The book Dr. Ambedkar on Minorities is a modest attempt towards analysing the social views of the chief architect of the socio-economic and political power structure of modem India, Baba Saheb Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar.

For Dr. Ambedkar, the society and the nation were above everything and he was a worshipper of both. The work of empowerment and upliftment of Dalits and Constitution making which he undertook in a unique and matchless fashion has given a positive result. India has made all-round development in this background. India as a nation has established its prestige at international level. Consciousness is continuously growing among the people of India which is striving to attain the height of golden development of the 21st Century. But the elements of untouchability, social inequality, social division and appeasement are prevalent in Indian society even today. Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar made a life-long effort to eradicate all these things. In fact, when the interest of the society, country and nation is overlooked for selfish interest and an effort is made to hide the religion under the cover of improper ethics, the person and the society lose their real identity and there remains every possibility of forgetting one's social and national responsibility. The invaders and the agents of the empirical forces have laboured a lot to nourish this illusion. Due to serfdom for the last one thousand years the people of India have developed a mentality of believing in fractured truth. Any of the Indians doesn't tend to develop the capability of analysing his original cultural beliefs in true sense and rather he takes the very sayings based on distorted traditions and beliefs as absolute truth and begins to regulate his behaviour and conduct accordingly. The people of India by and large having been divided into castes have confined their commitment to their self-interest and to some extent to the interest of their castes. Thus the racial commitments have created a sort of sectoral glory and there is a communication gap among the people who are leading their lives in such condition. This gap has been gradually growsing even after the Independence because it is based on the system made by the oppressive class. Even today, there is a clash between the divisive forces of the historic sense. It is the English who had given the nomenclature of the downtrodden, tribals or the Scheduled Castes and these various groups without identifying themselves are captive in their respective nomenclature even today. The people of our society are not making progress upto the mark because they address themselves with the names given by others, conceptualise the meaning derived from the imported concepts. They remain aloof from independent thinking, they follow social evils, they take ideology and sects as religion and they have a tendency to remain dependent and to become helpless in the matter of eradicating the root cause of inequality. Due to all these, their sense of nationality is fading away. Baba Saheb Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar had been strongly committed to eradication of the evils which were prevalent in the society during the colonial era when social humiliation, contempt, untouchability, hate and jealousy were at their peak. The contribution of the modern social reformers like Swami Dayanand Saraswati, Swami Vivekananda, Shri Aurobindo Ghosh, Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Mahatma Phule, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Rabindra Nath Tagore, Mahatma Gandhi, Baba Saheb Ambedkar and Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya etc., will always be remembered as immortal. Baba Saheb Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar tops the list of the great heroes of the 20th Century. Indian society will always remain indebted to him for the contribution he has made in making the downtrodden and the people who remained as sufferers and neglected 'lot for centuries, aware and capable of leading the life of a human. Dr. Ambedkar didn't get influenced by the allurements given by the Islamic and the Christian Missionaries successfully preserved his healthy legacy and always inspired his men to remain conscious in this regard.

Stamping and propagating Baba Saheb Dr. Ambedkar as the leader of the Dalits will be injustice to his multifaceted and multidimensional personality. Undoubtedly Dr. Ambedkar made every effort for the protection of the interest and honour of the Dalit class but at the same time he was committed to the progress and development of the Hindu society. His writings, speeches and ideology had long-term effect on economic, political and cultural subjects alongwith the social issues.

Minority issue is one such subject which is haunting Indian society and its ethos even today. Dr. Ambedkar is one among the few thinkers who had anticipated the implications of this problem well in advance. That is why during the fag end of his life he kept the entire Dalit society safe from the prejudices of Islam and Christianity and adopted Buddhism which had originated in the very land of India so that the so called Brahminical society which was full of evil customs and was completely disillusioned might be shaken.

In fact, Indian culture is a set of life values and behaviourial norms based on nature. The ideal pattern of Hindu lifestyle is fully pragmatic, scientific and socially harmonised. Not only that, it is relevant for every country and individual in all the times. Hindu way of life is full of knowledge and learning. It takes care of every creature and it embodies the spirit of serving Nature as well. The empirical forces by way of dividing the people of this country into various classes, castes and sub-castes during the last one and a half thousand years established the exploitative power structure and thus they hatched a conspiracy to destroy the very roots of Indian culture. The majority of Indians remained just silent spectators of their social and cultural decay as they had been divided into castes, sub-castes, classes, states and parties. Baba Saheb Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar was comparatively more alert towards these evils and actively wanted to eradicate the same.

The analysis of the views of Dr. Ambedkar regarding the minoritism and the minority question is the central theme of this book. The concept of the minority and the minoritism is in fact the outcome of the rise of the nation-states in Europe during the 18th and 19th Centuries. With the advent of new nations in place of the old ones the nationality of the specific majority got place and prominence and simultaneously smaller groups of the distinct language, religion and society also came into existence, which was to be known as minority in due course and by the time when fundamental rights, human rights and natural rights were given due importance, protection was given to the rights of the minorities in a natural way. Many of the minority groups inspired by regional, linguistic and religious reasons and for the sense of insecurity began to adopt offensive posture and indulging in such activities which threatened the peace and security of the state. As a result of this nations began to face the problem of unity and integrity. In this background the institutions like the League of Nations and the United Nations were compelled to formulate some definite policy in this regard.

