MINORITIES RIGHTS

UNGA Agenda, 1996 (Extracts) I - Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to Minorities

At its fortyseventh session in 1992, the General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (resolution 47/135).

At its fiftieth session, the General Assembly urged States and the international community to promote and protect the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities by giving effect to the Declaration, and in particular by facilitating their full participation in all aspects of the life of society; called upon the Secretary General to make available qualified expertise and technical assistance of the Centre for Human Rights to assist in the prevention and resolution of disputes involving minorities and to continue the dissemination of information on the Declaration; called upon the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to promote, within his mandate, the implementation of the Declaration and to continue to engage in a dialogue with Governments concerned for that purpose; urged all treaty bodies and special representatives, special rapporteurs and working groups of the Commission on Human Rights and the Sub commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities to give due regard, within their mandates, to the promotion and protection of the rights of persons belonging to minorities, and requested the Secretary General to report to the Assembly at its fifty-first session on the implementation of the resolution under the item entitled "Human Rights Questions" (resolution 50/180)

II - Elimination of all Forms of Religious Intolerance

At its fiftieth session, the General Assembly reaffirmed that freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief was a human right derived from the inherent dignity of the human person and guaranteed to all without discrimination; urged States to ensure that their constitutional and legal systems provided adequate and effective guarantees of freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief to all without discrimination, including the provision of effective remedies in cases where the right to freedom of religion or belief was violated, as well as to ensure that, in the course of their official duties, members of law enforcement bodies, civil servants, educators and. other public officials respected different religions and beliefs and did not discriminate against persons professing other religions or beliefs; called upon all States to recognize, as provided in the Declaration on the Elimination of Ail Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, the right of all persons to worship or assemble in connection with a religion or belief, and to establish and maintain places for those purposes; expressed its grave concern at any attack upon religious places, sites and shrines, and called upon all States, in accordance with  their national legislation and in conformity with international human rights standards, to exert utmost efforts to ensure that such places, sites and shrines were fully respected and protected; and requested the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights to submit an interim report to the Assembly at its fifty-first session (resolution 50/183).

Shahabuddin's Letter to Chairman, National Human Rights Commission, 30 December, 1996

I have read your interview in the Hindu of 30 December, 1996.

I feel that even violation of human rights of an individual in our context has a social aspect. He or she often suffers discrimination and his human, legal and constitutional rights are violated, sometimes by official agencies, or by another social group, because he/she belongs to a particular social group. Thus assault, murder, loot, destruction and even rape in situation of social violence - whether religious, caste or the racial or linguistic - are motivated not against individual victims but against the other group (generally a local minority) to settle accounts, past or present. In this circumstances, protection of the collective rights of minority groups (the word "minority" to be defined in a comprehensive sense) assumes great importance.

I hope that under your guidance, the NHRC shall constantly keep both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Declaration on Minorities Rights, 1992 under its purview to monitor persistent pattern of deviation from the internationally accepted norms in the case of all groups which at the local of the conflict form a minority.

Reply of Chairman, National Human Rights Commission, 24 January, 1997

I entirely agree with you that there is indeed a social aspect to the violation of Human Rights of an individual when that individual is seen as the anthropomorphic symbol of the 'other' group. Your suggestion to follow up on the Delhi High order regarding payment of "compensation" for those killed in the riots of 1984 as a norm for application as a uniform yardstick, will be taken up by the Commission.

Asghar Ali Engineer on Minorities Question

The minorities, religious or linguistic, always have problems vis-a-vis the majority. Theirs is a universal problem existing in all modern nation states, Western or Eastern, Asian or African. The problems often explode if they are not handled carefully and with sensitivity. We are completing 50 years of secular democracy and various organisations are arranging seminars conferences to take stock of the situation of the minorities. The Rajiv Gandhi Foundation recently organised a one-day seminar in New Delhi on the "Minorities in India".

In his inaugural remarks, Dr. Abid Husain, Vice-Chairman, RGF, said the question of the minorities was quite important not only for India but also for the neighbours. In a democratic society, dissimilarities and diversities were tremendously important. The American experiment of melting pot had failed and dictatorship also did not succeed. Mr. Akil Bilgrami, who teaches philosophy in the Columbia University, New York, said it was foolhardy to define the minorities ... Numerical strength and socio-economic conditions were only the bare minimum for the definition. Minority was a relative term, crisscrossing with different concepts. Mr. Bilgrami quoted Dr. Ambedkar as saying that both majority and the minority were wrong; majority, because it wanted to deny the existence of the minority and the minority because it wanted to perpetuate itself. The. Muslims were under pressure to give up the personal law and adopt a common civil code.

Prof. Iqbal Ansari of the Aligarh Muslim University, disagreeing with Mr. Bilgrami, felt that the concept of the minority had been defined by the Declaration of the UNGA. The minority could be either dominant or be dominated. If it was dominated, it had a different problem Identity for the minorities could be negative, as for blacks in America and the Dalits in India. The Dalits wanted to throw away the negative identity imposed on them. So the idea of the minorities perpetuating themselves was more complex. Again, identities were changeable and changing. Some identities were cherished and some loathed.

Archbishop Angelo Fernandes said two principles had to be kept in mind: one was the basic human dignity and the unity of all human beings. The objective should be to make life more human. If one injected the idea of injustice in the minds of majority, it might lead to greater Trouble. A balanced society was to be created.

Syed Shahabuddin considered the concept of minority as valid. India was a country with all types of diversities. Not only this, in every identifiable community there were sub-identities. Hence, one must talk in terms of social groups and all social groups were a minority. The legitimate uses of identities should be kept in mind.

