From: vidynath@math.ohio-state.edu (Vidhyanath K Rao)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Article 30 of the Indian Constitution
Date: 11 Jan 1993 22:20:38 -0500
Organization: Me? Organized?
NNTP-Posting-Host: function.mps.ohio-state.edu

In article <1993Jan11.113626.8540@doug.cae.wisc.edu> budaraju@cae.wisc.edu (Srinivas Budaraju) writes:
>In article <1iq2qnINNgrm@function.mps.ohio-state.edu> vidynath@math.ohio-state.edu (Vidhyanath K Rao) writes:
>>Comments: A group has to be a minority in a region, and not countrywide or
>>statewide. Thus Hindus may be considered a minority in Punjab, or some
>>districts of some other states.
>
>I don't think this is correct. Though the term 'minority' has not been
>defined in Article 30 or anywhere else in the Constitution, Supreme Court
>(SC) decisions on various cases have narrowed the definition (note here
>that we are only talking about religious or linguistic minorities).  
>SC decision in 1957, for example, stated that persons must be a minority
>with reference to the entire population of the State, as opposed
>to being a numerical minority in the region where the educational
>institution is situated. The religious or linguistic minorities are,
>therefore, to be determined only in relation to a particular legislation
>which is sought to be enforced. 

My mistake. I misread the reference I was using.

Actually this interpretation makes it worse from the Hindu point of view.
While Hindu minority districts may be easy to find, Hindu minority states 
are rare, and not congenial to the running of parochial schools.

>SC decision in 1957 also stated that a minority institution receiving
>State aid cannot deny admission into such an institution based on
>religion, caste, etc.

This follows from other provisions of the constitution (Article 29). If 
Budaraju had read the other article I posted, this would not merit mention as
a "discovery". 

I seperated out Article 30 so that those who don't want to read the long
article would know what the text is. In retrospect, that was a mistake allowing
people to pose as making corrections. Well, live and learn. {actually
I should have known. Make the dull students do 50 problems each day for
hw if yo want them to learn:-)}

Re regulations, regulations that do no voilate the spirit of the law are
always permitted. On the other hand, denial of recognition is 
unconstitutional because such denial would prevent the graduates of the
school from further studies or employment in goverment or many other
places. How come no one has made this "discovery"?

>>I wish that BJP would introduce an amendment to the constitution to change
>>"minority, whether based on religion or language" to 
>>"a section of the citizens, based on religion or language or both".
>	                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^	
>You might as well do away with Article 30; your suggested amendment does
>no less.

This is the kind of twisted logic that seperates the psuedo-secularists
from real secularists.

Let give me an analogy: I am walking along the road. I see a child eating
icecream and another is looking longingly at the first. I buy icecream for
the second child. Along comes Budaraju and says "you might as well take the
icecream away from the first child for that is what you have done". What
logic! what erudition!

Doing away with Article 30 leaves the parochial schools at the mercy of the
state. The amendment I mentioned would protect ALL parochial schools. 
Minority run schools would have the same protection they have now. That is
not being taken away. 

The only time that this can be objected to, returning to the analogy, is if
the second child is being punished by not having icecream. Is Budaraju
implying that Hindus are being punished by not having the constitutional
protection?

[Asking for specific complaint removed. I don't have alaw library that has
law books from India.]

Let me give another analogy: You are being interviewed: The interviewer
says "We have this rule written down: Asians can be fired without giving
reasons. Others can be fired only after formal hearings. But don't worry,
no Asian has been been fired." What will be your reaction?

As any chess player will tell you, existence of a threat is more serious
than the execution of the threat. The existence of the threat affects
ones action. Lack of equal protection is reason enough for complaint.

To give another analogy: I have two persons in my home. To avoid personal
insults, let me call them A and B (no relation to anyone :-). I follow B
around with a gun, loaded and cocked, in my hand. I of course have not
fired the gun, and give my word that I will not fire my gun (unless by
accident or with really really good reason). How many believe that I am
treating A and B equally well? Raise your hand :-)

My question still stands. Why not give equal rights to all?

And another point: I have never criticised the right allowed to Indian
Muslims to marry several women. As some said on the net, it is no skin off
my nose. But then why all this loud objections when i suggest that the right
to run parochial schools be constitutionally protected for all religions?
What am I taking away from the minorities? [Of course, the pseudo-secularists
can no longer canvas for votes saying to group X "We have gotten you rights
that the majority does not have". big deal.]


-- 
Vidhyanath Rao			It is the man, not the method, that solves
nathrao+@osu.edu		the problem. - Henri Poincare
(614)-366-9341			[as paraphrased by E. T. Bell]
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian