Universal Code for Treatment of Minorities

Among nearly 200 member-states of the UN, there is hardly one which has a homogenous population in terms of religion or language or race or culture. This implies that all of them have minority groups in relation to the majority group. In some cases, a state may have no groups with a clear majority but more than one minority groups with each of them constituting less than 50% share of the population. Generally every state need at least 10% of its population identified by a recognized marker like religion or race or language or culture different from that of the majority. The state has to evolve a humane and civilised modus operandi to deal with the minorities.

The problem is even more complicated in countries of continental dimensions like China, India, Russia, USA, Brazil or Nigeria in which groups which form minorities in relation to the predominant majority collectively number in millions, though they may be scattered throughout the national territory. Such groups cannot be overlooked, ignored or bypassed in politics or administration or in development planning or even in external relations.

The problem becomes very knotty in a centrist set up as the decision-making process is often remote and insensitive to the problems and grievances of minority groups, which have little access to policy making or its execution. In this sense, the task is much easier in a federation or even in a quasi-federation as in India. A federal set up may have an added advantage that the social group which forms a majority in the nation-state, may constitute a minority at some lower levels, namely, constituent states, districts, sub-districts, municipalities or villages. Conversely, even a group which forms a minority at the national level may constitutes a majority in some units at lower levels in some parts of the country. To take the obvious example, while Muslims, Sikhs and Christians are the three important religious minorities in India, they all form a majority respectively in states like Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab and some North-east states. Deeper analysis will bring out that barring micro groups, all other social groups have sub groups and some of them may constitute a majority in some districts or sub-districts or municipalities or villages.

Another aspect of the problem is that a country which has an over-whelming majority of a particular group is bound to have an imprint of its religion, language or culture in all walks of life at all levels. In such a situation, the tendency towards assimilation or the pressure to have uniformity or homogeneity also increases. For example, in most Slavic states all non-Christians tend to take Slavic names or surnames. Historically minority groups often adopt a device to conceal their real identity. In India a person is immediately identifiable as a member of a religious or caste community by his name. People living in the same territory have to a large extent a common language or a common culture. But in the age of democracy, every social group, however small, wishes to keep its identity or even to project it. The minority groups, therefore, with some exceptions, reject, or at least resist assimilation. There are, however, situations in which a minority group finds it safer to fall in line and voluntarily assimilate itself with the majority group and in its own interest. It may find it practical and even beneficial to merge its identity with that of the majority group.

All said and done, minorities are a fact of life and have to be recognized. The existence of the minorities is a question of fact, not of law, and should be accepted as a valuable contribution to national diversity and as a welcome variation to a dull monotony.

At the end of the First World War, when several countries in Eastern Europe were liberated from the Russian or Turkish empires, the question of protection of rights of minorities became the subject not only of post-war negotiations but of international agreements with the formation of the League of Nations. At the end of the Second World War the United Nations Organisation, created by the international community paid particular attention to the rights and duties of the minority groups in the states of which they are citizens and reciprocally the rights and duties of the states towards their minorities. This is indeed a radical departure. In principle, all states accept that the minorities are equal citizens, entitled to equality before the law and fundamental freedoms and adequate share in the goods and services that the state offers, thus, creating a uniform environment of equality. The state cannot discriminate, under the UN Charter or under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, against any citizen on the basis of religion or race or culture or language. Most states which have emerged after the Second World War at the end of the colonial era have fundamental rights written in their Constitutions. But, in all human affairs there is a gap between precept and practice. This is the reason why the UN System or the international community has been steadily working on eliminating discrimination particularly on the basis of race or religion or language through International Covenants, Conventions, Declarations and Resolutions.

Surprisingly, the international community could not formulate a precise definition for the term ‘minority’. That is why it decided to give a long title to its historic Declaration of 1992 on the rights of minorities, as UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious or Linguistic Minorities and the subsequent Resolution of 1998 which lays down what states governments agencies and NGO’S should do for minorities. Now the international community has a comprehensive standard which covers all valuable elements gathered from provisions in the treaties between the first and the second World Wars, the UN Charter of 1945, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966. In the meantime, the UN also adopted the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1965 and the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination based on Religion or Belief in 1981; Finally, in 1993, the Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna set a seal on Minority Rights as an integral element of international law on Human Rights.

Many NGO’s and experts have participated in workshops, seminars and symposia, sponsored by the UN to refine the concepts and implications of minority rights at the national, regional and international levels and have tried to draw attention to indigenous peoples and aboriginals, marginalized in several countries. The international community is still debating whether Zionism in Israel constitutes racial discrimination and a violation of human rights & in the Indian context whether the phenomena of caste or the treatment of Adivasis generates questions of minority rights.

