INTRODUCTION

The expression "minority" has been derived from the Latin word 'minor' and the suffix 'ity' which
means "small in number". 'Minorities' means 'groups held together by ties of common
descent, language or religious faith and feeling different in these respects from the majority
of the inhabitants of a given political entity"."Minority" can also be defined as a group of
persons having different race, language or religion from that of majority of inhabitants

Article 30(1) uses the terms linguistic or religious minorities. The word or means that a
minority may either be linguistic or religious and that it does not have to be both a religious
minority as well as linguistic minority. It is sufficient of it is one or the other or both.

The constitution uses the term minority without defining it. In re The Kerala Education Bill, the
Supreme Court opined that while it is easy to say that minority means a community which is
numerically less than 50 per cent, the important question is 50 % of what? Should it be of the
entire population of India, or of a state, or a part thereof? It is possible that a community may be
in majority in a state but in a minority in the whole of India. A community may be concentrated
in a part of a state and may thus be in majority there, though it may be in minority in the state as
a whole. If a part of a state is to be taken, then the question is where to draw the line and what is
to be taken into consideration a district, town, a municipality or its wards.

The ruling in the Kerala Education Bill has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Guru Nanak
University case. In that case, the Supreme Court rejected the contention of the state of Punjab
that a religious or linguistic minority should be a minority in relation to the entire population of
India. The Court has ruled that a minority has to be determined, in relation to the particular
legislation which is sought to be impugned. If it is a state law, the minorities have to be
determined in relation to the state population. The Hindus in Punjab constitute a religious
minority. Therefore, Arya Samajistis in Punjab also constitute a religious minority having their
own distinct language and script. It is within the realm of possibility that the population of a state
may be so fragmented that no linguistic or religious group may by itself constitute 50 percent of
the total state population. In such a situation, every group will fall within the umbrella of Art.
30(1) without there being a majority group in the state against which minorities need to claim
protection.

The Court has pointed out that if various sections and classes of the Hindus were to be regarded
as minorities under article 30(1), then the Hindus would be divided into numerous sections and
classes and cease to be a majority any longer. The sections of one religion cannot constitute
religious minorities. The term minority based on religion should be restricted only to those
religious minorities, e.g. Muslims, Christians, Jains, Buddists, Sikhs, etc., which have kept their
identity separate from the majority, namely, the Hindus.

The term Minority Rights embodies two separate concepts: first, normal individual rights
as applied to members of racial, ethnic, class, religious, linguistic or sexual minorities, and
second, collective rights accorded to minority groups. The term may also apply simply to
individual rights of anyone who is not part of a majority decision.

Civil rights movements often seek to ensure that individual rights are not denied on the basis of
membership in a minority group.

There are many political bodies which also feature minority group rights. This might be seen in
affirmative action quotas, or in guaranteed minority representation in a consociational state.

Constitutional rights and safeguards provided to the minorities in India:

1. Constitutional safeguards for religious and linguistic minorities of India

Though the Constitution of India does not define the word Minority and only refers to
Minorities and speaks of those based on religion or language, the rights of the minorities have
been spelt out in the Constitution in detail.

2. Common Domain and Separate Domain of rights of minorities provided in the

Constitution

The Constitution provides two sets of rights of minorities which can be placed in common
domain and separate domain. The rights which fall in the common domain are those which
are applicable to all the citizens of our country. The rights which fall in the separate domain are
those which are applicable to the minorities only and these are reserved to protect their identity.
The distinction between common domain and separate domain and their combination have
been well kept and protected in the Constitution. The Preamble to the Constitution declares the
State to be Secular and this is a special relevance for the Religious Minorities. Equally relevant
for them, especially, is the declaration of the Constitution in its Preamble that all citizens of India
are to be secured liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship and equality of status
and of opportunity.

