historian of the time, amassed a large collection of materials on
Indian religions, culture, traditions, and local histories from south India and the Deccan
region, but his collection and publications contain little information on the caste system in
18th-century India.
During British rule (1857 to 1947)
The caste system as it exists today is the outcome of advances during the post-Mughal and
British colonial periods, which made caste organization a major mechanism of governance.
During the British colonial period, Jati became the foundation of caste ethnology. Colonial
ethnographers employed caste (headings) to count and classify people in what was then
British India in the 1881 census and subsequent censuses (now India, Pakistan, Bangladesh
and Burma). The 1891 census had 60 sub-groups, each subdivided into six occupational and
racial categories, and the number continued to grow in following censuses. According to
Susan Bayly, "ranking, standardizing, and cross-referencing jati listings for Indians on
fundamentals similar to zoology and botanical classifications, aiming to create who was
superior to whom by virtue of their supposed pureness, occupational origins, and collective
moral worth" in the colonial era census caste tables.

2
Bayly, Susan (2001), Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age,
Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-26434-1
While bureaucratic colonial authorities finished reports on their zoological categorization of
Indian people, other British officials condemned the exercises as a parody of the realities of
India's caste system. The census-determined jatis were used by colonial officials to identify
which groups of people were qualified for particular jobs in the colonial government, and
which jatis were to be excluded as untrustworthy. According to Gloria Raheja, an
anthropology professor, colonial officials used census caste classifications to determine land
tax rates in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as well as to routinely target specific social
groupings as "criminal" castes and castes prone to "rebellion." Around 200 million people
lived in the country at the time, divided into five major faiths and over 500,000 agrarian
villages, each with a population of 100 to 1,000 individuals of varied ages, separated into
numerous castes. This ideological structure was said to be made up of 3,000 castes, each of
which was said to be made up of 90,000 local endogamous sub-groups.
“The British obsession with the Indian caste system, as well as their view of pre-colonial
Indian castes, may have been affected by the rigorous British class structure. The British used
the severe class system of British society as a model for comprehending Indian society and
castes. The British attempted to compare India's castes with British social divisions since they
came from a society that was tightly separated by class. During the British Raj, Indian castes
amalgamated with the old British class system, according to David Cannadine. The impact of
the British Raj on India's caste system is debatable. During the Raj, when the British began to
collect castes during their ten-year survey and rigorously codified the system, the caste
system became legally rigid. The British incorporated the caste system into their government
structure between 1860 and 1920, offering administrative employment and top positions only
to the upper castes.”
The British colonial authority created a set of regulations that applied to Indians depending
on their religion and caste identification beginning in the 19th century. These statutes and
provisions from the colonial era utilized the phrase "tribes," which included castes. For a
variety of reasons, including Muslim sensitivities toward castes, which are by definition
Hindu, and a preference for Tribes, a more generic name that encompassed Muslims, this
terminology was favored.
The Criminal Tribes Act of 1871, for example, was passed by the British colonial
administration. This legislation stated that persons born into specific classes were predisposed
to criminal behavior.   According to Ramnarayan Rawat, a history professor who specializes
in social exclusion in the Indian subcontinent, the criminal-by-birth castes under this Act
initially included Ahirs, Gurjars, and Jats, but by the late 19th century, it had expanded to
also include often these Shudras and outcasts, such as Chamars, as well as Sannyasis and hill
tribes.
The colonial authorities developed a list of criminal castes, and all members of these castes
who were documented by caste census had their movements, trips, and social connections
limited. In many places of colonial India, whole caste groups were pronounced guilty by
birth, and children were taken from their parents and placed in prison camps or quarantined
without trial or due process. This method grew divisive, and it was not supported by all
British colonial officials. At the start of the twentieth century, the statement that persons
"could not be imprisoned permanently on the supposition of evil character" changed this
decades-long practise in a few cases. Criminal-by-birth laws targeted certain castes until the
mid-twentieth century, with the list of criminal castes growing throughout west and south
India from the 1900s to the 1930s. Hundreds of Hindu organisations were prosecuted under
the Criminal Tribes Act. By 1931, the colonial authorities had recognised 237 criminal castes
and tribes in the Madras Presidency alone.