Since the situation varies from state to state, even among those, which have a sizable proportion of minorities in their population, it has not so far been possible for the international community to lay down a justiciable code for the protection of the rights of the minorities and for the promotion of their legitimate interests and aspirations.

However, nearly every state has, apart from the provisions in its constitution, enacted laws and issued executive instructions for dealing with specific situations and problems that arise. And all of them have been subjected to judicial, review and analyses and refined by experts.NEED FOR A CODE FOR TREATMENT OF MINORITIES

Nearly, 20 years have passed since the adoption of the UN Declaration on Minorities in 1992 and resolution of 1998. Many national and regional laws have accumulated over the last 20 years and it is possible, in my view, to initiate the formulation of an International Code for the Treatment of the Minorities which may apply universally to all states-members of the UN system, irrespective of the size of the minority groups, individually and collectively, or the diversities among them in terms of race and religion, language or culture.

In formulating a Code for the Minorities the initial road block-recognition of the identity of the minorities - has been by and large surmounted. The international community now swears by multiculturalism and accepts religious, linguistic and racial diversity and, therefore, recognizes minorities on the face of it. The imperative is to recognize distinct groups that are all entitled to full participation in the national life, equality before law, right to their religion, language and culture, protection against hate speech, denigration, demonization or vilification, due share in the fruits of progress and development and due claim on the services, facilities and resources of the state.

However, a small minority may or may not have the means to assert its identity or to secure its rights but the law of the nation and national constitutions and laws recognize group rights, subject to law and order and public morality. The real bottleneck for the minorities which remains unbridged is the question of due representation in the policy-making and decision-making bodies-legislative, executive or judicial, and what is more important in the administration charged to enforce the law and execute the decisions.

Apart from the well known religious, linguistic and cultural minorities India faces the phenomenon of ‘caste’ which means that even within the majority group or, the minority groups, many ‘castes’ and ‘sub-castes’ find themselves powerless to assert their identities as caste minorities and baradaris. The lowest in the caste hierarchy are described as Scheduled Castes in the Constitution which were historically considered ‘untouchables’. The Scheduled Cates now form nearly 18% of the population and consist of myriads of sub-castes, not to speak of those whose forefathers had converted to Islam or Christianity. But the law limits the term Scheduled Castes to those who profess Hinduism and admits some sections of the Sikhs and of late neo Buddhists but Muslims and Christians by descent or conversion are disqualified.

In addition to Scheduled Castes India has Scheduled Tribes, who form about 8% of the population. There is no religious qualification as the overwhelming majority professes indigenous religions, though there is an attempt to bring them within the fold of Hinduism. Both the SCs and the STs, who are together known as Dalits, enjoy reservation in legislatures and public employment and have benefitted for social and educational development. Yet they remain economically the most backward elements in the population, except in some small states/UT’s where the ST’s are in a majority and exercise political power. Over the years both the SCs and the STs have developed ‘creamy layers’ and there is rising demand from those left behind for their share. It shall be not long before these conglomerates get divided into viable sub-groups. The same may happen to the Shudras who form the ‘OBCs’.

Another factor that has risen of late is the inherent claim of indigenous groups which live on land or in forests, rich in natural resources, sometimes visible above the surface and sometimes lying underground. They assert a prior claim to these resources and demand that their exploitation by other citizens or foreigners should not be permitted without ensuring that due benefit reaches them.

Distinct groups of minorities exist in some parts of the country due to internal migration in search of livelihood, for example, the tribals from Chhotanagpur, now called Jharkhand, who migrated to Assam to serve as plantation labour or the weavers or other craftsmen who migrated from UP or AP to the metropole and after a few generations, settled down to become a distinct minoritie in the state.

The most special case is that of the nomadic tribes who have no fixed habitat and are always on the move for work. Since they have no fixed habitat, they are often ignored in distribution of development benefits. Their basic right to register as voters is often ignored.

Whatever the emerging pattern of diversity, a comprehensive Code for the Treatment of Minorities shall conceptually cover all identities, protect them against ill-treatment, violence, genocide or ethnic cleansing or social boycott or physical displacement as well as secure them their full rights as equal citizens uniformaly under the law.