Mr. S.S. Gill thought that minority could be defined in a particular context. Today Muslims were a genuine and authentic minority ... It was discrimination which created the feeling of minority.

Prof. Zoya Hasan of the Jawaharlal Nehru University said the problem was that though after independence there had been a descriptive acknowledgement, of the minorities, there had not been democratisation of Muslims. The Indian State had abdicated its role and created a public-private domain. So the personal law could not be reformed as it belonged to the private domain. Thus duality was the problem.

Mr. Virendra Dayal of the National Human Rights Commission said what was important was the perspective One often talked of human rights and minority rights. The minority rights ... should be seen within a wider perspective of human rights. They not only belonged to a minority but functioned within a certain context. The minorities cannot be allowed to persecute and oppress their own sub-groups.

Syed Hamid, former Vice-Chancellor, AMU, (said that) ground situation was more important than academic expertise. It was not true that minority and minority identities were not important. It was also not true that the minorities were not democratic or that they had not been democratised. They were very much part of the democratic process. But there was no honesty and transparency in dealing with them. There were government documents which clearly brought out that Muslims had slid back and yet much was not being done to remedy the situation.

Mr. K.F. Rustomjee posed a question how they allowed the Babari Masjid to be destroyed? Why did they descend to that level? Could they not have prevented that? Who created the minority problem? A deeper look would show that the problem was created by the British and Muslims like Jinnah exploited it. The Kashmir conflict was exploited by Pakistan, further accentuating it. Democracy essentially meant dialogue. The Babari Masjid issue could also have been saved by dialogue, concessions and compromise. But the democratic norms were violated. There was also the problem of communal riots and communalisation of police.

Prof. Bhargav said the claim that the minorities were pampered was only propaganda. The social, cultural and economic structures were so built that benefits accrued only to the majority. Thus the idea that the minorities should give up their rights was dangerous.

Mr. N.N. Tandon also thought that the rough and tough life of Muslims in towns and mohallahs should be taken into account to understand their problem. The State had been partial. Mr. Mohit Sen felt that the country remained democratic and secular but secularism should not be elitist under democracy. There were tensions between democracy and secularism. Democracy could also lead to majority communalism. Also, a nation state should not be homogeneous. Its strength lay in its heterogeneity.

Prof. Imtiaz Ahmed was of the view that the Hindu-Muslim problem alone should not be focussed. It would be unfair to the other minorities ... Over the years there had been an erosion and devaluation of the constitutional rights of the minorities. The minorities resented homogenisation but it was the dominant trend today and market processes and globalisation were also leading towards homogenisation. The minorities should have a right to their religious and cultural identities provided they did not violate the rights of their sub-groups.

Mr. Varadarajan, former member of the Minorities Commission, focussed on the problems of the minorities, specially Muslims and how they had been denied access to the fruits of development. They had not conferred any great rights on Muslims. Taking part in the seminar, I stressed that sub-groups within the minorities sometimes suffered acutely. They suffered because minority rights were grossly misused to perpetuate an iniquitous order.While collective rights were important, individual rights and the rights of sub-groups should not be overlooked                                                                  

Imtiaz Ahmad on Limits to Minority Rights

There is growing recognition the world over that arming the individual with a battery of civil and human rights alone does not help. Many of those rights remain on paper, but the individual is denied the opportunity to enjoy them in reality ... It is necessary to recognise the minority groups as collectivises and to grant them certain group rights so that persons belonging to them can enjoy their individual rights. This resulted in the inclusion of (Article 17) in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 27.

Following the adoption of the Covenant, there has been a substantial evolution in the concern for the minority rights. The Declaration on the Right of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious or Linguistic Minorities (hereafter the Minority Declaration) was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1992.

The emerging consensus is tending towards the position that any framework for group rights should combine two principles: the promotion of human rights and pluralism within the groups and the protection of the territorial integrity and political independence of states against external intervention as well as secession. The group right of the minorities to participate in and enjoy their culture, religion and language is inherent in the Universal Declaration Article 27. However, this is not an absolute right. Groups are obliged in the enjoyment of this right to the limitation that, as stated in the Minority Declaration Article 4 para 2, their cultural and religious practices cannot violate national law and be contrary to international standards. The limitations set by national law cannot also go beyond what is permissible under the human rights law.

While members of all the minority groups must have a collective right to preserve and practise their own culture and religion, they must also acquaint themselves with and show respect to the culture and traditions of the majority. Existence of the minority group does not depend on recognition by the State. (It) is a question of fact when living closely together in a particular region claims for self-government or autonomy might arise. Such claims are particularly likely to arise in situations where dominant elites of the centre exploit the natural resources and very often also the human resources in the periphery at the cost of the weaker, peripheral groups. Autonomy rights are not explicitly provided for in the Minority Declaration and can only be inferred to apply in special circumstances to give effect to the intentions in the Declaration. The right of groups to self- determination can also give some support for claims of autonomy within the territory of sovereign states, particularly for indigenous peoples. However, the right to self-determination does not give any right to secession on ethnic grounds.

The possibility exists that the rights given to groups which are numerically minor in fact will constitute privileges for them. Not all the minor groups are vulnerable. National societies do exist where the minorities have managed to ensure for themselves the most powerful positions and use it to benefit their interests to the detriment of other groups in society. Group rights cannot prejudice the enjoyment by all persons of universal human rights and fundamental freedoms. Group rights cannot also be used to engaged in racial or ethnic discrimination or incitement to hatred of other groups. Nor can group rights be used to challenge the sovereign equality, territorial integrity and political independence of States.