2.1 Common Domain, the Directive Principles of State Policy Part IV of the
Constitution

The Constitution has made provisions for the Fundamental Rights in Part III, which the State has
to comply with and these are also judicially enforceable. There is another set of non-justiciable
rights stated in Part IV, which are connected with social and economic rights of the people. These
rights are known as Directive Principles of State Policy, which legally are not binding upon the
State, but are fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State
to apply these principles in making laws. (Article 37). Part IV of the Constitution of India,
containing non-justiciable Directive Principles of State Policy, includes the following provisions
having significant implications for the Minorities :-

i. obligation of the State to endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and

opportunities amongst individuals and groups of people residing in different areas or
engaged in different vocations;[Article 38 (2) ]

ii. obligation of State to promote with special care the educational and economic interests
of the weaker sections of the people (besides Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes)
(Article 46)

2.2 Common Domain, the Fundamental Duties Part IVA of the Constitution

Part IVA of the Constitution, relating to Fundamental Duties as provided in Article 51 A applies
in full to all citizens, including those belonging to Minorities. Article 51A which is of special
relevance for the Minorities stipulates as under:-

i. Citizens duty to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the
people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities;
and

ii. Citizens duty to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture.

2.3 Common Domain, the Fundamental Rights Part III of the Constitution
The Constitution has provided a definite space for both the domains i.e. common as well as
separate. In Part III of the Constitution, which deals with the Fundamental Rights is divided
into two parts viz. (a) the rights which fall in the common domain and (b) the rights which go
to the separate domain. In the common domain, the following fundamental rights and
freedoms are covered:

i. peoples right to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws; [Article 14]

ii. prohibition of discrimination against citizens on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or
place of birth; [Article 15 (1) & (2)]

iii. authority of State to make any special provision for the advancement of any socially and
educationally backward classes of citizens (besides the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes); [Article 15 (4)]

iv. citizens right to equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment or

appointment to any office under the State and prohibition in this regard of
discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth; [Article
16(1)&(2)]

v. authority of State to make any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in
favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not
adequately represented in the services under the State; [Article 16(4)]

vi. peoples freedom of conscience and right to freely profess, practice and propagate
religion subject to public order, morality and other Fundamental Rights; [Article 25(1)]

vii. right of every religious denomination or any section thereof subject to public order,
morality and health to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable
purposes, manage its own affairs in matters of religion, and own and acquire movable
immovable property and administer it in accordance with law; [Article 26]

viii. prohibition against compelling any person to pay taxes for promotion of any particular
religion; [Article 27]

ix. peoples freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in

educational institutions wholly maintained, recognized, or aided by the State.[Article 28]

2.4 Separate Domain of Minority Rights

The Minority Rights provided in the Constitution which fall in the category of Separate
Domain are as under:-
 i. right of any section of the citizens to conserve its distinct language, script or culture;
[Article 29(1)]

ii. restriction on denial of admission to any citizen, to any educational institution maintained
or aided by the State, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them;
[Article 29(2)]

iii. right of all Religious and Linguistic Minorities to establish and administer educational
institutions of their choice;[Article 30(1)]

iv. freedom of Minority-managed educational institutions from discrimination in the matter

of receiving aid from the State;[Article30(2)]

v. special provision relating to the language spoken by a section of the population of any
State;[Article 347]

vi. provision for facilities for instruction in mother-tongue at primary stage;[Article 350 A]

vii. provision for a Special Officer for Linguistic Minorities and his duties; and [Article 350
B]

viii. Sikh communitys right of wearing and carrying of kirpans; [Explanation 1 below Article
25]

3. Indias multi-culturalism interwoven in the Constitution

The various Articles of the Constitution providing rights to the minorities, clearly and firmly
point out to only one direction: that of a multi-religious, multi-cultural, multi-lingual and multi-
racial Indian society, interwoven into an innate unity by the common thread of national
integration and communal harmony. By the yardstick adopted by the framers of the Constitution
and crystallized into its provisions the Indian Nation is not just a conglomeration of individual
inhabitants of this State; it comprises of two distinct categories of constituents. The two-tier
commonwealth of Indian Nation includes, on one hand, every citizen of India individually and,
on the other hand, the multitude of religious, linguistic, cultural and ethnic groups among its
citizens. The Indian Nation is an enormous coparcenary in which the individual citizens are also
members of their own respective branches taking the form of religious, cultural, linguistic and
ethnic groups. And all these groups, like all individuals, have the same Fundamental Rights to
enjoy and the same Fundamental Duties to discharge.

