MINORITY EDUCATION BILL

Who Will Benefit: Minorities

Or Elite In Minorities?

K K Ragesh

THE National Minority Education Commission Bill, which allows direct affiliation of minority educational institutes to central universities, was passed by a voice vote in the parliament during the recent winter session. Earlier, on November 11, in spite of knowing fully well that the parliament was scheduled to meet in a month’s time, the central government had in haste issued an ordinance on the same matter, seeking to bypass many legitimate and necessary discussions on this crucial issue. Of the various amendments proposed by Left MPs to this bill, regarding consulting the state governments while granting such affiliations, only one was accepted by the parliament.   

UNFORTUNATE ASPECT

According to this bill, any minority educational institutes seeking affiliation to a central university will be granted such affiliation. The various central universities named for the purpose, in the schedule of the bill, are: University of Delhi, Pondicherry University, North Eastern Hill University, Assam University, Nagaland University and Mizoram University. If a university named in the schedule denies affiliation to an institute, a three-member commission (with all the three belonging to the minority community) would give the final and binding ruling. This committee will be headed by a High Court judge and vested with all relevant executive and judicial powers. This commission can advise the central and state governments on any question relating to the minorities’ education, which are referred to it. According to the bill, the commission can “look into specific complaints regarding deprivation or violation of rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice and any dispute relating affiliation to a scheduled university and report its findings to the central government for its implementation.” Only the central government shall have the powers to overrule the decisions of the commission.   

The National Common Minimum Programme (NCMP) of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) mentions that minority educational institutions will be given direct affiliation to central universities. It is a known fact that during its tenure the BJP-led regime had discriminated against and harassed many minority educational institutions. This discrimination was in line with the BJP’s open opposition to the constitutional rights granted to the minorities under Article 30. It is because of the discrimination meted out to the minority institutes in BJP-ruled state like Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh that the UPA incorporated the said objective in its NCMP. Unfortunately, instead of protecting the minority communities’ right to set up educational institutes of their choice and thus cater to the interests of the whole communities, the bill seeks to protect the interests of a select few. The latter are the very vested interests who run minority educational institutes on self-financing basis, without taking into account many relevant and genuine concerns raised by many concerned academics and sections over the past several years.

ART. 30: IMPORT & IMPORTANCE

The constitution of India provides for special rights to both linguistic and religious minorities “to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice” under Article 30. Hence no such law can be framed as may discriminate against such minorities with regard to the establishment and administration of the educational institutions vis-à-vis other educational institutions. Article 30 is a special right conferred on the religious and linguistic minorities because of their numerical handicap and to instil in them a sense of confidence. In the St Xavier’s College case, the Supreme Court has rightly pointed out, “The whole object of conferring the right on the minorities under Article 30 is to ensure that there will be equality between the majority and the minority. If the minorities do not have such special protection they will be denied equality.”

While upholding these rights, the Supreme Court has, in the TMA Pai case, also endorsed the concept that there should be no reverse discrimination and opines that “the essence of Article 30(1) is to ensure equal treatment between the majority and the minority institutions. No one type or category of institution should be disfavoured or, for that matter, receive more favourable treatment than another. Laws of the land, including rules and regulations, must apply equally to the majority institutions as well as to the minority institutions.”   

The Supreme Court has time and again, in many judgements, ruled that minority status can be decided only by taking the state as a unit. It has reasoned that since ‘religious’ and ‘linguistic’ are mentioned at the same time in Article 30 of the constitution, and since the states were carved out in India by taking language as the criterion, the classification of ‘minority’ cannot be based on some other principle. Accordingly, a state government can confer minority status on an educational institute only after considering the socio-economic backwardness of the minorities in that state. This is the reason why, even though 90 per cent of the educational institutions (aided or unaided) in Kerala are run by person(s) belonging to the minority communities, the same have not been accorded minority status.

CAUSES OF APPREHENSION

Evidently, the above mentioned realities were not taken into consideration by the union government when it was drafting the bill which was passed by parliament. Some provisions contained in the bill strengthen these apprehensions.

The bill defines a minority institute as “a college or institution (other than a university) established or maintained by a person or group of persons from amongst the minorities.” Thus, just on account of the minority identity of the management, an institute is to be accorded the minority status, irrespective of whether or not that particular institute is serving the interests of the minority community in its entirety. It is a well known fact that majority of the institutes established in the name of minorities are not serving the real interests of the minorities, especially those of the socially and economically underprivileged sections. Students are admitted on the basis of their money power and not on the basis of their merit or minority identity. A select few elites among the minorities are abusing this right at the cost of the welfare of the poor among them.

Thus, when this bill becomes an Act, it will further fasten this process and will serve the interests of the economic minority instead of the religious and linguistic minorities. The institutions that are indulging in profiteering by commercialising education, and are abusing the minority status for the purpose, have been left uncontrolled by the government. Instead of addressing this issue of naked and blatant commercialisation of education that has crept into the arena of education, the bill encourages this trend. It is not that the government accorded this priority or doled out benefits to a select few among the minorities (the economic minority) out of oversight; rather it was a wanton Act of indulgence. This was done to further their class interests.