While the concept of hereditary criminals conformed to orientalist preconceptions and
prevalent racial theories throughout the colonial era, its implementation resulted in the
profiling, segregation, and isolation of many Hindu groups. According to Eleanor Nesbitt, an
Indian history and religions professor, the colonial authority cemented caste-based
distinctions in India not just through the caste census, but also through a series of regulations
passed in the early twentieth century. Laws like the Land Alienation Act of 1900 and the
Punjab Pre-Emption Act of 1913, for example, listed castes that may legally possess land
while denying similar property rights to other census-determined castes. These laws made it
illegal to transfer land from land-owning castes to non-agricultural castes, restricting
economic mobility and building caste barriers in India3.
Nicholas Dirks claims that Indian caste as we know it now is a "new phenomenon,"[c] since
caste was "fundamentally transformed" under British colonial control. [d] According to
Dirks, before to colonial authority, caste identification was flexible and varied, but colonial
power tightly enforced caste membership and formed a significantly harsher hierarchy than
before, with certain castes being criminalised and others obtaining preferential treatment.
De Zwart points out that the caste system was once supposed to be an old part of Hindu
society, but that modern researchers argue that it was built by colonial rulers. "Jobs and
school prospects were assigned based on caste," he claims, adding that "people mobilized and
accepted a caste structure that maximized their opportunity." Sweetman points out that the
European concept of caste rejected previous political arrangements and insisted on India's
"essentially religious character." Caste was defined as a religious system throughout the
colonial period, and it was separated from political power. This allowed colonial authorities
to present India as a spiritually harmonious civilization, in contrast to the erstwhile Indian
states, which they described as "despotic and epiphenomenal,", with colonial powers
providing the requisite "benevolent, paternalistic control by a more 'advanced' nation."
Assumptions regarding the caste system in Indian society, as well as its character, emerged
during colonial control. Corbridge claims that British policies toward India's princely
sovereign republics, as well as the strict categorising of individuals during the 10-year
census, notably the 1901 and 1911 censuses, led to the hardening of caste identities. During
the 1920s, societal unrest spurred policy changes. From that point forward, the colonial
authority used a positive discrimination policy by reserving a portion of government jobs for
the lower castes.
In 1932, Ramsay MacDonald issued a Communal Award at the request of B. R. Ambedkar,
the then-Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, which allowed for separate representation at
the round table conference for Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Anglo-Indians, Europeans, and
Dalits. Only depressed class voters were allowed to vote, and these depressed classes were
allotted a number of seats to be filled by election from special constituencies. In protest of
this clause, Gandhi embarked on a hunger strike, claiming that it would split Hindu society
3
Bayly, Susan (2001), Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age,
Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-26434-1
into two sections. According to Ambedkar, Gandhi's fast was a kind of compulsion. Gandhi
ended his fast and Ambedkar dropped his demand for a separate electorate as part of the
Poona Pact. According to Smelser and Lipset, who evaluated Hutton's account of the caste
system in colonial India, individual migration across caste lines may have been limited in
India as it was ceremonial. According to them, this might be because colonial social
stratification supplemented the pre-existing ceremonial caste structure. The formation of a
caste system in its current form was not ubiquitous during the early phase of the British
colonial administration in South Asia in the 18th and 19th century. According to Claude
Markovits, a French colonial India historian, Hindu society in north and west India (Sindh)
lacked a proper caste system in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, their religious identities
were fluid (a mix of Saivism, Vaisnavism, and Sikhism), and the Brahmins were not the most
common priestly group (but the Bawas were). "Neither religion nor caste were fundamental
components," says Markovits, a Hindu businessman from northwest India.
