I have been reflecting in my own way on Dattopant Thengadi Ji's Third Way. I present these small "ripples" that it has caused in my mind in a series. I am glad it has found its resonance in many thinking minds alike. I hope the readers have read the earlier article in the series before moving ahead.Also Read: Ripples A Reflection On Dattopant Thengadi's Third Way - Part 24
Dattopant opines that minorities are treated by some politicians as a solid vote bank. But it is not easy to define the concept of 'Minority'. ( Reference -- Justice Hidayatullah's article) Even Dr. Ambedkar was aware of the difficulty,so drafting committee used the phrase " any section of the citizens".
A member of the constituent assembly, Mr Pocker suggested that elections of legislative assembly and parliament should be held 'on the basis of separate electorate( for muslims)'. ( On 27'th August 1947)
On the next day Sardar Patel did not support " the process that was adopted, and which resulted in the partition of the country". Obviously minority rights have been one of the subjects of discussion for a long period.
Justice Beg and Justice dwiwedi were of the opinion that absolute immunity is an illusion for any minority. Justice Das observed that such discrimination ( may be described as positive discrimination) has no 'cogent reason'. In an another case Justice Beg observed that this shield could not be converted into a weapon' which is in way unjustifiable, preferential or discriminatory treatment'.
Dr Ambedkar said in 1930 that though the society was divided by many factors, the ideal of society was a great if United India. He clearly mentioned on 4'th November 1948 that both of us followed a wrong path. Though the existence of the minorities is to be acknowledged by all , but it should 'enable (both of them )to merge some day into one'.
The solution to this problem was discussed in the League of Nations in the form of The Treatise. ( After the First World War 'The treaties' conferred basic rights on all the inhabitants of the country without distinction of birth, nationality,' language, race or religion and protected the rights of all nationals of the country who differed in race, religion, or language from the majority'. ) This was supposed to be useful in protecting minorities and preparing them for the merger in the national community. This was explained by Sir Austin Chamberlain. (He was a British statesman, son of Joseph Chamberlain and older half-brother of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. He served as Chancellor of the Exchequer (twice) and was briefly Conservative Party leader before serving as Foreign Secretary.)
But Paul Fauchille ( a French lawyer and scholar) on December 9, 1925 said that this may result into provoking them 'to separate them from the state' and running 'the risk of leading to the disruption of states'.
This , Dattopant said was proved true beyond the doubts in the case of Czechoslovakia. ( The story of Czechoslovakia is to be told separately in detail which may be a topic of an independent book) We need to learn a few lessons and unlearn a few things. Only the pressure of the enlightened public opinion can work effectively and this task of public awareness, he expected to be undertaken by the Adhivakta Parishad.