The point is that the Code for the Treatment of Minorities should be so defined that will apply to all mini and micro groups, irrespective of where they live, their level of development, whenever they are subjected to any atrocities or denials or deprivations, for example, in schooling for their children or in employment under the Employment Guarantee Programme or in health facilities or any scheme for social uplift. They should be able to invoke the Code and claim redressal. The fact however remains that unless these groups acquire literacy and become organised and empowered, they cannot coherently demand or secure their dues from an apathetic or ignorant or corrupt administration, whatever the law, far less challenge state policies or even judicial orders.

Before we come to the actual formulation of the Minority Code, let us keep in mind that for all practical purposes, in India the word ‘minorities’ is equated or identified with Muslims and the word ‘Hindus’ as inclusive of the SCs and STs in the widest sense of the term. About 20% form religious minorities and of them about 2/3rd are Muslims. But as explained above the predominant Hindu majority (of 80%) consists of many castes and sub-castes. For historical reasons, the tension between the Hindus and the Muslims has been in the forefront of national politics which at one stage led to the Partition. But the idea of the Code is not to formulate a definitive or final solution of Hindu-Muslim or intra-Hindu problems but to project these problems as part of a much larger common problem. This should make the people of our country conscious of the rights of all citizens and all minor, mini and micro groups which are conscious or identifiable, entitled to enjoy the same rights-political, economic and social, constitutional and legal, as the biggest group in the land. History has communalized our mental outlook and social perspective largely in terms of Hindu-Muslim antagonism to the extent that even legal pundits, social scientists and political experts are not prepared to accept Muslims as a separate category. A common Code will erase this dominant cleavage and make the people conscious of the fact that India is socially and culturally far more multiple than they imagine and the only approach towards securing political equality, social justice and economic progress is to respect the individual and collective rights of every identifiable, equally conscious group, however small, and thus develop greater sensitivity and a more tolerant and inclusive outlook.

Once the Indian State has adopted the Minorities Code, placing itself in the vaguard of the human rights movement, it can place it before the international community for adoption.

New Delhi

1 November, 2009 (Syed Shahabuddin)

On the question of influence of dynasty on Indian politics, I get the usual responses: we are a democracy so if people vote for the sons and daughters of politicians, how can you complain? Or: in India, everything from business to movies is about dynasty so why should politics be any different? And so on.

I do not deny that there is some merit in the response. But the truth is that the influence of dynasty is growing exponentially. Very soon, all argument will be pointless because all politics will be about dynasty.

Maharashtra politics is dynastically driven. Hardly anybody bothers to mention it any longer but Chief Minister Ashok Chavan is a dynast; his father was former Home Minister and Maharashtra Chief Minister S.B. Chavan.

The Shiv Sena-MNS story is entirely about dynasty. Bal Thackeray’s son Uddhav heads the Sena. His estranged cousin Raj broke away to form the MNS.

The BJP in Maharashtra is largely the creation of two men: the late Pramod Mahajan and his sister’s husband, Gopinath Munde. This time around, Mahajan’s daughter was in the fray and the Munde family had three representatives among the candidates.

The NCP is also now becoming a family affair. Sharad Pawar’s daughter Supriya Sule and his nephew Ajit Pawar will battle it out for the succession.

Down the line, the trend continues. Former Chief Minister (and present Energy Minister) Sushilkumar Shinde’s daughter won from Solapur. Former Chief Minister (and present Heavy Industries Minister) Vilasrao Deshmukh’s son won from the family region of Latur. Former Deputy Chief Minister Chhagan Bhujbal’s son won from Nandgaon. The President of India’s son won from Amravati.There were many other dynasts in the fray: Kalpana Patil, Nirmala Danve, Rahul Aher, Prashant Thakur etc.

What was most worrying was that the role of dynasty in selecting candidates cuts across party lines. Even the BJP, which claims to be different, nominated several dynasts.

In Haryana, politics is about dynasty, and has always been. The state has been ruled by a handful of political dynasties: Bhajan Lal and his family; Devi Lal and his kids; Bansi Lal and his brood etc. There are lesser-known dynasties too. The sitting Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda is the son of a former minister, for instance.

So not only was the election fought on the basis of dynasty but even the post-election squabbles were dynastic. Hooda did not get a majority, so Chautala (son of Devi Lal and father of A.S. Chautala who also won his seat) staked his claim thereby increasing the relevance of Bhajan Lal  (whose wife stood and lost) and his son Kuldeep Bishnoi.

Politics in the North-east is just as family dominated as it is in the rest of India.

For years, Arunachal politics was dominated by Gegong Apang who introduced his son, Omak, to politics as his heir. This time around, the Apangs lost as did the wife of former Chief Minister Mukut Mithi but Takam Tagar, younger brother of Congress MP Takam Sanjoy won.