4. Protection of weaker sections in Indian pluralistic society

The social pluralism of India, as fortified by the unique Constitutional concept of secularism,
raises the need for the protection and development of all sorts of weaker sections of the Indian
citizenry whether this weakness is based on numbers or on social, economic or educational
status of any particular group. The Constitution, therefore, speaks of Religious and Linguistic
Minorities, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes and makes or leaves
room for making for them special provisions of various nature and varying import.

5. Right of a minority to establish educational institutions

(a) Article 30
Article 30(1) gives the linguistic or religious minorities the following two rights:
(a) The right to establish, and
(b) The right to administer educational institutions of their choice.

Article 30(2) bars the state, while granting aid to educational institutions, from discriminating
against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a linguistic
or a religious minority. It mandates that in granting aid to educational institutions, the state shall
not discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the
management of a minority, whether based on religion or language.Minority rights have gained
greater visibility and relevance all over the world. India is no exception to it being a multi-ethnic,
multi-religious, multi-linguistic and multi-cultural society. Diversity of all types is the very soul
of India. It is in this context that minority rights have assumed added significance in post-
independence India. When India attained independence after its division on religious lines,
religious minorities became very apprehensive of their identity. According to a survey (2001) at
that time there were 11.67 per cent Muslims, 2.32 per cent Christians, 1.79 per cent Sikhs
and considerable number of Buddhists (0.77 per cent), Parsees (0.4 per cent) and Jains
(0.43 per cent) in India.

After World War II, the worlds minorities locked within the state have increased rather than
decreased in numbers. So far as Indias case is concerned, the trajectory reveals that India has
almost always had a composite population. The Constitution of free India has give recognition to
a number of languages in the Eighth Schedule and there are five religious groups which have
been given the official status of National Minorities, namely, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs,
Buddhists and Parsees. The framers of the Constitution bestowed considerable thought and
attention upon the minority problem in all its facets and provided constitutional safeguards; yet
the issue has evaded solution till today. Consequently, the progress of minorities in India is beset
with problems including those of prejudice and discrimination.

Even the dominant Muslim community has several grievances. It is perceived by many that they
lag behind in educational progress because of economic hardship and discrimination against
them in the education field. No special efforts have been made to fulfil the needs of Muslims
which belong to the lower strata of society. The grievances of the Sikhs in India are largely
political with subdued economic overtones. The grievances of all religious minorities seem to be
related to the operation of state agencies.

Today minority rights have introduced two new dimensions into democracy. First, they made
community a legitimate subject of political discourse; and second, they placed the issue of inter-
group equality on the agenda. The Indian experience also reveals that minority rights present two
important problems for a democratic polity. One, minority rights privilege the communitys
cultural practices over the principle of equal rights for all citizens. Two, recognised minorities
are not always sensitive to the plight of internal minorities. Thus, while special safeguards
provided to identified minorities curb the hegemony of any one community or the nation-state,
they do not guarantee free and equal status to all groups and communities in society.

The principle of non-discrimination and the concept of common citizenship are enshrined in all
provisions of the Indian Constitution. The first and foremost is the Right to Equality (Article
14) which is an extension of the rights ensured in the Preamble to the Constitution. Article 14 of
our Constitution says:

The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law and shall provide equal
protection for every person within the territory of India.

Though this Article appears to be very short and simple, it is one of the greatest pillars of
democracy. It protects both minority and majority alike against the discriminatory conduct of the
government both negatively and positively. This provision embodies a concept which is a hall-
mark of democracy. However, to the question as to whether the Indian minorities really enjoy
this fundamental right to equality, the answer, unfortunately, is no. Because in the real sense,
Indian minorities do not fully enjoy some of the basic fundamental rights. The major problems
faced by the Christian minority with regard to fundamental rights are as given below.