Influence from other religions
According to caste, denomination, and geographical area, Christians in India are classified
into social classes. Caste disparities have existed since the 16th century, based on their caste
at the time they or their ancestors converted to Christianity. They usually do not marry and
attend church services separately. The notion of caste among Indian Christians may be traced
back to the Keralan Christians of Saint Thomas (or "Syrian Christians"). "Nowhere else in
India is there a large and ancient Christian community that has been accorded a high status in
the caste hierarchy since time immemorial," writes Duncan Forrester. "... Syrian Christian
community operates very much like a caste and is correctly regarded as a caste or at least a
very caste-like group." The Saint Thomas Christians of Kerala had assimilated into Hindu
culture through the application of caste regulations, and Hindus acknowledged them as a
caste with a high status within their caste hierarchy. Their traditional notion that their
forefathers were high-caste Hindus like as Nambudiris and Nairs who were evangelised by
St. Thomas has also helped to retain their upper-caste position. Two new Christian groups,
known as Latin Rite Christians and New Protestant Christians, arose with the arrival of
European missionaries and their evangelistic mission among Kerala's lower castes, but they
were still considered lower castes by higher-ranking communities, such as the Saint Thomas
Christians.
In India, the caste system has been witnessed among Muslims. Endogamy, hypergamy,
hereditary vocations, social isolation, and stratification are all practices they follow. There is
substantial debate about whether these traits make them Islamic social groups or castes.
Sunni (majority), Shia, and other Islamic sects make up India's Muslim population. Since the
birth of Islam in South Asia, Arab, Persian, and Afghan Muslims have been part of the upper,
noble caste. Some upper caste Hindus converted to Islam and joined the Ashrafs, the
dominant group of the Sultanates and Mughal Empire, which included Arabs, Persians, and
Afghans (or nobles). The Ajlafs, a Muslim middle caste, are below them, while the Arzals are
at the bottom. Anti-caste activists like Ambedkar and British ethnographer Herbert Hope
Risley equated Muslims' Arzal caste to Hindu untouchables.
Some Muslims in Bengal refer to the socioeconomic stratification of their society as qaum (or
Quoms), a term also used by Muslims in other regions of India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.
Qaums had patrilineal heredity because to graded vocations and endogamy. The membership
of a qaum is inherited at birth. According to Barth, the stratification stems from the historical
separation of pak (pure) and paleed (impure) families, which was determined by the family's
social or religious status, employment, and involvement in sexual offences. Those who
managed or worked in brothels, prostitution service providers, professional
courtesans/dancers (Tawaif), and musicians made up Paleed/Paleet qaum. Although it has no
historical roots and was adopted by outsiders using the Hindu Caste system as an example,
there is a history of skin colour differentiating Pak/Paleed4.
Christians in Pakistan are known as "Isai," which means "followers of Isa" (Jesus). The
phrase, on the other hand, is derived from the Hindu caste system and refers to the demeaning
jobs many Christians in Pakistan undertake to make ends meet. The title "Masihi" (Messiah),
which is chosen by Pakistani Christians, is being tried to replace it.
Endogamy is highly widespread among Muslims in India and Pakistan in the form of
arranged consanguineous marriages. According to Malik, the lack of religious legitimacy
renders qaum a quasi-caste that exists in Islam outside of South Asia. Some argue that
Muslim castes are not as discriminated against as Hindu castes, whereas Islam detractors
argue that discrimination in South Asian Muslim society is harsher.
The caste system exists in the Sikh society, despite the fact that the Sikh Gurus opposed it.
According to Sunrinder S, Jodhka, the Sikh faith does not advocate discrimination based on
caste or creed, but Sikhs from the landowning ruling castes have not totally abandoned their
biases towards Dalits. Dalits would be permitted to visit rural gurudwaras but would not be
permitted to cook or serve langar (the communal meal). As a result, Dalits in Punjab strove to
create their own gurudwaras and other local level institutions wherever means were available
in order to gain cultural autonomy5.