I could go on but I think I’ve made my point: the hold of dynasty on state politics is stronger than ever. And it grows with each election.

This exponential growth in dynastic politics weakens the traditional argument about ‘democratic dynasty’. If there are so many dynasts in the fray and if so many battles pit one dynasty against another (as in Haryana and increasingly in Maharashtra) then where is the element of real choice?

Voters are not being offered true democracy. They are being asked to choose between competing dynasties. Democracy is about choice and once you restrict the choice (as all parties now do), you destroy the very basis of democracy.

Moreover, as politics becomes about dynasty, you make it impossible for outsiders with ideas or capabilities or even sincerity and integrity to join the system. All parties will give most of their nominations to sons and daughters of politicians.

Not only does this harm India because we are denied the politicians we deserve but it also greatly weakens our claim to be the world’s largest democracy. In a true democracy, candidates would emerge from the hundreds of millions who are eligible to stand.

But in today’s India, easy entry into politics is limited to a small group, numbering not more than a lakh (if you include the states) which gets to fight elections.

The only way to change this is for parties to create mechanisms that allow talented people to join politics, no matter who their fathers are. Only the Left parties remain resolutely undynastic but their presence is restricted to two states.

Ironically, it is the Congress, a party that has been dynastically driven for many years that is now looking at creating such a mechanism. And even more ironically, it is Rahul Gandhi, who owes much of his popularity to his family background, who is spearheading the move to create an alternative to dynasty by introducing genuine democracy and fair elections in the Youth Congress and the National Students’ Union of India.

It is not an easy task but because of who Rahul is, people believe him when he says that he can guarantee that good people who come up through the system will get the ticket.

Otherwise, we can kiss Indian democracy goodbye. And be governed by a ruling caste of dynastic politicians.

(Source: The Hindustan Times, 25 October, 2009)

The ruling party regained all the three states, thanks to the vagaries of the first-past-the-post system, but there was nothing exciting, resounding and inspirational about its victory. The poetry and romance of politics was markedly absent from the Congress universe. Even its victory celebrations were reminiscent of the relief felt by old-style public sector managers at the fulfilment of five-year plan targets. The party, it almost seemed, won out of habit. The largest chunk of people voted for it because they preferred predictability, even boredom, to uncertain change.

It suggests that the Congress creed is fast turning into common sense. The Congress has become something akin to a default preference for peoples and communities who are not driven by either overriding zeal or a fierce sense of distinctiveness, a characteristically Hindu complacency. The Congress’ partial success in identifying itself as the party of the inoffensive middle ground has been accompanied by the corresponding decline of the BJP as the alternative pole of politics. A decade ago, it was assumed that the country was moving towards a broad two-front system led by the Congress and BJP respectively. The horrifying convulsions in the BJP have rung alarm bells in the Indian Establishment. India’s stakeholders want political stability to co-exist with a robust Opposition that is also in a position to offer an alternative to voters. The BJP, it would seem, has abdicated that role.

There is a belief that the BJP was never suited for that role in the first place. This argument rests on the belief that the saffron outfit is too narrowly ideological and blessed with too many social angularities and prejudices of ‘Middle India’ to emerge as an alternative common sense. It is often seen to be insufficiently ‘inclusive’ and its appeal is felt to be unduly dependant on a rise in the emotional temperature. In a land of multiple gods and goddesses, the BJP has often conveyed a picture of rigid ‘monotheism’. Ashis Nandy has even suggested it is too European for accommodative Hindu tastes.

The BJP will be shooting itself in the foot if it imagines that cloning the MNS with a dose of militant Hindutva is the answer to stagnation and decline. There was nothing inherently flawed in the BJP’s approach to the Lok Sabha polls. It lost, not because its centrist moderation was unviable, but on account of tactical errors: its prime ministerial candidate lacked universal appeal, compared to Manmohan Singh; its track record in Opposition was wildly erratic; and its campaign was derailed by an ugly extremism all Indians found abhorrent.

The BJP is caught between the competitive pulls of moderation and backward-looking certitudes. Secondly, it has disengaged from the youth and middle classes who rallied behind the party in the 1990s. Finally, it has entrusted the party organisation to a man with bizarre priorities and a monumental chip on his shoulder.

To remain relevant, the BJP has to junk its comedians

(Source: The Times of India, 25 October, 2009)

In Maharashtra Assembly Election, 2009, only 10 Muslim have been elected as MLAs against their proportionate due of 31, with 4 from INC, 2 from NCP, 2 from SP, 1 from JSSP.

