Minority rights

This blog is long over-due. I've been mulling over this for a while. Let me see if I can put forth the thesis with some clarity.

Both in India and the US I have noticed that there is a certain section of the populace which get a red rash when you bring up the issue of minority rights. In the US these sections are aligned with the right wing, but in India where there is only one front, the wrong front, (our wings have been clipped!) it is difficult to use right/left generalizations.

The general argument of these people is that: This is a free country that promises equal rights and opportunites to all its citizens, then why should there be laws to "protect minorities" and give them "special rights"?

These are also, usually the very same people whose understanding of democracies is limited to "whatever the majority decides." So what is it that prevents such a society from fast becoming a tyranny of the majority?

Based on the above assertions, you could easily justify a situation where there is no affirmative action/reservation type programs and there is a majority concensus that a particular minority is "unsuitable" or "unacceptable." History presents us with such instances, institutionalized racism and a rigid caste system are merely some such examples. (Of course, we love to believe that we've got over both, in the US and India respectively).

So does that mean we provide dalits and harijans special rights to representation over everybody or make sure there is protection for every perceivable minority group. Believe me people will take advantage and declare minority status to suit their goals (Haven't we seen that in India with SC/ST candidates and the reservation system? The backward forward classes and the forward backward classes!!). The answer is clearly no.

The answer lies in what most democracies have: a written constitution underlying the rules and values that are the cornerstone of the democracy. Such documents provide broad guidelines that can be interpreted to provide fairness and direction to law making in society.

So pretty much for all minority rights issues the bottom line is: No its not about special rights for them, but to make sure that they are specially protected from the tyranny of the majority, so that they can avail what they are constitutionally promised. The protection is special, because without it, minority voices will get muffled.

This simplifies the matter, because now, irrespective of how you declare yourself as a minority, the point in question is, are you being denied a right that you are promised under the constitution. If you can prove thet there exists instances of "tyrannical majority" povs., that are stopping you from your fundamental rights to X, within the bounds of what is legally acceptable, you will be given the "special protection" against such "tyrannical majority" povs.

This is a job which requires judgement, and good judgement at that, and is left to the judiciary, who are expected to be wise men, who interpret the constitution in all fairness and without bias or prejudice. There can be many arguments on the different kinds of valid interpretations of the constitution, but thats for another day.

There is also the understanding of the representative government. Nowadays, in the US every controversial issue is put on the ballot. Well then, why does the state need a legislature or for that matter the congress and the senate? Just put it on the ballot and in the place of the legislature bring in a ballotature!!! Clearly there are certain issues that are easily settled through the ballot, but not issues involving minority rights.

This undermines the whole concept of having a an unbiased judiciary that will decide issues of conflict. Instead now laws are being made by the whims of all and sundry and most of the time is a sum total of their personal prejudices. In the 2004 election, the ballot against gay marriage was widely abused to literally carry an election on the basis of deep seated Bible belt prejudices. Nothing terribly wrong with their prejudices ... its a free country, but hey, should such prejudices be used to make laws and absolutely ensure a tyranny of the majority.

That is why minorities need to be specially protected by an unprejudiced judiciary, so that they can merely access what they rightly deserve, without falling prey to prejudices of a majority.

This argument applies to all minorities. In India, this applies to religious minorities, women and the historically oppressed. In the US it definitely applies to the black community and women. Neeless to say in both these countires it will apply to victims of human rights violations - child laborers, sexual minorities, victims of the flesh trade and so on.

Of course, somewhere down the line the issues get a lot murky and there is at least one instance where a reservation policy/affirmative action policy can be used to give minorities a legs up given that they are easily indentified communities that have been victims of generations of oppression and are currently so far in the race that it is not possible for them to compete on the same footing with the rest. Indeed in that case, what they have is not a special right, but a "special access" that hey have been historically denied. Then of course the question arises, how much "special access" and at what level... and also for how long. That is definitely for another day.

For the time being I think the conclusion is: yes minorities need special protections given by the judiciary, because otherwise they will fall prey to the whims, fancies and prejudices of a majority, especially when the mode of the representative government is ignored in the name of "democracy".

... otherwise, tomorrow we could easily make the case that given the demands on community X, it is in the interests of greater good, to not allow them to get married and have children, lest they should feel distracted. In these times of "dumb it down please" I wouldn't be surprised if you could get large sections of stupid populations to vote for it and pass it off as a democratic desire!!!