The Indian government consented to Tara Singh's proposal that converted untouchable Sikh
castes be included to the list of scheduled castes in 1953. Low-caste Sikhs are represented in
20 of the 140 seats in the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee. From the Islamic
period until the British colonial period, Sikh literature refers to Varna as Varan, and Jati as
Zat or Zat-biradari. The Varan is defined as a class system, whereas the Zat incorporates
certain caste system qualities in Sikh literature, according to Eleanor Nesbitt, a religion
professor and author of Sikhism books. According to Nesbitt, Sikh literature does not identify
caste hierarchy or disparities. According to Nesbitt, Sikhs have practised extensive endogamy
in recent times, and impoverished Sikhs from lower castes continue to worship in their own
communities. Most Sikh homes, according to Nesbitt, continue to look into the caste of any
possible marriage partner for their children. She emphasises that all Sikh Gurus married
inside their Zats, and they did not condemn or reject endogamous marriages for their own
offspring or for Sikhs in general6.
Mandal commission
"It is compulsory for the government to promote the welfare of the Other Backward Classes,"
declares Article 340 of the Indian Constitution. The Mandal Commission was established
4
Fuller, Christopher J. (December 1977). "Indian Christians: Pollution and Origins". Man. New. 12 (3/4): 528–
529.
5
"Pakistan NGO tackles demeaning low-caste word for 'Christians'". 2 November 2015.
6
Nesbitt, Eleanor (2005). Sikhism a very short introduction. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. pp.
119–120.
with the help of this article. Prior to then, the Kala Kalelkar Commission was established to
identify socially and educationally backward sections in accordance with Article 340. The
Commission made some remarkable recommendations to the President, but the Central
Government rejected them because no objective tests were used to establish the backward
classes. As a result, a second commission was required. On January 1, 1979, the Janata Party
Government, led by Prime Minister Morarji Desai, established the second backward class
mission, which was chaired by B.P. Mandal 3. Their goals were to define the criteria for
defining and progressing the socially and educationally backward classes, to analyses the
provisions for post reservation in their favor, and to provide a report based on this
information. In December 1980, it submitted its report.
To define the socially and educationally disadvantaged groups, eleven criteria 4 were used,
which were divided into three categories: social, educational, and economic, with weightages
of 3, 2, and 1 point, respectively. Following the poll, all castes scoring more than 11 points
(50 percent) or above by applying the eleven criteria were classified as socially and
educationally backward. The presence of economic value in determining people's identities
was a novel concept. The Commission estimated that 52 percent of our country's population
is OBC based on census data from 1931. The commission recommends a 27 percent reserve
for OBCs, culminating in a 49.5 percent quota in government positions and public
universities7.
After a decade, in 1989, under V.P. Singh's government, the suggestions were presented. All
kinds of protests erupted in Delhi, particularly among Hindu students from the upper castes.
They believed their future was in jeopardy. Protests were held all over the country, with
bandhs, dharnas, and hartals taking various forms, with several students even self-
immolating. There was a heated dispute between anti-reservationists and pro-reservationists,
and every publication was swamped with dissents and arguments about the importance of
caste and class identification above merit. All of this argument became significant in current
politics because these agitations and debates gave rise to a new identity for the backward
classes, and since then, India's political discourse has shifted in a reflective manner.
Following the anti-reservation rallies, the Mandal Commission recommendations sparked
counter-unity and mobilization among the OBCs, who formed a united front for the first time
in India's social history to preserve the reservations they were entitled to.
This definite assertion of their identity and abstract category of "OBC" was mostly influenced
by external conditions of dissent and being placed against the higher caste, rather than any
substance from within. It is not an issue of how to acquire identities and be recognized by
others, but rather which identity to pick. I'd want to emphasize on the function identity plays
in Indian political scenarios before moving on to study the entire substance of reservations
and its complicated picture in the setting of a stratified society like India. In this instance,
social polarization was unavoidable. The Janata Dal government fell as the BJP withdrew its
support. OBCs were bound to assert their identity in terms of political leverage, as a popular
slogan in Indian elections goes, "Indians do not cast their votes, they vote their castes."