Despite their dissatisfaction with the decadal performance of the INC- NCP government on many counts, the Muslims of Maharashtra had largely pinned their hopes on their alliance but it fielded only 15 Muslim candidates. BJP-Shiv Sena alliances not unexpectedly fielded only two, as a token gesture. The SP had fielded large number of candidates of which its leader Abu Asim Azmi won from 2 Seats. Left-Republican Front did not field a single Muslim candidate.

Nearly all Muslim MLAs have been elected from Greater Mumbai and other western parts of the state. Thus, most of Maharashtra Muslims, even those in districts/constituencies of high Muslim concentration, remain unrepresented.

Major parties have ignored Muslim voters because their social constituencies, leave little space for divided Muslim voters.

Muslims of Maharashtra are both politically conscious and possess intellectual and material resources. They have therefore reasons to feel unhappy with the political pattern which ignores them. They are obliged to apply their mind on how to have an effective presence & voice in the legislature and thus to make it pay more attention to their legitimate grievances and demands.

It is obvious that statements and promises by secular parties will not satisfy them any longer and they have to devise better tests. Apart from inclusion of their aspirations in the manifestos, they have to see the number of Muslims they put up as candidates. To raise this they have only two options: to form a Muslim secular party or a non-political Muslim Front, to work out a deal with secular parties and alliances, to identify the Muslim concentration constituencies and to advise the Muslim voters which party to support. Their success depends entirely on the unity the Muslim community forges at the constituency level.

The degrading practice of making members of a ‘lower caste’ clean public toilets with their bare hands which persists in many places despite prohibition, is not the workers’ choice. Rather, they inherit such tasks because of their social origins and descent. These discriminated individuals then get trapped in a generational cycle of social exclusion and marginalisation.

Today caste-affected communities and civil society activists are hoping to tear down the bigger invisible wall of discrimination by trying to promote new international standards of equality and non-discrimination  with their determination and courage. 

‘Untouchability’ is a social phenomenon affecting around 260 million people worldwide. This type of discrimination is usually associated with the notions of ritual purity and pollution and is a global phenomenon. Caste is the very negation of the human rights principles of equality and non-discrimination. It condemns individuals from birth and their communities to a life of exploitation, violence and social exclusion.

‘Lower caste’ individuals are frequently confined to hereditary, low-income employment and are deprived access to agricultural land and credit. They often battle high levels of indebtedness or debt and labour bondage which is a contemporary form of slavery. Child labour is rampant in descent-based communities and children of ‘lower castes’ suffer from illiteracy. For women, caste is a multiplier that compounds their experience of poverty and discrimination.

Laws and policies have been put in place in many countries to combat this scourge. Constitutions prohibit caste-based discrimination and ‘lower caste’ members have been elected to the highest offices of the land. Special legislation has been enacted to provide affirmative action in education and employment, and protection from violence and exploitation.

Judiciaries have sought to enforce laws and provide relief to victims. Dedicated institutions monitor the conditions and advocate on behalf of ‘lower caste’ groups.

At the international level, the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination explicitly lists descent as a ground of racial discrimination. The Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted at the World Conference on Racism in 2001, recognised descent-based discrimination. It also provided a comprehensive roadmap to combat it, which was reaffirmed by States in April 2009.

Yet, it is imperative to implement education programmes that can change systemic, cultural and social prejudices and customs, beliefs and traditions based on descent, power and affluence. Caste-affected communities must be given a voice and participation in the development, implementation and evaluation of strategies aimed at empowering them.

This action to stem an abhorrent form of marginalisation and exclusion is long overdue. We owe it to those ‘lower-caste’ families, which were forced to leave village because they dared to vote in a parliamentary election against the favoured candidate of the upper caste. We owe it to the villagers belonging to the lowest social class starving to death because they were not able to benefit from the public services that they were entitled to. All caste-victims demand and deserve remedies. Their plight can neither be justified as age-old traditions nor regarded merely as a ‘family business’.

The Human Rights Council the premier intergovernmental body for the protection and promotion of human rights should promote the 2009 Draft Principles and Guidelines for the Effective Elimination of Discrimination based on Work and Descent.

This study complements existing international standards of non-discrimination. All nations must endorse these norms.

The time has come to eradicate the shameful concept of caste. Like slavery and apartheid, the international community should come together to tear down the barriers of caste too.

((Source: The Hindustan Times, 14 October, 2009)

Kashif-ul-Huda, TwoCircles.net

In the budget for 2009-10 financial year, Government of India has allocated 1756 crores, an increase of 74% from pervious year’s 1013 crores. But this is a miniscule part of the total budget reserved for 20% of the nation’s population.