The discrimination on grounds of religion is very clearly prohibited by Article 15 of our

Constitution which says in clause (1): The state shall not discriminate against any citizen on
grounds of religion, race, caste, gender, place of birth etc. This fundamental right against
discrimination on ground of religion is one of the most important rights for the flourishing of any
religiously pluralistic society as we have in our country.1 But unfortunately, we are till now
unable to implement what Article 15 last down. This mandate of non-discrimination against any
person on grounds of religion given in Article 15 of the Constitution has still not been enforced
totally, even though the Constitution was promulgated more than 58 years ago. This right, which
existed, in whatever little extent, before the promulgation of the Constitution, was lost when our
Constitution came into being.
The third paragraph of the Presidential Order of 1950 was amended by Parliament to extend
constitutional benefits to the Dalit Sikhs (1956) and the Buddhists (1990) along with the
Hindus, but similar benefit was refused to the Dalit Christians. The denial of justice to the Dalit
Christians is also against the letter and spirit of the Constitution of India on equal justice. The
Presidential Order, as it was interpreted, was not only communalistic, it was also anti-Dalit. It
tended to divide the Dalits on the basis of religion. Regarding the criteria of amendment, the
point made by Ramvilas Paswan in 1990 needs to be noted. Paswan, who was the then Union
Minister of Welfare and Labour, while stating the objects and reasons for proposing to include
Buddhists of Scheduled Caste origin in the list of Scheduled Castes, said that the change of
religion does not alter social and economic conditions. But above all, the third paragraph of the
1950 Presidential Order is a direct contradiction of Articles 14, 15 and 25 of our Constitution
since it had used religion as the criterion to describe who will be a Scheduled Caste.

In India the opportunities for employment are very scanty and the state is the greatest employer.
The principle of non-discrimination and equality is also upheld in matters of public employment
in the Constitution. Article 16 says: No citizen shall, on grounds of religion, race or caste, be
ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the
State.

The Constitution in Article 16 gives equality of opportunity in matters of public

employment. But again, because of the Presidential Order of 1950 and the refusal of Shanker
Dayal Sharma to issue an ordinance 3 for reservation for Christians during the time of P.V.
Narashima Rao as the PM the Article has been made infructuous. This has been made available
to the Dalits in the fold of Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism but not to those who are Christians.
This also amounts to discrimination on grounds of religion which the state is forbidden to effect
under Article 15.

The denial of justice to the Dalit Christians goes against the letter and spirit of Articles 14, 15, 16
and 25 of the Constitution of India on equal justice, equal opportunities and freedom of religion.
If a Scheduled Caste becomes a Christian, he loses all the reservation facilities, and if he
produces a certificate of Scheduled Caste he gets back all the benefits. Even the children of the
same Scheduled Caste parents, living under the same roof, sharing the same meals are
discriminated against on the basis of religion. Sohan Singh gets all the reservation facilities.
While his own brother Mohan Masih is denied all the benefits just because Masih happens to
be a Christian. It is bad luck if any Christian symbol is noticed with him/her or at his/her
residence. He/she loses all the service benefits. This also amounts to violation of the
constitutional rights. Despite years of independence the, Dalit Christians continue to be the
victims of all kinds of ill-treatment. The history of independent India is both pathetic and
shameful on the treatment meted out to Dalits.
The Mandal Commissions report unambiguously stated that state assistance should be given to
all genuinely backward sections of people irrespective of religion or caste which many thought
would end discrimination against the poor among the minorities. But the soft Communists or
secularists or religious fanatics in the majority community are now said to have found another
excuse to deprive the Christians of these facilities. The argument advanced is that the backwards
having un-Indian sounding or Anglo-Saxon names cannot claim such benefits.4 They can
afford to discriminate against Christians in this manner because they are a negligible vote-
bank. This is the way our rulers create divisions, frictions and differences in our country.5