The central university affiliation granted to minority institutes would also give them such prominence as is unwarranted in view of the quality of education they impart. The degrees put up for sale in these institutions will be much in demand because of the weight they carry due to the affiliation to a prestigious university like the University of Delhi. Moreover, the bill has a provision that enables the central government to add or remove universities from the said schedule. Hence a government at the centre may add universities with better ‘commercial value’ to the schedule in order to quench the thirst for profit of the minority managements.

STATES AT THE RECEIVING END

This also makes it almost sure that when the bill becomes a law, a majority of the minority institutes affiliated to state universities will apply for de-recognition and ask for affiliation to the central universities. This will mean nothing but centralisation of education, with the state governments losing their effective right to monitor and control these institutes.

There is a long pending demand for the re-inclusion of education to the state list. During the Emergency, the Congress government had included education in the concurrent list of our constitution, to the detriment of the principles of federalism. Instead of accepting the righteous and genuine demand of the people and honour its commitment to strengthen federalism, however, the UPA government’s said bill goes against it. Also, it is the minimum duty of the union government to consult the states before taking a decision on an issue of such vital importance. It cannot shy away from its responsibility by stating that further discussions were not needed as the issue was mentioned in the NCMP. Incidentally, the government has expressed inability to enact a central legislation empowering the state governments to control the unaided institutes, citing the reason that proper consultations with the state governments have not yet taken place and their consensus is not yet taken. Everybody hailed this attitude as one in the correct spirit, showing respect to the federal principles. It is, therefore, highly unfortunate that the government has chosen to forget this very principle while deciding upon the minority institutions issue.

THE BILL’S FAILINGS

This bill has been passed in the backdrop of many reported cases of minority students being denied admission in majority institutes because they did not suit the commercial interests of the management. The government needs to concentrate attention on such issues and ensure that none of the eligible and qualified minority students is deprived of her/his rights.

The government also needs to enforce strict rules and regulations to ensure quality in education. Those violating the government stipulated guidelines after securing affiliation should be punished. The commercial aspirations of the managements should be curtailed, as this is the basic hindrance before minority students in pursuing the careers of their choice.

Yet, unfortunately, the bill does not address these very basic concerns related to the democratic spread of education among the minorities. As a famous educationist once said, an educational institution minus students is zero; what he meant to say is that the prime motive for the establishment of an institute should be the students’ interests. The union government must have taken this point into consideration before taking any policy decision on education.

Moreover, minorities too would have been really happy if something more concrete and egalitarian had resulted from the proposed bill. But unfortunately this very thing is absent from the legislation. Public opinion could also have been mobilised in support of the bill if it had provisions to protect the interests of the poor majority in the minority communities and to halt the commercialisation of education. But the government has woefully failed on all such counts.

VITAL QUESTIONS REMAIN UNANSWERED

In the TMA Pai case, the 11-member constitution bench of the Supreme Court had left some vital questions unanswered even after a lengthy and prolonged legal battle that went on for years. One such question is: What are the indices for treating an educational institution as a minority educational institution? Would an institution be regarded as a minority educational institution because it was established by a person(s) belonging to a religious or linguistic minority or it was being administered by a person(s) belonging to a religious or linguistic minority? The government tried to answer this question of vital importance in the definition portion of the ordinance/bill without a proper discussion, and both the answer given and the manner in which it was given are highly objectionable. In fact, the government should have initiated a thorough discussion involving academicians, students, parents and other concerned citizens, their organisations and political parties. But the lack of such a process of dialogue has wasted the opportunity to address some of the unanswered questions raised by the Supreme Court in the TMA Pai case.

Some more of these unanswered questions are as below: Where can a minority institution be operationally located? If a religious or linguistic minority in a state establishes an educational institution in the state, can that institution grant preferential admission/reservation and other benefits to members of the same religious/linguistic group from other states where that group is not a minority? Or, only the members of that minority in the original state will be treated as the members of the minority vis-à-vis that institution? Whether the member of a linguistic non-minority in one state can establish a trust or society in another state and claim minority status in that state? And so on.

It is clear that the government should have brought a bill only after a thorough discussion, thereby making the bill more comprehensive. This would have answered many unanswered questions raised by the Supreme Court and would also have put an end to unnecessary legal battles in the future.

SENSE OF URGENCY MISPLACED

As for the government’s contention that the setting up of a minority commission was an Act of “utmost urgency,” the sense of urgency shown by the government could really serve the purpose if it had addressed the real educational needs of the poor and deprived minorities, instead of satisfying the needs of only the elite among the minorities. There are many more urgent issues that warrant the attention of the government and its HRD minister. The enactment of a central legislation to empower the state governments to control the self-financing institutes is one such issue. The government has been dragging its feet on this issue of overriding importance.

While the bill on minority education commission threatens further centralisation of education, the government is defending the move in the name of the communal threat in the BJP ruled states. But centralisation is not the way to meet this threat as nobody can predict the results of the future Lok Sabha elections. The communal threat of the saffron brigade and its attacks on the minority rights can be combated only through a persistent and ardent political struggle on all planes. A majority of our people who are secular can be mobilised into this struggle only when the abuse of rights is curtailed and genuine rights and interests are protected.                           

(The writer is president of the Students Federation of India.)