Almost every political party, including the mainstream Congress and the BJP, began
recruiting candidates from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. It's intriguing to look at how

7
Ratan, Akshay. (2014). MANDAL COMMISSION -PERSISTENCE OF CASTE IDENTITIES and RESERVATIONS IN
INDIA.
different identities impact politics and how traditional government is put on hold when the
problem of votes arises. These larger parties may have taken the risk of overlooking the
importance of backward class identification. Small regional parties and Janata Dal
breakaways focusing on mobilising the backward classes, such as Lalu Prasad's RJD,
Mulayam Singh Yadav's Samajwadi Party, and politics based on Kanshi Ram's philosophy,
arose during this era. Indian politics grew more plebeianized after Mandal, with OBCs and
other low caste groups acquiring control in most North Indian states. The share of OBC
electoral representatives climbed from 11% in 1984 to 25% in 1996, thanks to a fall in upper
caste elected members from 47 percent to 35 percent.
It is critical to comprehend identification in terms of affirmative behaviors that establish
political leverage. The Mandal Commission's recommendations outlined a clear path for
OBCs. It was intended to empower and enhance the socioeconomic conditions of those who
met the Commission's requirements. This affirmative action may not have made much of a
difference in this situation, but it had significant political ramifications. With the advent of
this new identity of the backward classes, the previous genre of upper caste politics
transformed. Many new OBC leaders and Chief Ministers emerged in the post-Mandal
period. Gradually, this sense of backwardness encouraged OBCs to participate more actively
in decision-making, which was the Commission's goal.
Experts believe that two decades after its implementation, considerable inequity still exists in
how the reserves' benefits are dispersed among the OBC's many groups. A parliamentary
commission on the Welfare of OBCs reported in February 2019 that, despite four adjustments
to the income requirements since 1997, the 27 percent of positions reserved for OBCs had not
been filled. According to the committee, data on OBC participation in central government
jobs and services as of 1 March 2016 obtained from 78 ministries and departments indicated
low OBC occupancy levels in government agencies.
According to government data, there are 7 lakh OBCs among the 32.58 lakh government
employees (which includes Group A, B, and C), accounting for 21% of the quota as opposed
to 27%. Group C, which primarily employs safai karamcharis (sanitation department
employees), employs the most OBCs (6.4 lakh or 22.65%). In October 2017, the Narendra
Modi government formed a four-member commission led by retired Delhi High Court Chief
Justice G. Rohini to address these inconsistencies. The committee's mission was to
investigate the subject of OBC subcategorisation. Their mandate also included investigating
how the 27% reservation for OBCs in jobs and education was being implemented and
whether it was benefiting all categories of OBCs.
Out of nearly 6,000 tribes and groupings, the Rohini Commission determined that just 40
OBC castes and communities had got 50% reservation for admission to central educational
institutions and recruitment to the government services. In order to complete its probe, the
commission's term was recently extended to January 2021. The Mandal Commission
proposals helped the better-off OBCs more than the most backward castes, according to
Sudha Pai, a national fellow at the Indian Council of Social Science Research. Pai, on the
other hand, noted that the Mandal Commission's recommendations are only genuinely useful
when individuals are able to escape poverty.
The creamy layer criteria were cited in the well-known Supreme Court case known as the
'Indira Sawhney Judgment' to ensure that the benefits of the Mandal Commission's
recommendations reached the most backward people. The Mandal Commission report was
presented by a nine-judge panel in November 1992. A household with a yearly income of Rs
8 lakh or more is defined as belonging to the 'creamy layer' among OBCs, and so is not
eligible for reservations under the current criteria. The Modi government, on the other hand,
is said to have proposed raising the cap for the creamy layer distinction from Rs 8 lakh to Rs
12 lakh per year. The National Commission for Backward Classes requested that the income
ceiling be raised to Rs 16 lakh per year in July 2020. When it comes to the creamy layer, Pai
emphasized that a certain level of differentiation is required to ensure that benefits reach the
most disadvantaged people. Even the caste census has yet to be released. As a result,
everyone is currently operating in the dark.