The other serious implication of the Presidential Order of 1950 is that it has also affected another
fundamental right of the Dalit Christians, the right meant to protect their personal life as well as
liberty. In the last 58 years of Indias independence, the countrys three largest minorities,
Muslims, Christians and Sikhs, have been targeted by fanatics of the majority community and
other vested interests, on the basis of their religious identity alone, resulting in a serious assault
on their basic rights, including the right to life itself. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution clearly
stipulates: No person shall be deprived of his right of personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law. The fact that the Dalit Christians are not getting protection of life
and personal liberty is manifest in the various government Acts and rules passed by Parliament to
give special protection to the Scheduled Castes but these are not applicable to the Christians of
Scheduled Caste origin during atrocities. These Acts and rules include Protection of Civil Rights
Act 1955, Protection of Civil Rights Rule 1977 and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. All these Acts and rules are supposed to give the SC (Dalits)
special protection and rights against various kinds of atrocities and oppressions meted out to
them by the people of so-called upper castes of forward classes. But this protection is not made
available to Dalit Christians.

Although under Article 21, the State is bound to protect the life and liberty of every human
being, it has failed to protect this right. There are a lot of violations. Such type of violations
threatens the very right to life, physical integrity and health of citizens. Here are some of the
headlines in the national media: PersecutionChristians are now being systematically
targeted. It referred to the recent move of the then BJP run Delhi Government to denotify
churches in Delhi as places of worship on the ground that wine was served there. Saffron
Brigade strikes again in Gujarat. Christian missionary school attacked, copy of New Testament
burntflashed Hindustan Times on July 22, 1998.

Article 25 of the Indian Constitution gives all citizens the freedom of conscience and the
right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion. The Christians have almost always
faced problems with this fundamental right especially with the last part of propagating its faith. A
number of States such as Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Tamil Nadu
have passed Acts through their legislature severely curbing this right. In many States like Punjab,
the concerned authorities refused to allow any venue and date for religious conversions or
religious conventions for preaching the teachings of Jesus Christ. This is undoubtedly a violation
of Article 25. Father T.K. John also expressed the feeling that the basic rights of the religious
minorities are violated in a number of ways.

(a) Although some Indian State governments did enact legislations entitled Freedom of Religion
Bill, these were full of ambiguities which were utilized by the state machinery to practise
discrimination against religious minorities.

(b) Refusal to grant official recognition to certain religious groups and religious communities.

(c) Legal bias against certain religious groups and religious communities.

(d) Restriction on public information about religious groups by describing only a preferred
religion in official text books and ignoring the others. In Gujarat, the States BJP Government is
also trying to impose some limitation on freedom of conscience and free profession of religion.

Although Article 25 of the Indian Constitution gives wide opportunity to profess, practise and
propagate any religion, from time to time it has been interpreted by the various Courts of law
which have imposed many limitations. As the Supreme Court held in the case of Stainless versus
Madhya Pradesh (1977), the right to propagate does not mean the right to convert others forcibly.
However, he/she is entitled to accept or adopt another religion by his own choice and free will.8

In recent times, some Hindu organizations have raised a hue and cry over this matter, and are in
favour of adding some amendments in Article 25.

The very foundation of society in India being religion, it will lose all her spiritual values and
heritage unless the right to practise and propagate any religion is recognised as a fundamental
right.

But the States were practical enough to make it a conditional right. So, when propagation affects
the religious sentiments of other communities or conversion involves some sort of force or fraud,
it goes against the letter and spirit of the Constitution.9

An attempt was made in 1977, during the regime of the Janata Government through a Private
Members Bill at the Central level, for prohibition of conversion which, of course, could not win
legilsation sanction from the majority of members. In July 2001, Anant Gangaram Geeta, a Shiv
Sena MP, moved a Private Members Bill named the Prohibition on Religious Conversion Bill,
2001 in the Lok Sabha. The Bill was opposed by the Opposition and the Sangh Parivar failed to
muster enough support for it to get it through. Besides the above, the Christian Evangelists and
Church workers had to face consistent opposition to practising and propagating their faith. They
were also attacked physically many a time and harassed by the fanatic groups in a number of
States such as Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, UP, Maharashtra and Punjab. In December
1999, non-Christians organised a rally at Ahwa in Dangs district in the Gujarat State on
Christmas Day projecting the alleged conversion of tribals to Christianity by the missionaries.10
In Punjab, religious conventions were disturbed at various places by the Sangh Parivar during the
Akali-BJP regime. But the government did not take serious note of this problem and even
refused to accept the recommendations of the National Minority Commission.

