Minority rights
P. ZACHARIAH
|
In our eagerness to eradicate the weeds, we should not damage the desirable plants
|
THE RECENT centre page article by Justice Krishna Iyer ("Minority rights — and wrongs", The Hindu, October 14) has emphasised advancement of the minority communities as the prime objective of these educational rights, and merit as a proper criterion for admission to such institutions. This is only one aspect of this vexed issue.
The real concern of the minority communities, which our founding fathers addressed, is to be able to preserve and develop their culture and religious beliefs/practices in the midst of a different majority. Amartya Sen refers to this (in The Argumentative Indian) as the right to swikriti, "to lead their own lives."
In the field of religious belief, our Constitution is very inclusive in its understanding of swikriti; the Constitution guarantees the right to "profess, practise and propagate" one's faith. It is to ensure this that religious minorities have been given the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
Implications
Let us look closely at the implications of this. Let us suppose that Mother Teresa's faith had inspired her to address specifically the medical needs in one or more areas of sickness. If so, she might well have wanted to start a college of health sciences for that specific purpose. And according to our Constitution she would have been quite entitled to do so, subject to the usual requirements.
But for the success of its objective such a college would necessarily have to select its staff and students on the basis of their social commitment, subject of course to the requisite competence and qualifications. And since such an enterprise could not be replicated in all the States, it would have been reasonable to permit recruitment from all parts of the country.
The natural course of action would have been to select as many of the staff and students as possible from among sufficiently qualified Sisters of Charity and possibly others of similar persuasion. It would have been no service to the Christian community, or to the nation, to insist that the staff and students should be selected by an external body solely according to criteria of academic performance.
Mother Teresa, of course, would have seen the wisdom of including in her staff and students a certain proportion representative of the nation at large. But unless these also subscribed to the broad goals of the institution, they could be disruptive. So they too would have to fulfil criteria of not only "merit" but also other qualities of the heart.
One cannot escape the conclusion that, if minorities establish institutions truly in pursuit of their own legitimate religious and cultural goals, they must be allowed to "administer" them according to the logic of these worthy goals, including the selection processes. Such institutions would only be an asset to the nation, in addition to ensuring swikriti for their communities.
Unfortunately many of the so called minority educational institutions are driven by goals other than the swikriti of their distinctive cultural or religious identities. And many of them undermine their own causes by unacceptable practices.
So the Central and State legislatures are in the process of forming laws which, sadly, would take away all or most of the rights of minority institutions to have selection processes supportive of their distinctive goals. But in our eagerness to eradicate the weeds, we should not damage the desirable plants.
If a linguistic or religious minority is undertaking education as service to society, it must be committed enough to finance it mainly from its own resources and not from student fees. As a practical guideline, they should charge fees not exceeding the fees in comparable State financed institutions.
Such minority educational institutions could be permitted to put in place their own selection procedures consistent with their distinctive goals, provided the methods ensure necessary competence, and are transparent and impartial. Of course, they must be subject to an appropriate but sympathetic oversight committee.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Open Page