In eight Indian states where Hindus are the numerical minority, a public interest petition has
been brought in the Supreme Court to classify Hindus as minorities. The states in dispute
include Lakshadweep, Nagaland, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur,
Punjab, and Jammu & Kashmir. Hindus are minorities in these states, according to census
statistics from 2011, however they are not declared minorities at this time. As a result, they
are ineligible for the 20,000 scholarships offered by the Union Government to minority
students pursuing technical education. The petitioner also referenced an instance in Jammu
and Kashmir, where Muslims make up 68% of the population yet receive 717 out of 753
scholarships while Hindu students receive none. "The Prime Minister's 15 Points
Programme/scheme for religious and linguistic minorities is not being properly implemented,
especially in Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Goa, Jammu & Kashmir, Kerala, Lakshadweep,
Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, and Bengal."
Because minorities are not identified and notified at the state level, Hindus' legitimate portion
is being syphoned off arbitrarily to unqualified sectors of the community. Although it is the
government's responsibility to identify and notify religious and linguistic minorities at the
state level in order to protect minorities' rights provided under Articles 25-30." The National
Commission for Minority Act of 1992 prompted the central government to issue the
aforementioned notification. Although the term "minorities" is not defined in this legislation,
section 2(c) states that the federal government must notify minorities. As a result, Muslims,
Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsis, and Christians were designated as minorities, but Hindus were not,
as was the case at the national level.
The term'minority' was only mentioned twice in the constitution, in Articles 29 and 30, but no
attempt was made to define it. The federal government was given free reign to determine
what defines a minority, and they came up with five religious minorities in India, despite the
fact that these minorities are majority in only a few states. "Any group or community that is
socially, politically, or economically non-dominant and has a smaller population," according
to the United Nations. Despite the fact that Hindus are a minority in these eight states, the
petition alleges that the notification's legal rights for minorities are arbitrarily and unfairly
taken away from Hindus since minorities are not determined at the state level. The petitioner
cites T.M.A Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka, which states: "Insofar as the challenged
Act constituted a State Act, what constitutes a linguistic or religious minority must be
considered in reference to the State and not the entire country."
The court also stated that, just as linguistic minorities are determined by looking at the state
as a whole, religious minorities should be determined by looking at the state rather than the
entire country: "As a result of the insertion of Entry 25 into List III, Parliament can now
legislate in relation to education, which was previously only a state subject." Parliament has
the authority to establish laws that apply to all or portion of India. Geographic classification
is widely acknowledged as not being in violation of Article 14. As a result, Parliament might
vote in relation to education for a certain State or set of States. Article 30 of the Constitution,
on the other hand, grants a linguistic or religious minority the right to create and run
educational institutions of their choice. For the purposes of Article 30, the minority cannot
take on multiple meanings depending on who is governing. Because language is the
foundation for the formation of distinct states, a "linguistic minority" must be determined in
respect to the state in which the educational institution is sought to be created for the
purposes of Article 30. The situation with religious minorities is identical, as both religious
and linguistic minorities are treated equally in Article 30."
The court goes on to interpret the term minority in the context of Article 30: "Linguistic and
religious minorities are encompassed by the term "minority" under Article 30 of the
Constitution." Because India's States were reorganized along linguistic lines, the unit for
identifying the minority will be the State rather than the entire country. As a result, religious
and linguistic minorities, who are treated equally under Article 30, must be considered state
wise."
After considering two D.A.V. College cases, the court came at this conclusion. The topic of
what defines religious or linguistic minorities, as well as the criteria used to classify them,
was raised in the case of D.A.V College vs. State of Punjab. The court ruled that the Arya
Samaj is a minority in Punjab, even though they are not a nationwide minority, after
considering multiple instances. In D.A.V. College Bhatinda vs. State of Punjab, the Supreme
Court rejected the claim that Hindus cannot be deemed a minority in the state because they
are the majority in the country. In India's courts, the state has traditionally been the unit that
determines what defines a minority. . However, because this is a delicate issue and it is
extremely easy for the government to maintain the status quo, the executive branch has not
had the courage to determine the minority using the state as the unit.
