Express News Service | New Delhi | Posted: September 12, 2014 10:14 pm
Nariman said he agreed that the central govt had done nothing to act against
tirades by individuals or groups against members of religious minorities.
Nariman said he agreed that the central govt had done nothing to act against tirades by individuals or groups against members of religious minorities. Nariman said he agreed that the central govt had done nothing to act against tirades by individuals or groups against members of religious minorities.
Hinduism is losing its benign character because a few people believe that it is their faith that has brought them political power — and because their belief has not been contradicted by “those at the top”, Fali S Nariman said on Friday. The constitutional expert, one of India’s most respected jurists, was delivering the annual lecture at the National Commission for Minorities.
“Traditionally Hinduism has been the most tolerant of all Indian faiths. But — recurrent instances of religious tension fanned by fanaticism and hate speech has shown that the Hindu tradition of tolerance is showing signs of strain. And let me say this frankly — my apprehension is that Hindusim is somehow changing its benign face because, and only because it is believed and proudly proclaimed by a few (and not contradicted by those at the top): that it is because of their faith and belief that HINDUS have been now put in the driving seat of governance,” Nariman said.
He said that while he welcomed a single-party majority government at the Centre, he also feared it because of past experience with majoritarian governments.
Nariman said he agreed that the central government had done nothing to act against tirades by individuals or groups against members of religious minorities. After the lecture, asked about the silence of Minority Affairs Minister Najma Heptulla on hate speeches, Nariman bluntly said: “You should ask her that.”
Heptulla had presided over the function. “I would respectfully suggest that if we minorities (through the statutory body set up by Parliament ) do not stand up for the rights of minorities and protest against such hate speeches and diatribes how do we expect the government to do so? A majoritarian government is elected and exists mainly on the vote of the majority community. On the other hand the commission is an independent statutory body. Its chairman is not a minister of government. And though it receives grants from the Central government it is not expected to be a mere mouthpiece of that government,” Nariman said.
He lauded the role played by the Supreme Court in upholding minority rights on many occasions, terming it a “Super Minorities Commission”, but he said that the judicial outlook had undergone a gradual metamorphosis since the early 1990s when the BJP first introduced the phrase “appeasement of minorities” in the political lexicon to describe the Congress’s attitude towards minorities.
“The label stuck; ‘minority’ became and has become an unpopular word. And after the same political party had included in its Election Manifesto in the general election of May-June 1991 the party’s resolve if and when it came into power to amend Article 30 to the disadvantage of minorities, ‘minority rights’ got less and less protected by Courts (including the Supreme Court of India) than they were before,” Nariman said.
Hinduism is losing its benign character because a few people believe that it is their faith that has brought them political power — and because their belief has not been contradicted by “those at the top”, Fali S Nariman said on Friday. The constitutional expert, one of India’s most respected jurists, was delivering the annual lecture at the National Commission for Minorities.
“Traditionally Hinduism has been the most tolerant of all Indian faiths. But — recurrent instances of religious tension fanned by fanaticism and hate speech has shown that the Hindu tradition of tolerance is showing signs of strain. And let me say this frankly — my apprehension is that Hindusim is somehow changing its benign face because, and only because it is believed and proudly proclaimed by a few (and not contradicted by those at the top): that it is because of their faith and belief that HINDUS have been now put in the driving seat of governance,” Nariman said.
He said that while he welcomed a single-party majority government at the Centre, he also feared it because of past experience with majoritarian governments.
Nariman said he agreed that the central government had done nothing to act against tirades by individuals or groups against members of religious minorities. After the lecture, asked about the silence of Minority Affairs Minister Najma Heptulla on hate speeches, Nariman bluntly said: “You should ask her that.”
Heptulla had presided over the function. “I would respectfully suggest that if we minorities (through the statutory body set up by Parliament ) do not stand up for the rights of minorities and protest against such hate speeches and diatribes how do we expect the government to do so? A majoritarian government is elected and exists mainly on the vote of the majority community. On the other hand the commission is an independent statutory body. Its chairman is not a minister of government. And though it receives grants from the Central government it is not expected to be a mere mouthpiece of that government,” Nariman said.
He lauded the role played by the Supreme Court in upholding minority rights on many occasions, terming it a “Super Minorities Commission”, but he said that the judicial outlook had undergone a gradual metamorphosis since the early 1990s when the BJP first introduced the phrase “appeasement of minorities” in the political lexicon to describe the Congress’s attitude towards minorities.
“The label stuck; ‘minority’ became and has become an unpopular word. And after the same political party had included in its Election Manifesto in the general election of May-June 1991 the party’s resolve if and when it came into power to amend Article 30 to the disadvantage of minorities, ‘minority rights’ got less and less protected by Courts (including the Supreme Court of India) than they were before,” Nariman said.
Source: The Indian Express