Aritcle 26 of our Constitution has given to all the religious minorities the right

to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes,

to manage their own affairs in matters of religion, in any manner they wish to administer
and maintain such property in accordance with the law.

In Gujarat, the State Education Department issued a circular to the government aided schools to
subscribe to a Gujarati magazine, Sadhana, which is wedded to the ideology of the RSS and
Sangh Parivar. This is a direct violation of Article 26 of the Indian Constitution.11 The violation
of Article 26 occurs when the freedom to establish religious institutions is curbed. The local
administration generally refused permission to build, enlarge or renovate places of worship of the
minority religious groups. This has become a major problem for the Christian community. To get
permission for building a Church has become a nightmarish experience for the Christian
applicants.12 The recent destruction of churches in certain parts of the country has further
aggravated the threat to the right, guaranteed in the Constitution, and granted to the Christian
community, along with other religious communities, to establish and maintain institutions for
religious and charitable purposes.

Article 29 offers protection to the cultural rights of minorities and Article 30 (1) gives them
the right to establish and administer educations institutions of their choice.

Clause 31(2) states that the state shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions,
discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the
management of a minority, whether based on religion or language.

But with regard to the rights provided on Article 29 and 30 also, the Christians continue to face
problems throughout the country. (Recently the Punjab Government enacted a law and imposed a
lot of limitations on minority institutions. The first major problem which the Christian
educational institutions are facing is the intervention of the State Education Department and
Universities at different levels. Questions are being raised whether a special place can be offered
to the members of the Christian community as students or trainees. The government not only
discriminates against minority schools, colleges, nursing colleges, and hospitals in granting aid,
but also imposes many rules and restrictions to prevent minority institutions from appointing
their own candidates. When a vacancy comes up in schools and other institutions they are forced
to accept the States choice to fill it and on many occasions Christian educational institutions
have had to go to court to get justice.

Some of the fanatic groups are not in favour of a separate and distinct culture for minorities.
They want that all minorities in India must give up their separate culture as India is one country
and one culture. Prof Balraj Madhok suggested that the minorities must adopt Indian (Hindu)
names. In short, they must adopt the Indian culture-the national culturein their religion. Their
religion should bend its loyalty towards Indian Nationalism.

The suggestion made by Madhok is totally against the rights guaranteed under Article 29 of the
Constitution which says:

Any section of citizens, residing in the territory of India, or any part thereof, having a distinct
language or culture of its own, shall have the right to conserve the sameall persons are equally
entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate their religion.

In fact the Muslims, Christians and Sikhs each have their own separate and distinct culture. The
above utterances negate the guarantee given by the Constitution to conserve the culture of the
minorities. Such utterances have been in vogue for many decades. It is a shame that the leaders
of the largest democracy with a large number of religions allow the propagation of such mindless
thoughts (which clearly trample underfeet the constitutional rights) against such a minuscule
section of the population as Christians.

The next problem is concerning Christian Personal Law which includes

The Indian Christian Marriage Act 1872,

The Indian Divorce Act 1869

The Indian Succession Act 1925.

These Acts were enacted under British rule and reflect the British point of view. Some contents
and Acts have direct relationship to the English law and the Courts. For example, Section VIII of
the Indian Divorce Act 1869 says that for anything uncovered by this Act, the Indian courts shall
follow the procedure of English Courts.16 Similarly the Christian Marriage Act 1872 has, at a
number of places, references to the Churches of England and Scotland.17
The Indian Succession Act 1925 also has a number of weak points like the restrictions imposed
on a widows right to property. All these discrepancies need immediate attention of both the
Indian Christians as well as the Indian Government in order to introduce suitable amendments to
these Acts. The Christian law is biased in circumstances of marriage, grounds for divorce,
demand for damages and equitable relief. The need for a change has been widely recognised.