Jain community conundrum
In Bal Patil vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court was asked whether Jains are minorities
under Section 2(c) of the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992. The federal
government's position in this matter, after the T.M.A. Pai case, is that state governments must
decide whether Jains constitute a minority or not. According to this position, the central
government cannot dodge its statutory obligations under Section 2(c) of the aforementioned
Act. It was also argued that the legal position articulated in T.M.A. Pai, which asserts that the
state determines minority status, does not render Section 2(c) outdated.
"Before the Central Government reaches a decision on claims of Jains as a ‘minority' under
section 2(c) of the Act, the identification has to be done on a state basis," the court said in this
instance. The Central Government's power must be utilized not just on the Commission's
advice and recommendations, but also in light of the social, cultural, and religious situations
of the Jain community in each state. The sole criterion cannot be statistical data produced to
indicate that a community is numerically a minority."
The court also determined that the majority of Jain community members are wealthy
businessmen, industrialists, and property class members who do not require the constitutional
protections provided for minorities because these provisions are intended to protect and
preserve minorities, not to provide additional benefits and rewards, thereby creating social
inequality. The Gujarat state government, on the other hand, declared Jains to be minorities,
following T.M.A. Pai's ruling, and the federal government classified Jains as a minority
community in 2014, just before the general election.
Are Sikhs a minority in Punjab?
The Punjab and Haryana High Court had to decide whether Sikhs in Punjab are a minority or
not in the case of Sahil Mittal vs. Punjab Government. The petitioner stated that Sikhs are not
a non-dominant minority because they are the majority in Punjab and occupy significant
political and important roles in the society. In the challenged notification of 1993, the country
was considered as a unit, which was not permissible following the T.M.A. Pai foundation
case. There was no reason to consider the "Sikhs" to be a minority in Punjab. The reply
emphasised that many Sikh groups are not Sikhs in the strict sense, citing numerous religious
documents to support his assertion. "The question is whether there is any iota of material
justifying that in the State of Punjab, the Sikhs in general Act were such a group that
deserved protection from deprivation of their rights by other communities, who may be in
majority and attain political power," the High Court said. The response is unmistakably
negative. There is nothing in the written statement filed by the State of Punjab that suggests it
had any material or even a grievance that the Sikhs as a group feared deprivation of their
religious, cultural, or educational rights in the State of Punjab from any other community that
might gain political power in an election."
In the case of Islamic Academy of Education and others v. State of Karnataka and others, the
High Court noted that S.B.Sinha, J. "observed that additional protection to minorities was to
deliver minorities on the same platform as non-minorities and the goal of equality could not
be ignored" in the context of minorities' rights in professional educational institutions. To
summarise, the High Court determined that Sikhs are the socially, politically, and
economically dominant group in Punjab, and that Sikhs as a community do not require
protection or preservation because "dominant" groups do not threaten to deprive them of their
cultural or religious rights guaranteed in Articles 25-30. The decision was stayed by the
Supreme Court, and the case has been pending ever since.
After reading about the incidents involving Jains and Sikhs, we may infer that designating
minorities at the national level contradicts our constitution's equality guarantee. However, if
Hindus are in the minority in Lakshadweep and are awarded minority status there, would
their minority status be maintained or not if they go to Mumbai? This begs the question of
whether proclaiming a Hindu minority is feasible, but to counter this, one might argue that a
SC's status changes when they migrate from Uttar Pradesh to Rajasthan, or anywhere else.

Minorities and Muslims

Najma Heptulla delivered a forceful statement about Muslims' minority status shortly after
taking over the minister of minority affairs in 2014. "This is the Ministry of Minority Affairs,
not the Ministry of Muslim Affairs," she explained. Muslims do not constitute a minority."
