Minority tag for Lingayats unjustified

These are election times, and political expediency is in high demand. The state cabinet's decision to accord 'religious minority' status to the influential Lingayat community neatly falls into the predictable pattern. The issue had been on the backburner for decades. Shorn of any logic, the debate had coursed along the axes of the interests of sets of hegemonic elites. Aware of the prospects of acrimony, the issue could have been best left where it had rested, for those arguing for and against it to resolve amongst themselves.

Non-dominance: Francesco Capotorti, Special Rapporteur of the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, coined the most comprehensive (though not universally agreed) definition of a 'minority'.

In his classic commissioned 'Study on the Rights of Persons belonging to Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities', published in 1977, he said, "A 'minority' is a group numerically inferior to the rest of the population of a state in a non-dominant 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 towards preserving their culture, traditions, religion or language".

Cursoriness: If the element of cursoriness was palpable in the recommendations of the government-appointed panel under the State Minorities Commission, the quick passage of the recommendations by the cabinet smacks of opportunism. It appears that these bodies failed to apply time-tested parameters and due diligence while looking at the context in which the Lingayats are placed.

The larger reality should not be missed that India is a new nation-state but an old civilisation. Secondly, it has to be borne in mind that the 82%-strong Hindu fraternity is itself divided into hierarchical castes. Intra-religious differences and inequalities that usually manifest themselves as sects and denominations should not form the basis of a group being termed a minority.

Thirdly, a minority is not merely a group of numerically lesser people in relation to a larger group. A much more valid consideration is its 'powerlessness due to non-dominance'. Going by this, the Jews are not a minority in the US but Blacks in apartheid South Africa were one. It similarly applies to Palestinians in the territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority. Finally, the group should have distinctive ethnic, religious and cultural traits that it cherishes to preserve and promote.

Deep Rootedness: Universal definitions may not be applicable to all specific situations. But there could be little doubt that a community that has given around half a dozen chief ministers to the state and is in a position to elect a disproportionately large number of legislators to the law-making bodies could not be considered 'powerless due to non-dominance'.

Nor does it appear indistinct from the rest of the Hindu community, given the generally accommodative flavour of the Hindu mainstream. Nor does it even suffer from any persecution or exploitation to warrant special protection. Its rootedness in the soil and culture of the nation is sufficient to debunk all claims of it being a disadvantaged group.

Deprivation: Significantly, none among the leaders of the movement demanding a separate religion tag have cited any instances of deprivation or difficulties in accessing equal rights and justice for the community.

The fulcrum of Lingayat beliefs rests on devotion to Shiva, a deity of the larger Hindu pantheon. It emerged as a protest movement against caste-based social hierarchy and rejection of the authority of Vedas and the concepts of reincarnation and karma. The argument of Lingayats being one among the sects within Hinduism is weightier than the argument of its divergence. The larger question to be addressed is, if these could constitute sufficient basis for assigning it a minority status, or would the purpose be served by mere recognition as a distinct denomination.

Similarities in core beliefs and departures from it are legion
among faiths followed by all communities, even within minorities. The State should facilitate all to profess and practice their faiths. It is to intervene legislatively only when certain groups seek hassle-free access to their rights and opportunities. This was certainly not the case here.

Camouflage: More often, demands such as minority tag or carving of a new state stem from entrenched elites' monopoly over power or resources. Doctrinal differences and dialects come handy merely to camouflage the real intent. Religious and linguistic fault lines are easy to sharpen than socio-economic indices. This is a phenomenon of all societies of the post-colonial Third World.

The State should be discerning enough and wary of the siege that engulfs certain sections and avoid simplifying complex realities in this manner. In this particular case, the Siddaramaiah government should not have allowed itself to be led (or misled) by certain sections who may be looking to ringfence their educational institutions against laws such as the RTE Act. Nor should ambushing a certain votebank supply the raison d'etre.

(The writer is a Bengaluru-
based journalist)