The campaign for changes in the Christian Personal Law was taken up at the Joint Womens
Programme (JWP) in 1983. Through several meetings held in different places, where Bishops,
clergymen, lawyers, the laity of the churches and social activists participated, it came to a
unanimous conclusion that the Christian Personal Law, as enacted and administered in India, was
outdated, unjust and did not fairly meet the needs of the present generation. The Indian Christian
Marriage Act 1872, the Indian Divorce Act 1869 and the Indian Succession Act 1925 had several
sections that were discriminatory. The first two of these Acts were enacted more than a century
ago and the third one is also almost three quarters of a century old. Women suffer and are treated
differently from men. There is also a need to enable Christians to adopt children whenever the
need arises.

The Joint Womens Programme (JWP) along with the Church of North India drafted a new
Christian Marriage and Maintenance Bill in 1985 with help of P.M. Bakshi, the then Member of
the Law Commission. The Joint Womens Programme also requested all the Churches to send in
their consensus opinion and the Christian Marriage and Matrimonial Bill 1990, the Indian
Succession Amendment Bill 1990, and the Christian Adoption and Maintenance Bill 1990 were
formulated. Thereafter an economic committee for changes in the Christian Personal Law was
formed. This committee studied the 1992 Bill and a draft was finalised to change the existing
Acts covering marriage, divorce, succession and adoption. It also drafted a Christian Adoption
Law 1994. The draft of the Christian Marriage Bill enabled the solution of cases of divorce on
the grounds of cruelty by mutual consent and did away with the compulsion of restoration of
conjugal rights. The Church leadership raised its voice to bring in changes in the Bill. The Fourth
Law Commission studied the matter in its own free time. Matters moved in the late nineties and
James Massey, a former member of the National Commission of Minorities, played a part in the
formulation of another reformist draft which was submitted to the government in 1997 to replace
the existing Acts covering marriage, divorce, succession and adoption.18

In April 2000, the Law Minister invited some Church leaders and women activists to discuss his
proposed Christian Marriage Bill 2000. The Christian representatives demanded that if the Law
Minister kept Sections 3 and 9 the same as were in the Bill of 1994, the proposed Bill will get the
consensus of all churches throughout India. They would agree for the Bill 2000 to be introduced
in Parliament. This bill, prepared by the Law Ministry with the consent of the community was
passed by Parliament in 2001.19
The Christians take the Indian Constitution for granted to provide, protect and safeguard the
fundamental rights of every citizen and every minority, including the Christians. However, the
relevance and effectiveness of the safeguards are eroding fast, due to large scale saffronisation of
the education system, the handiwork of the Sangh Parivar, to enforce its political ideology. These
changes are bold enough to dream of saffronisation of all minority communities as well. Some
organisations of the Sangh Parivar are so eager to threaten the very existence of the minority
communities that they are moving in an extremely disruptive direction. These moves, sooner or
later, will jeopardise the fundamental rights of the minority communities. The political thinking
of the communal forces is moving towards the formation of a theocratic state, in which the goal
and religion of the Sangh Parivar becomes the supreme force. This is creating a situation wherein
the minority communities, especially the poor and downtrodden Dalit Christians, are feeling
helpless. Minority and majority feelings still exist in the country even after 59 years of our
freedom and every secular, democratic Indian citizen is bound to be appalled by such a
development. The countrys identity and dignity are getting increasingly obscured. The apathy of
the administration, the violation of minorities rights, the Presidential Order of 1950 and the
Mandal Commission report have all cumulatively led to the evolution of an extremely helpless
and frustrating situation for the minority community of Christians. The Christians just want a fair
system to fulfill their basic needs and a chance to live an honorable life which can only be
provided by the institutionalization of minority rights in general and those of the Christian
minority in particular for long ignored by the powers that be.
STATUS REPORT OF UTTAR PRADESH:

I. LUCKNOW

Minority concentration district: Lucknow

Category: B
Sub-category: B1

Backwardness parameters of district worked out from Census 2001 data.