Since Muslims form 73% of the minority population, most of the schemes for minorities are designed keeping in mind educational and economic backwardness of the Muslims.

Annually, the Central Government spends Rs. 5000 crores for minority welfare; through various schame agencies.

If even this amount was spent properly it would have led to some benefit to the community. Government schemes designed for minorities are not implemented sincerely and in many cases funds meant for minorities are diverted to areas and projects that will not directly benefit the minorities.

For this diversion Ministry of Minority Affairs is itself responcible. For instance, a letter dated December 26th, 2008, Mr. AK Srivastva, Under-Secretary notifies about the sanctioning of the amount of 63 crores for Barpeta district of Assam. The letter directs the Accounts Officer under the ministry to release 31 crores under various schemes meant for the minorities of Barpeta. Copies of this letter are sent to the concerned departments of the Assam government.

For each projects sanctioned, the Ministry issues instructions for the state government. This is where it gets interesting and provides mechanism for legally diverting funds away from the minorities.

For Indira Awas Yojana, the Ministry of Minority Affairs directs that "the State will ensure that 20 BPL families per village in 50 villages per block having the highest proportion of minority population would be selected." So, a creative administrator can easily identify villages and families with non-minority population as long as the block itself has a high number of minority populations.

If there is any confusion, a second guideline gives it the legal cover. It states that the "BPL families figuring in the wait list, even if they belong to communities other than the minority communities, would be selected in the order of their ranking in the list." In other words, funds allocated for minorities are released by the Ministry of Minority Affairs with the instructions that it can and should be spent on non-minority on the basis of some other wait list and poverty level that has nothing to do with the ministry itself.

This is against the "Guidelines for Preparation of Multi-sectoral District Development Plans for Minority Concentration Districts," whose under Clause 7.1.(iii) of the guidelines reads: "…the funds provided for the MCDs are additional resources for these districts do not substitute State Government funds already flowing to the districts."

All the local administrators have to show that the block or village they have selected has minority population. Though the building of school, toilets, aangan wadi, and hand pumps may or may not benefit the minorities at all.

Set up in 1994, NMDFC focus on the economic development of minorities. It provides funds to minorities for self-employment, education, etc. With income from its share capital of 850 crores, it has the power to bring about changes among the Muslims promoting entrepreneurship through targeted loan schemes.

But out of 850 crores it has able to raise only 676 crores. 65% of the share capital is Government of India’s responsibility, 26% of State Governments and Union Territories and 9% by organizations and individuals. While Government of India has met 98% of its contributions only 59% of state contributions are in. Most pathetic is 76.50 crores contribution, only 1 lakh has been raised so far.

Having to work through SCAs impacts the effectiveness of NMDFC’s programmes. 96% of the funds disbursed by NDFMC is through the Term Loan Scheme which makes loans of upto Rs. 5 lakhs. Corporation annually disburses on an average 10 crores under this Scheme. For the last 5 years it has benefitted 147,820 people distributing 57 crores. Micro Finance Scheme has distributed 6 crores benefiting 79,781 people in the same period .

Ranganath Misra Commission report had this to say about NMDFC: "…the total flow of credit from the NMDFC is comparison to other financial institutions is extremely small. This limits the impact of NMDFC assistance on the economic progress of minorities. Moreover, obtaining a guarantee from the State government remains the biggest hurdle to getting a loan from the NMDFC. Also, due to financial constraints, the state governments are reluctant to guarantee loans."

Hostages to the SCAs, both these flagship schemes have been implemented erratically. Out of 27 states and UTs, only Kerala shows some consistency. 16 states in one or more years have no distribution. Bihar, for example, distributed 8 crores in 2004-05, nothing in 2005-06, and 3 crores in 2006-07. Another example is Uttar Pradesh has not distributed any money since 2006-07.

Similar is the case with Micro Finance Scheme, 19 states had one or more years of no disbursement at all. In addition to 1% extra interest paid to SCAs, Corporation also pays them over Rs. 1 crore in the name of infrastructure development.

Over 40 lakhs was given in interest-free loans in 2006-07 to benefit the NGOs. All this money is meant for channelizing agencies and not minorities. These NGOs also get financial support to help in loan recovery. But recovery has been only around 57%.

Not only poor performance, some NGOs have adopted unlawful practices, 51 NGOs are facing legal suits by the Corporation to recover over 1.8 crores.

