SECULARISM: WHY NEHRU DROPPED AND INDIRA INSERTED THE SECULAR IN THE CONSTITUTION.

 Ironically though it was Nehru along with the chairman of the drafting committee, B.R.
Ambedkar who were also most opposed to the idea of including the word “Secular” in
the Preamble of the Constitution. It made an appearance though, about 3 decades later in
42nd amendment of the constitution.
 It was criticized because of the foreign origins of the word and the inapplicability of it in
Indian Context. Before the framing of the constitution started, an Objectives Resolution
was moved by Nehru in 1946. It enshrined the aspirations and values behind the
Constitution making. On the basis of the Objectives Resolution, the minorities, backward
and tribal areas, depressed and other backward classes were given adequate safeguards.
 But the concept is vitally different from the American idea of secularism which requires
complete segregation of Church and state. The principle that a child should be instructed
in the early stages of education through the medium of mother tongue has been accepted
by the government.
 The idea of giving some specіal rіght to the mіnorіtіes іs not to treat them as prіvіleged
sectіon of the populatіon but to gіve to the mіnorіtіes a sense of securіty. Specіal rіghts
for mіnorіtіes were desіgned not to create іnequalіtіes but to brіng about equalіty by
ensurіng the preservatіon of the mіnorіty іnstіtutіons and by guaranteeіng autonomy іn
the matter of admіnіstratіon of these іnstіtutіons.

WHO COMES UNDER MINORITY?

 Defining minority is always a difficult task. This is the reason perhaps that we do not find
any universally accepted definition minority. Attempts have been made at different levels
to objectively and empirically determine and define minority but all in vain.
 In the Re Education Bill Supreme court trough Justice S.R Das held that Minority means
a community which is numerically less than the 50% of the total population. A similar
judgment was passed by the Kerala HC in the case of A.M. Patroni v. Kesavan in which
it wa held that that “Any religious or linguistic community which is less than 50%of the
total population shall be considered as the minority. In DAV College Bhatinda v. State of
 Punjab, for the purpose of Art. 30(1) a community may constitute a minority based on
language, even though they may not have a separate script, it would be enough if they
have a separate specific language.
 The unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court in D.A.V. College-Jullunder v. State of
Punjab is a pointer to the fact. The Court also explained the meaning of linguistic
minority and declared "A linguistic minority for the purpose of Article 30(1) is one which
must at least have a separate spoken language. It is not necessary that the language should
also have distinct script for those who speak it to be a linguistic minority. There are in the
country some languages, which have no script of their own, but nonetheless those
sections of the people who speak that language will be a linguistic minority entitled to the
protection of Article 30(1)".
 The Delhi High Court in Arya Samaj Education Trust categorically rejected the plea that
Arya Samaj was a minority based on religion. In its ruling, the Court held: "The word
'minority' used in the expression 'Minorities' based on religion used in Article 30(1)
connotes only those religious minorities which have claimed political rights separate
from those of the Hindus prior to the Constitution such as the Muslims and the Sikhs.
Because of the political origins of the sense in which the word minority was used in
India, it was never applied to a part or a section of the Hindus.... In Article 30 (1)
therefore, the word minority cannot apply to a class or section of Hindus

SCOPE OF ARTICLE 29 AND 30: WITH RELATION TO ESTABLISH AND ADMINISTRATION OF

EDUCATION INSTITUTION.

 These two articles claim the benefit to establish education institution but for it, it is not
necessary that the institution must seek to conserve the language, script or culture of the
minority community, what is necessary is its establishment by the minority, it may impart
religious or secular education wholly unconnected with language script and culture.
 That admission into such institution must be confined only to minority community and
not a single member of majority community. In the recent times, the Hindus are being
deprived of these rights and rights and various fundamental rights are being violated.
 Linguistic and religious minorities are covered by the expression "minority" under
Article 30 of the Constitution. Since reorganization of the States in India has been on
linguistic lines, therefore, for the purpose of determining the minority, the unit will be the
State and not the whole of India. Thus, religious and linguistic minorities, who have been
put on a par in Article 30, have to be considered state wise.

EDUCATIONAL RIGHT OF MINORITIES UNDER ARTICE 30: A PRIME SOURCE OF INEQUALITY

 Ancient India’s considered to be a land of minorities which consist of various groups of

racial, religious, linguistic, and cultural. In India, people were divided by difference of
religion, language, and race, culture and socio-economic factors.
 One of the important tasks of the constitution makers was to construct a constitutional
arrangement that protects number of minorities from discrimination and promises to
safeguard those characteristics which have divide them apart from the rest.
 The unclear idea of rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institution
promised in good faith to reassure India ‘a agitated minorities at the time of partition.
 It has now taken such root in India that it has become the prime source of inequality.
A. A case study of Aligarh Muslim university

BENEFIT DEBATE: HINDUS AS MINORITIES

 In the recent petition of the SC by the advocate Ashwini Upadhaya directly asked for
recognizing Hindus as religious minorities in certain states like J& K, Lakshadweep,
Meghalaya, Mizoram and Punjab. In the constitution Art 29 and Art 30 read together may
be taken as a constitutional chatter for religious and linguistic minorities at all level.
 The constitution does not specify any mechanism for identification of groups of citizens
cover by either of these provisions.
 He claimed that Hindus are being taken as majority in these states despite being minority
in population and are, therefore, illegitimately being deprived of benefits meat for
minorities. According to survey, union Govt. offered 20,000 scholarships in the field of
technical education for minority students. In J&K, Muslims are 68.3% and government
allotted 717 out 753scholarships to them. But none to Hindu students by reason that
Muslims are minority but not the Hindus.
 But the minority rights of Hindu are being siphoned off arbitrarily and illegally to the
majority because neither central nor the state government have notified Hindus as a
minority u/s 2c) of the NCM, Act. Therefore, Hindu are being deprived of their basics
right guaranteed under the Art. 25 to Art.30. Contending that 1993 notification is against
the basic structure of the constitution that the communities which are in majority in a
given state, are enjoying benefit meant for minority communities.

THE NEUTRALITY OF THE STATE WOULD BE VIOLATED IF RELIGION IS USED FOR POLITICAL
PURPOSES

 Article 30 provides certain educational rights to minority to institution but also

results in disadvantages to the Hindu and other majority institutions. There is no
government interference over the management of the educational institution run
by the minority community. They have the complete control over the institution
and that is the main reason for the misuse of rights by the minority. If any mal
practice arises among these types of institutions then government is having no
right to interfere or control the situation.

 The current scenario of art 3 is very depressing as it only frames out tolerating
behavior of government towards to the minority institutions rather than an
encouraging one. The is because the minority institutions have absolute autonomy
on the institutions by them and government authorities have no right t interfere in
the management.

CONCLUSION
A non- minority institution have to face a greater amount of government intervention and
are not able to exercise their rights creating and managing the institutions properly.
Government cannot even control any situation of malpractice by the minority institution
which is the main reason for the discrimination among both minorities and non-minorities
group. The reason behind the provision for minority communities was only to provide the
equal treatment in aspect of establishing and managing the affairs of educational
institutions. The provision has known turned into a disadvantage for the nonminority
groups. Art. 30 is now turning into the main source of inequality and discrimination of
the non-minorities communities. It is creating a communal imbalance in the society and
preventing the non- minority groups to exercise the rights.