Heptulla's claim is correct. The term "minority" is not defined in the Constitution. The
distinctness of a numerically inferior group is unquestionably recognized as a legal
requirement for determining a community's minority status. However, the term distinctness is
not defined in the way we know it now - in terms of a "Hindu majority vs Muslim minority"
framework. The term "minority" is used in the Constitution to protect the rights of diverse
religious, linguistic, and culturally distinct groups. As a result, Muslims cannot be considered
a permanent minority under the constitutional scheme. However, Heptulla's remark is a
product of the post-Babri Masjid political discourse, which has effectively turned Muslims
into a permanent and designated national minority.
The Congress government launched a package to reach out to ‘minorities' in general and
Muslims in particular as the Mandir politics laid the groundwork for a broader campaign that
eventually led to the demolition of the Babri Masjid. Perhaps the most significant step was
the National Commission for Minorities Act of 1992. It recognized the necessity to assess the
reasons behind religious communities' relative marginalization. In May 1993, the National
Commission for Minorities (NCM) was established as a result of this law.
However, even the 1992 statute does not define the word "religious minority." Instead, the
federal government has the authority to declare a select towns "minority" for the purposes of
this Act. In October 1993, the Congress administration declared five religious communities as
national religious minorities: Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Zoroastrians
(Parsis). In 2014, this list was updated to include Jains as a national minority. This seemingly
innocuous administrative move, on the other hand, posed a severe challenge to constitutional
norms, which purposefully do not label any religious or cultural group as a "national
minority."
The NCM found no conflict between the constitutional definition of a minority and the
government's 1993 notification. It clarified in an official note to the Ministry of Home Affairs
dated July 30, 1997: A national minority has the status of a minority throughout the country,
regardless of its local population. This will be true even if the minority is numerically not a
minority in the state, area, or district. A religious community that is not recognized as a
national minority under the NCM Act (such as Jews and Bahais) may be recognized as a
regional minority in a given state.
The paper contends that religious minorities, like religion-based Scheduled Castes, can be
recognized as specific identities entitled to particular protection by the state, citing the
constitutional commitment to affirmative action. In other words, the distinctiveness of a
group is supported by another powerful norm, namely, backwardness and marginalization, as
a principle to designate a minority at the state level. India's Muslims, who have historically
been considered a religious cultural minority, are viewed as a backward national community.
The Sachar Commission Report solidified this administrative-policy concept, which became
the driving philosophy for the newly constituted ministry of minority affairs in 2006.
Recognizing Muslims as a national minority based on their backwardness or marginalization,
on the other hand, sparked a tremendous political reaction. In 1992, L.K. Advani delivered a
speech in Parliament that suggested some political uneasiness. Advani, who is opposed to the
National Commission for Minorities Bill 1992, said: This type of bill is ostensibly aimed to
Christians, Parsis, Sikhs, and others, but it is truly solely addressed to one segment... By
passing this Bill, you are committing a comparable colossal and historical disaster.
Advani's vehement opposition to the Bill originates from the BJP's avowed aim of appeasing
Muslims. The party continues to fight the NCM in order to establish 'positive secularism,' as
Advani describes it. The BJP manifestos of the 1990s make a strong case for this position
(especially1996 and 1998). The party is said to be devoted to "disbanding the Minorities
Commission and transferring its functions to the National Human Rights Commission."
When the BJP came to power in 1998, however, it had no objection to Muslims being
recognized as a national minority. The second NCM, which was established by Congress,
was also not abolished. In reality, as home minister, Advani was instrumental in the
formation of a new NCM in January 2000. In the post-2004 period, the BJP had a
significantly different stance on Muslims' minority status. The party acknowledged the
NCM's considerable contribution and even maintained that it plays an important role in
Muslim emancipation. 'Even after several decades of Independence, a major section of the
minority, particularly the Muslim population, continues to be stuck in poverty,' according to
the BJP's 2014 manifesto.