The Ministry of Minority Affairs has three types of scholarships: pre-matric, post-matric and merit-cum-means scholarship for minority students. About 6 lakhs students are to benefit from these scholarships every year.

But, it wasn’t easy for the intended beneficiaries. Six pages long complicated application was only available in English. Application requires six additional documents, two on stamp papers. Many poor and rightly deserving students are unlikely to have the resources and expertise necessary to correctly submit all the necessary paperwork. A number of students who did qualify complained of not getting the money that was promised.

Muslims can raise funds and establish schools, colleges, and funds for self-help groups but it can not match the funds required to meet the community needs in the entire country.

Muslim groups need to monitor these schemes at the grass root level to ensure implementation. Awareness campaigns among Muslims are required to teach them about not only government schemes. (They can also so by establishing Monitoring & Facilitatition Centres in every districts and towns of Muslim concentration with 3-4 committed workers.

Long standing demand of the Muslims to setup a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) to monitor implementation will also be a step in the right direction depends on how sincere Union and state governments are for minority welfare.

Introduction & Conclusion of Omar Khalidi’s Paper

The book curiously titled Who Killed Karkare? says a nationwide network of Hindutva terror that has its tentacles spread up to Nepal and Israel is out to destroy the India most Indians have known for ages and to remould it into some kind of Afghanistan under the Hindu Taliban.

The writer, a former IG Police of Maharashtra, SM Mushrif, has reconstructed a fearsome picture out of former Maharashtra ATS chief Hemant Karkare’s chargesheet against alleged Hindutva terrorists like Lt. Col. Purohit, Sadhvi Pragyasingh Thakur and others.

The chargesheet pointed towards a mind-boggling nationwide conspiracy with international support to destabilise the constitutional order and the secular state that upholds it, to be replaced by a Hindutva state run according to a new Constitution. For that the conspirators were prepared for a massive bloodbath, using bomb attacks on religious places to trigger anti-Muslim holocaust.

Mushrif, with over three decades of diligent policing behind him whose feats include exposing the Telgi scam, has made an elaborate case out of nearly a dozen blasts over a large area of the country conducted by Hindutva terror groups of different stripes. His case: a section of India’s intelligence services, a miniscule group in the armed forces and a section of different state police forces have been compromised and infiltrated by these elements, a development that bodes ill for the future of the country.

Among the plans unearthed by Karkare was a blueprint for the assassination of 70 prominent Indians who could be a hindrance to the project of Hindutva. Interestingly, most of the persons marked for elimination would, naturally, be Hindus because it is they who are an powern. The conspirators were also unhappy with organisations whose Hindutva they suspected to be less virulent than desired.

Mushrif, who knows well the power of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) to make or mar lives and careers, says he is prepared to face the consequences of its hostility. He musters "evidence" to show that the IB has regularly been interfering with regular police investigations to let Hindutva terrorists slip out of the net and replace them with random Muslim youth. To fudge the issues further obliging police officers in the states would not mind ‘encountering’ a few Muslim youth branded as "terrorists". This is done to cover tracks of Hindutva terror. Mushrif says a "Brahminist" network that has its origins in Maharashtra, and is closely knit across political parties, government services, including IB, and other vital sectors of national life is behind the terror that seeks to destroy the secular, democratic state. He does any identity Brahminists with Brahminsm, many are from other high castes, some even from intermediate and lower castes.

It is pertinent to note that "Brahminism" and "Brahminical order" first appeared in Dalit protest vocabulary in the Dalit movement in Maharashtra towards the turn of the 20th century. Mushrif, who appropriates part of Dalit vocabulary for his discourse, says that Maharashtra still remains the centre of this ideology that, among other things, has the dubious distinction of killing the Father of the Nation.

The establishment that runs the affairs of the country does not want to expose the Hindutva terrorism. One example is the blasts in Samjhauta Express, which the IB said was carried out by Pakistan’s ISI. Mushrif bringout, during a narco-analysis test under Karkare, Lt. Col. Purohit had admitted having supplied the RDX used in the blast. The IB, did not want Karkare’s investigation that exposed the IB’s shenanigans, to continue.

Karkare removed, the IB moved in to fill his position with KP Raghuvanshi, a pliant police officer with extremely low credibility among Muslims for his record of letting off known Hindutva terrorirsts and implicating innocent Muslim youth even in bomb attacks on mosques.