Basic Amenities Socio-economic

National Average 41.7 45.8

District Average 53.64 39.28

Population data of district as per Census 2001:

Religion Population % over total population

All religions 3647834 --
Muslims 748687 20.52
Christians 12286 0.34
Sikhs 23110 0.63
Buddhists 4327 0.12
Parsis -- --
21.61
Total Minority 788410
II. SHAHJAHANPUR

Minority concentration district: Shahjahanpur

Category: A

Backwardness parameters of district worked out from Census 2001 data.

-- Basic Amenities Socio-economic

National Average 41.7 45.8
District Average 22.78 27.53
Population data of district as per Census 2001:

% over total
Religion Population
population
All religions 2547855 --
Muslims 455049 17.86
Christians 2758 0.11
III. MEERUT
Sikhs 54503 2.14
Buddhists 5203 0.20
Parsis -- --
Total Minority 517513 20.31
Minority concentration district: Meerut
Category: B
Sub-category: B1

Backwardness parameters of district worked out

from Census 2001 data.

-- Basic Amenities Socio-economic

National Average 41.7 45.8

District Average 51.9 29.2

Population data of district as per Census 2001:

% over total
Religion Population
population
All religions 2997361 --
Muslims 975715 32.55
Christians 7420 0.25
Sikhs 26434 0.88
Buddhists 2769 0.09
Parsis -- --
Total Minority 1012338 33.77
IV. GHAZIABAD

Minority concentration district: Ghaziabad

Category: B
Sub-category: B1

Backwardness parameters of district worked out

from Census 2001 data.

-- Basic Amenities Socio-economic

National
41.7 45.8
Average
District Average 58.6 30.3

Population data of district as per Census 2001:

% over total
Religion Population
population
All religions 3290586 --
Muslims 782915 23.79
Christians 8809 0.27
Sikhs 21017 0.64
Buddhists 3298 0.10
Parsis -- --
Total Minority 816039 24.80
V. BAREILLY

Minority concentration district: Bareilly

Category: A

Backwardness parameters of district worked out

from Census 2001 data.

-- Basic Amenities Socio-economic

National
41.7 45.8
Average
District Average 40.7 25.9

Population data of district as per Census 2001:

% over total
Religion Population
population
All religions 3618589 --
Muslims 1223686 33.89
Christians 9269 0.26
Sikhs 28971 0.80
Buddhists 7333 0.20
Parsis -- --
Total Minority 1271959 35.15
VI. KHERI

Minority concentration district: Kheri

Category: A

Backwardness parameters of district worked out

from Census 2001 data.

-- Basic Amenities Socio-economic

National Average 41.7 45.8
District Average 26.54 29.49

Population data of district as per Census 2001:

 % over total
Religion Population
population
All religions 3207232 --
Muslims 612638 19.10
Christians 3740 0.12
Sikhs 84517 2.64
Buddhists 21164 0.66
Parsis -- --
Total Minority 722059 22.51

VII. MUZAFFARNAGAR

Minority concentration district: Muzaffarnagar

Category: B
Sub-category: B1

Backwardness parameters of district worked out

from Census 2001 data.

--
National Average
District Average

Population data of district as per Census 2001:

 % over total
Religion Population
population
All religions 3543362 --
Muslims 1349629 38.09
Christians 3303 0.09
Sikhs 18998 0.54
Buddhists 2356 0.07
Parsis -- --
Total Minority 1374286 38.78

VIII. PILIBHIT

Minority concentration district: Pilibhit

Category: A

Backwardness parameters of district worked out

from Census 2001 data.

--
National Average
District Average
Population data of district as per Census 2001:

% over total
Religion Population
population
All religions 1645183 --
Muslims 390773 23.75
Christians 1787 0.11
Sikhs 75479 4.59
Buddhists 1828 0.11
Parsis -- --
Total Minority 469867 28.56