So far as India is concerned, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains are considered to be within the ambit of Hinduism. According to census of 1991, the religion-wise break–up of the population was: Hindus 672.6 million (82.41% of total), Muslims 95.2 million (11.67%), Christians 18.9 million (2.32%), Sikhs 16.3 million (1.99%), Buddhists 6.3 million (0.77%), Jains 3.4 million (0.41%0, others 3.5 million (0.43%). The government has notified five communities, namely, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists and Zoroastrians as minorities at the national level. As per census of 1991, together the minority groups constitute 17.17 per cent of total population of the country.

The Constitution of India protects the interests of minorities and recognises their right to conserve their language, script and culture and to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. It may be mentioned here that minority in one part of the country can be a majority in other areas. Despite the Hindus being over 82% of the country’s population, they are in a minority in Jammu and Kashmir, Nagaland and some other Northeast states, as well as in Punjab.

The United Nations Declarations on the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, recognises their basic needs and rights. It urges all countries in the world to take care of them.

It is useful to recall some articles of this declaration.

Article 1: States shall protect the existence of the national or ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identity of minorities within their respective territories, and shall encourage conditions for the promotion of that identity. States shall adopt appropriate legislative and other measures to achieve those ends. Article 2:Persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities have the right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, and to use their own language in private and in public, freely and without interference or any form of discrimination.

Persons belonging to minorities have the right to participate effectively in culture, religious, social, economic and public life.

Persons belonging to minorities have the right to participate effectively in taking decisions, on the national and where appropriate regional level, concerning the minority, to which they belong, or the regions in which they live, in a manner not incompatible with national legislation.

Persons belonging to minorities have the right to establish and maintain their own associations.

Persons belonging to the minorities, have the right to establish and maintain, without any discrimination, free and peaceful contacts with other members of their group and with persons belonging to other minorities as well as contacts across frontiers with citizens of other states to whom they are related by national or ethnic, religious or linguistic ties.

Article 3: Persons belonging to minorities may exercise their rights, including those set forth in this declaration, individually as well as a community, with other members of their group without any discrimination. No disadvantage shall result for any person as a consequence of the exercise or non-exercise of the rights set forth in this declaration.

There is no country which does not have some minority in its frontiers. For instance, in UK, Catholics are a minority but they are a majority in Ireland. In Ulster, Protestants are the majority and the Catholics are a minority. In Pakistan Ahmedias, since their derecognition as Muslims, have become a minority. In Latin American countries, Catholics are in majority. In the Philippines, Muslims are a minority vis–à–vis Christians. In Israel, Arab Muslims are a minority vis–à–vis Jews. Despite the governments’ claim of doing their best, conflicts keep on arising between majorities and minorities.

The basic problem in India has been the problem of the Muslim community vis-a-vis the Hindu majority. No other minority has faced so many riots as the Muslims. Sikhs had to face only one riot by the majority community in the year 1984, after the assassination of the then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi. There also, it must be said to the credit of the majority community, that except for a few hoodlums, the rest stood by the Sikh community and saved many lives. It was the pressure of the majority community, which forced the government of the day to start cases for punishing the guilty. The Sikh community, itself has also been vocal against any injustice. A number of commissions have been set up to deal with the question of riots involving the majority and the minorities. They have repeatedly pointed what went wrong and how matters should have been handled. The National Police Commission noted: “In one town, where a serious communal riot was raging for a very long period and where curfew was imposed continuously, for days, the district officers could not even decide on the arrest of the anti–social elements, as there was continuous unwarranted interference with their discretion by the political executive.”

Constant consultation and seeking of instructions in riot situations is a totally impractical procedure. Time generally works against the administration, and initial hesitation in dealing firmly with a riotous situation soon results in its escalation in size and intensity. The result is that later effective control over the situation can only be achieved with heavier causalities and by a more indiscriminate use of force.

At some place, the leadership not only failed to act decisively, but was also unable to control the force. In the absence of their officers, the force at times retaliated more like a mob in anger. In some incidents some police officers and men appear to have shown unmistakable bias against a particular community while dealing with communal situations. Serious allegations of high–handedness, including criminal activities, as arson and looting, molestation of women, etc. have been levelled against the police deployed to protect the citizens. There is evidence to suggest that in one recent riot the police resorted to uncontrolled firing, killing may people of the congregation; they later indulged in looting and arson when the crowd assaulted some of their colleagues.

In another incident, it was alleged that a group of anti-social elements was able to brutally kill many persons, including men and children, while the police was present in the vicinity. In yet another incident, it has been alleged that the force ran amuck. All these are only symptoms of the underlying malaise. The failure of leadership coupled with the low morale of the force leads to such undisciplined reaction from the force. There is a tendency amongst the officers to avoid taking responsibility for dealing with a certain situation. They either avoid going to the trouble spot, or when they happen to be present there, they try not to order the use of force when the situation so demands, or better still slip away from the scene leaving the force leaderless. We have reasons to believe that this reaction of the officers is a calculated decision on their part rather than a reflex action born out of cowardice. They consider it prudent to avoid getting involved in ordering the use of force. It is unfortunate that after riots it is only those officers who had taken some action in dealing with the situation are accused of all sorts of allegations. They have to face harassment and humiliation in the inquiries that follow.