There are quite a few interesting vignettes here, like Raghuvanshi Col. Purohit’s association with Abhinav Bharat in Maharashtra, whose hand was evident in a series of blasts across the country. With connections with men like Veer Damodar Savarkar, Dr Moonje, who led the Hindu Mahasabha, and other Hindutva luminaries. It is at the Bhonsala Military Academy run by these groups that Purohit trained police officers. Mushrif asks a pertinent question: will Raghuvanshi pursue the Karkare investigation against Purohit. Already charges have been dropped by a special court under MCOCA against 11 accused, including Purohit, on the grounds of insufficient evidence.

This was just the beginning of the undoing of Karkare’s painstaking investigation. Mushrif says slowly the system is working to undo all of Karkare’s work and let off the terrorists who over the years destroyed scores of lives and wreaked irreparable economic damage. The ATS team under Karkare had pointed out VHP leader Praveen Togadia’s role in the blasts. The ATS under Raghuvanshi dropped the investigation against him saying that they do not know who Togadia is!

A number of investigations have been thus sabotaged by the powers that be and the tracks of the Hinduta terrorists duly covered. The 319-page book is crammed with such information.

Then what about ‘who killed Karkare? Mushrif’ says two teams were at work on 26/11 ­– one which did the maximum damage was from outside. The other team took advantage of the confusion of the moment and acted only on the relatively small CST-CAMA-Rangbhavan stretch that killed Karkare. It was a desi unit which operated in this sector. Mushrif make out a strong case for high level investigation into IB’s Hand in killing Karkare.

Extrajudicial Killings by the PAC in Hashimpura, 22-23 May, 1987

Amnesty International’s Report

Kashmir is the ground zero of the India-Pakistan relationship. A signal from PM on India’s willingness to engage its troubled neighbour - in spite of its recalcitrance would generate tremendous enthusiasm within Kashmir. The Kashmiri people know through their own traumatic experience how essential India-Pakistan reconciliation is to ensure durable peace in the state.

For all Kashmir’s apparently complex problems, there are in reality only four principal challenges that need to be addressed. First is the issue of the three dialogues that are vital to rebuild the culture of mutual respect, tolerance, accommodation and faith in peaceful conflict resolution. The most inclusive elections did not end popular alienation mellow or separatist sentiment. The challenge is to ensure a larger dialogue with separatists and even former militant groups which need not delegitimise the elections or undermine elected representatives.

This should not be difficult to engineer if there is clear political will and the task of interlocuting is not left to intelligence operatives or retired babus. Dialogue must be unconditional and continuous and should address both political and humanitarian issues that could build confidence and trust (including the issue, for example, of the release of political detainees and ensuring a stricter enforcement of human rights).

Internally, it is also vital to build, through talks, a process of reconciliation between Ladakh, Kashmir and Jammu and the sub-regions. There has been growing regional and communal polarisation, which needs to be urgently addressed.

The dialogue within should be complemented by restarting the New Delhi-Islamabad backchannel on Kashmir, to ensure that Pakistan has no incentive to subvert the internal track.

These internal discussions must flow into the backchannel, which can then attempt to work out a non-territorial India-Pakistan settlement on J&K based on providing a similar political architecture on both sides of the Line of Control while working towards converting the LoC into a line of peace that allows free movement of people, goods, services and ideas. Cooperation in areas of mutual interest like water, transport, agriculture and education will require the creation gradually of trans-LoC mechanisms and institutions. Implementation of such an understanding should create conditions for a win-win solution without needing to address hard issues of political sovereignty.

An issue that is both controversial and essential to building peace is demilitarisation. Militarisation must not be confused merely with withdrawal of troops. It is a culture that legitimises use of violence and force, rewards machismo and physical aggressiveness, patronises intolerance and repression and is contemptuous of marginal groups. No one actor can be held responsible for J&K’s militarisation, particularly over the last two decades, and no one action will change this reality. All stakeholders, state and non-state, have an obligation to recreate a demilitarised culture of peace. What is required is deep introspection, a changed mindset and, of course, a change of heart and policy. A truth commission would be an ideal starting point.

Symbolically, the withdrawal of troops from the main cities will send an immediate signal of the government of India’s sincerity of purpose. But much will also depend on Pakistan’s actions in ending sponsorship of violence as well as the ability of Kashmiris themselves to resist attempts that legitimise violence and force them to abandon once again their distinctly non-violent historic identity.

Finally, of course, is J&K’s development, a central part of the prime minister’s vision for the state. Other than improved connectivity and infrastructure, it is essential to give J&K’s youth a greater stake in the country’s booming knowledge economy. Given the geography of the state, and its growing endowment of skills, (and) export of services may play a more significant role in its beneficial economic integration than the export of apples and handicrafts.