Reality Check India

103rd Amendment – no one likes it

Posted in Uncategorized by realitycheck on July 7, 2007

Yes, we are about to amend the constitution for the 103rd time. It is most likely going to happen in the coming monsoon session. So, what is this about ?

The religious minority status of a community will be determined on a state-wide basis rather than on a nation-wide basis. (read more here)

Of course, there is no hard cut off for determining who is a minority. Is any community that is less than 50% of the total state population a minority ? Kerala has 25% Muslims and 20% Christians, Assam has 30% Muslims, Bengal has 26% Muslims. Can such substantial numbered populations claim minority status just because they are under the 50% mark ?

This goes back to the very question of minority status based on religion. Even eminent and learned bloggers realize deep inside that for all their atheist and social talk, when the pedal meets the metal, their “religion at birth” and “their caste at birth” is going to determine their and their kids future to a large extent. Reality Check welcomes them to secular India, where you cant claim to be an atheist and escape retribution from religious stranglehold. A stranglehold on not just religious education, but extending from orthopaedics, to aerospace, to liberal arts, to visual communications. 

National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions does not like this amendment

The NCMEI is headed by Justice MSA Siddique and with former MP B S Ramoowalia and the Principal of St Stephen’s Revd Valson Thampu as members).

They want the parliament to reconsider the 103rd Amendment,

The NCMEI report says such an amendment would run contrary to the Constitution, which according to it, has deliberately not defined a minority. The report feels this has been deliberately kept ambiguous and no attempt must be made “to supercede their (founding fathers’) wisdom

Source : IE via Yahoo 

Emp Added

Sounds like the line of reasoning is.  You havent defined who ‘X’ is , now do not try to define who ‘Y’ is.  If ‘X’ can take advantage of deliberate ambiguity then why prevent ‘Y’ from merely following suit.

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Barbarindian said, on July 7, 2007 at 3:34 pm

    This is off topic: I tagged you.

  2. realitycheck said, on July 9, 2007 at 5:45 am


    I will get to it next.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: