Clearly, the Constitution of India envisages a state
that promotes equality, equal opportunities for all citizens and
categorically prohibits discrimination between them on grounds only of
religion, caste, gender and so on. Yet, six decades later, the reality on
the ground remains one of widespread denial of equal opportunities, the
practice of discrimination. The Sachar Committee report on the
socio-economic and educational status of India’s largest religious
minority, its 150 million Muslims, is one clear pointer to this grim state
of affairs.
The report is a detailed documentation of the fact that
Indian Muslims have been left behind in the development process.
Admittedly, the Sachar Committee was not required to and it has not
provided irrefutable evidence of discrimination. However, logically
speaking, there can only be one of two reasons why Muslims have been left
far behind in the field of education, employment, including in government
services and the public sector, access to credit and infrastructure.
Either this particular socio-religious community is itself uninterested in
improving its socio-economic status. Or the institutions of India are
guilty of subverting the vision of the very Constitution that created them
by effectively denying equal opportunity to and discriminating against a
section of our citizens. While hard evidence must be painstakingly
collected to establish the fact of discrimination, the lived experience of
weaker sections of Indian society, Muslims included, is a clear pointer to
where the problem lies.
Institutionalised discrimination is not only an Indian
problem. In the last few decades, an increasing number of democracies have
come around to honestly admitting that the minorities in their midst have
been denied a fair deal and have passed new laws and created appropriate
institutions to promote equality and prevent discrimination. For example,
on June 29, 2000 the Council of the European Union issued a directive to
all member states laying down "a framework for combating discrimination on
the grounds of racial or ethnic origin, with a view to putting into effect
in the member states the principle of equal treatment".
It is in this context that the Sachar Committee’s
recommendation for an Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) for India is
considered to be one of its most important recommendations. It is
understood that the seven-member expert committee appointed by the union
Ministry of Minority Affairs has submitted a draft bill for the
establishment of the EOC. What the draft proposes and what the government
does with it remains to be seen. But the questionable conduct of the UPA
government vis-à-vis the Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and
Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill 2005 and the poor record of existing
commissions – the National Human Rights Commission, the National
Commission for Minorities and others – are proof that unless civil society
groups are actively engaged in the process we will, at best, be landed
with one more "toothless tiger". That is the subject of our cover story
this month.
The harsh remarks by the chief justice of the Supreme
Court of India, Justice KG Balakrishnan, against Teesta Setalvad in
response to an article by her on judicial delays published in the
Malayalam weekly Matrubhumi, the remarks of the president of India,
Pratibha Patil, also on judicial delays (without reference to the article
or the chief justice’s castigation of it) within days of this, followed by
an interview with the speaker of the Lok Sabha, Somnath Chatterjee where
he expressed "surprise" over the chief justice’s remarks against Setalvad
have, among other things, once again brought to the fore the issue of
judicial delays and judicial accountability. In this issue we reproduce
the piece by Setalvad that was published in Matrubhumi as also an
article by Prashant Bhushan, a senior lawyer who is part of the Campaign
for Judicial Accountability & Judicial Reforms.
The National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights (NCDHR) was
quick to respond to the union budget, pointing out with facts and figures
how Dalits in India have been short-changed year after year. We are
publishing their report here as an example that civil society groups
engaged with other marginalised and weaker sections of society would do
well to learn from.