Minorities and Indian Constitution
Minorities and our constitution: Historical Approach and its present relevance:
Though Indian society has been plural from ancient times, the minority problem faced as faced by the framers of the Constitution is widely believed to be the creation of the colonial regime. The plural Indian society has various groups – ethnic, religious and linguistic. They used to live harmoniously together with broad cultural unity. Even Islam co-existed with Hinduism. However, the British rule made a qualitative difference in the minority problem. It accepted the plural nature of the Indian society but stressed the importance of groups rather than individuals in the political processes and attempted to widen the gap among different groups based on ethnicity, religion, language and other interest in order to sub serve their imperial interest. In the words of Milton Gordon, British emphasized on ‘corporate pluralism’ rather than ‘liberal pluralism’
In corporate pluralism emphasis is on groups and individuals are treated as members of the group: in liberal pluralism emphasis is on individuals as citizens. The Corporate Pluralism led to the separation among groups and thereby it creates difficulty in national integration. The latter neo-liberal pluralism helps the process of national integration and nation building.
The national leaders accepted that Indian society was plural and that any constitutional framework could not ignore it. However their concept of Indian plural society was based on ‘Liberal Pluralism’ which emphasized the fact that though an individual was a member of his group, he participated in the political system as a citizen. This concept, they hoped, would ultimately strengthen the national bond among different minority groups and which foster the approach was evident in the Nehru Committee Report, 1928, which recommended on one hand, joint mixed electorates and on the other hand favoured such fundamental rights for individuals as right to equality, freedom
Though Indian society has been plural from ancient times, the minority problem faced as faced by the framers of the Constitution is widely believed to be the creation of the colonial regime. The plural Indian society has various groups – ethnic, religious and linguistic. They used to live harmoniously together with broad cultural unity. Even Islam co-existed with Hinduism. However, the British rule made a qualitative difference in the minority problem. It accepted the plural nature of the Indian society but stressed the importance of groups rather than individuals in the political processes and attempted to widen the gap among different groups based on ethnicity, religion, language and other interest in order to sub serve their imperial interest. In the words of Milton Gordon, British emphasized on ‘corporate pluralism’ rather than ‘liberal pluralism’
In corporate pluralism emphasis is on groups and individuals are treated as members of the group: in liberal pluralism emphasis is on individuals as citizens. The Corporate Pluralism led to the separation among groups and thereby it creates difficulty in national integration. The latter neo-liberal pluralism helps the process of national integration and nation building.
The national leaders accepted that Indian society was plural and that any constitutional framework could not ignore it. However their concept of Indian plural society was based on ‘Liberal Pluralism’ which emphasized the fact that though an individual was a member of his group, he participated in the political system as a citizen. This concept, they hoped, would ultimately strengthen the national bond among different minority groups and which foster the approach was evident in the Nehru Committee Report, 1928, which recommended on one hand, joint mixed electorates and on the other hand favoured such fundamental rights for individuals as right to equality, freedom