The real villain, who allows the situation to deteriorate by not taking firm action in the initial stages to control the situation, manages to go scot–free. The reluctance to order the use of force, to control the situation, leads to serious consequences later. The force gets the impression that their senior officers are not going to order any action for their protection. They go on watching, helplessly, the beating of their colleagues. The demoralised force, lacking confidence in their senior officers, often retaliates in anger and fear to settle score with the rioters.

It has been alleged that anti-social elements have the protection of influential politicians. Any interference from any quarter in the preparation of lists of anti–social elements and in the initiation of action against them needs to be deprecated. If the police officers themselves prepare a defective list, then the blame for such omission should be laid squarely upon them. If a person whose antecedents are such as to lead to the inference that he is an anti-social element, prompt action should be taken against him.

A developing situation can be defused effectively by enlisting public co-operation. Several commissions in the past have stressed the role of peace committees. It should be ensured that important men with considerable local influence and who are acceptable to both the communities, because of their proven impartiality, are included as members of these committees. These committees should be given every assistance by the administration so that they can go round the area and prevail upon the people to refrain from violent activities.

The peace committees can also play a very important role in removing fear, mitigating panic, reducing tension and restoring normalcy in the area. In sensitive areas with a history of communal riots such peace committees should be constituted on a permanent basis and the membership of such committee should be constantly reviewed. The efficiency of the district administration cannot be separated from the general health of the administration. The practice of posting and transfers on political pressures can lead to a heavy price to be paid at the time of riots.

Loss of credibility in the police has serious repercussions. The public will neither trust nor co–operate with such an administration in dealing firmly with the situation. And without active public co-operation, it is just not possible to control communal riots. There is a strong case for encouraging the recruitment of members of the minority community and other weaker sections at various levels in the police force. Such recruitment should be without prejudice and without diluting the educational and other standards considered necessary for recruitment to the police.

Any inhibition on the part of the authorities in recruiting members of the minority community in the police merely because they belong to a particular community should be strongly discouraged. The police forces of the various states in the country should truly represent the social structure in the respective states. Such a situation should be brought about by a competitive, fair, impartial recruitment and training process and not by a protective process like the reservation of vacancies for members of the minority communities. As communal disturbance results from building up of communal tension, it is essential to have prompt and correct intelligence available to the government. For this several commissions have suggested the following measures:

a) A special intelligence unit should be constituted at the state and central levels. The unit should be composed of persons especially trained and possessing aptitude and absolute impartiality needed for this type of work.

b) Intelligence agencies should furnish their reports and assessments to the district magistrates and district superintendent of police regularly and without any delay.

c) The district magistrate and district superintendent of police should be charged with personal responsibility for scrutinising these reports and taking preventive actions promptly to forestall any communal disturbance.

d) A close watch should be kept on rumour mongering.

e) Places of worship should not be used to hold meetings, which tend to create a communal disturbance, disharmony and ill–will. Special measures to prevent and deal with such meetings should be taken. f) The government should prevent the publication of alarming, incorrect or provocative news or of views likely to promote communal ill-will or hatred to disturb communal harmony.

Punitive measures:

a) The district magistrate and superintendent of police should be made personally responsible for prompt action to prevent or stop communal disturbances.

b) Special teams of investigation should be detailed for investigation of offences committed during communal disturbances.

c) Failure to take prompt and effective action should be considered as a dereliction of duty. The officer concerned should be dealt with accordingly.

d) A system of suitable recognition of service rendered in preventing or dealing with communal disturbances should be introduced.

e) Offences should be investigated and the offenders prosecuted promptly. Prosecution once launched should not be withdrawn. Special courts with summary powers to deal with offences connected with communal incidents should be constituted.

The government has set up a National Commission for Minorities through special legislation in 1992. It has been assigned specific duties and given substantial powers. The commission for linguistic minorities appointed under Article 350 B of the Constitution investigates all matters relating to the safeguards provided for linguistic associations and individuals belonging to linguistic minorities. So far 33 reports have been laid before the Parliament. But the outcome of such reports is hardly known.

For improving the employability of minorities and socially and economically backward people, in public employment and increasing their intake in professional courses, a pre–examination coaching scheme is being implemented. The government has also set up a National Minorities Development and Finance Corporation with an authorised share capital of Rs. 500 crore. It would have been better and in the overall interests of the minorities if all organisations set up by the government were to function as a part and parcel of the minorities commission. For effectively ameliorating the plight of the minorities, it is essential to give some teeth to the minority commission. Except for the minorities themselves, no body can raise their standard of living and status.

I happened to ask a colleague as to how the Jews, though killed in millions by Germans, have managed to survive. He told me an interesting anecdote. After the Holocaust, Jews decided that wherever there are 10 Jewish families they would run their own educational institutions. The result of this has been the excellence of Jews in scientific, industrial, educational and academic fields. Though the population of Jews is less than 2% of the USA, more than 145 Jews are representing Americans in the House of Representative and the Senate. My view is that it is not necessary to depend on crunches of reservations for upliftment of minorities. For instance, very few Marathis and Gujaratis enter civil service. They are doing well in life. The two states are prosperous, without having representation in various services, in proportion to their population. I am in the end reminded of an Urdu couplet, which I am paraphrasing in the context of minorities: “Khudi ko kar buland itna ke her tadbir se pahle, Khuda (government) banday (minorities) se khud poochey, bata, teri raza kya hai” (Elevate yourself to the level that before anything else, God asks what you desire).

Joginder Singh
(The writer was formerly director, CBI).