The views of Dr. Ambedkar regarding minority are more comprehensive and effective in comparison to the relative definition given by the United Nations. The views of Dr. Ambedkar in this regard are based on religious aspirations of the Indian society. Dr. Ambedkar in his interpretation of the minority community incorporated the religious and linguistic basis as was done by the United Nations. At the same time, Dr. Ambedkar also gave importance to the social, economic and regional basis. This is the reason that the views of Dr. Ambedkar match the social system, religious condition and nationalism of India. His contemplation regarding a minority becomes more important for this reason too that India is the only country in the world, which has not succeeded in analysing and propagating the counter religious views of Islam and Christianity. Both religions are of the nature of expansion and these two are involved in this very process for the last so many years and their commitment is not for the place of the residence and rather they are committed more to the place of their origin. Even today there are some thinkers, political parties and leaders who in their self analysis go away from the truth and hold the majority Hindu society guilty, which is itself divided on linguistic, regional, sectoral and racial basis. They are still involved in the process of appeasement. Their such involvement has made this problem more complex. They lack even the inherent sense of Hinduism and the Hindu society. In actual sense, Hinduism is a way of life which is natural and universal. The basis of Indian culture is Hinduism which contains different life philosophies, sects, lifestyles and worship modes. It is very difficult to confine

Hinduism into one definition. Hinduism doesn't consider anyone as minority and it visualises all human beings as the members of one family. The relevant religious views of the so-called minorities are inherent in the original Sanatan Dharma. These views are just branches of the Sanatan Dharma. The shortcomings appearing on the surface are the outcome of the social, economic and political environment of the founders of the specific sect. These shortcomings must be refined as per the requirements of the time and space for the welfare of humanity.

This book is a positive effort in this perspective. The author, while analysing the views of Dr. Ambedkar on religion and religious conversion, has drawn the attention of the Hindu society towards some important issues which every Indian is required to be conscious of. If different sects inhabitating in India are to be seen as minorities, then this country would fundamentally appear as a set of the minorities only. The minority issue in India in fact contains some intricate problems and any attempt to define them would produce an echo of the narrow meaning. Therefore it is essential to alleviate such tendencies which are growing. Dr. Shri Prakash Singh while analysing the several problems in this context has produced authentic comments on the subject. This book will be useful for intellectuals, researchers, students, journalists and common readers. I wish him a bright future and hope he will continue his positive efforts in this direction.

Dr. Bizoy Sonkar Shastri
Ex. Chairman,
National Commission for SC/ST

The entire political arena and ideology has been facing a lot of challenges all over the world. With a challenge coming to an end another challenge emerges on the scene but the problem of minoritism which is the mother of secessionism, has been posing a challenge before the nation state for the centuries. India is also in the grip of this problem. The solution to this problem is not in the offing rather it is getting further aggravated. The social, religious and political circumstances have played important roles in this regard. Hence, this problem is required to be analysed in that perspective only.

Like many Nations India is also a multi-religious, multi-lingual, multiracial and multi-communal nation and rather India with its distinct characteristics is in a unique position in the whole world. On the basis of this distinct quality it can be said that there is not any majority society in India or in another word India is a country of only minorities. The so-called majority society is also divided in the name of religion, language, culture of region. With the mention of one religion, one worshipping mode, one language, one culture the specific segments of the majority community and those having distinct languages begin to feel a sense of insecurity like those of the minorities. Whenever the majority becomes active, the minorities begin to feel themselves insecure.

Any period of the history is not irrelevant in terms of musing. Every thought has a background and relevance of its own. Hence, the views of Baba Saheb Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar are very important for the present topic. Who are the minorities? Why are they so? What should be done for them? What are the constitutional safeguards for them? What is their social, political and economic condition? Why it is so? In order to get answers to all these queries one's attention is naturally turned towards architect of the constitution, great scholar, legal expert and social reformer Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar who happened to be the Chairman of the Drafting committee of the Constituent Assembly.

Even the hostile critic of Dr. Ambedkar can't deny this fact that the credit for whatever constitutional rights and protection is available to the Dalits and the minorities especially the Muslims goes entirely to Dr. Ambedkar. Hence the analysis of his views becomes more important in this context.

In the present book the views of Dr. Ambedkar especially regarding the condition of Dalits, demands sought by him for them and the protection granted to them and those with special reference to the Muslim community, have been attached special importance. This doesn't mean at all that the Sikhs and the Christians haven't been referred in this book. These sects have also been given appropriate place as a whole in the entirely of the subject.

The views of Dr. Ambedkar on the issue of the Minority becomes all the more important because he as a chairman of the Drafting committee of the constituent Assembly had protected the interest of the Dalits and the minorities. On the one hand he raised the matter regarding plight and pitiable conditions of the Dalit community and sought constitutional protection for them on several platforms. His struggle was not one sided. He wanted to have the minority status for the Dalits as well like that of the Muslim community and for that he had made a desperate attempt in the Round Table Conference. Here this question is to taken into account that he had supported the demand for Pakistan in the context. He in 1946 wrote a well known book 'Partition of Pakistan' in the context of as to why there should be a Pakistan or why this demand should be acceded to and he presented authentic and historical analysis of the factors responsible for the Minoritism, the communalism and the secessionism. In that book he had even analysed the consequences if the event of division of the country didn't take place and he even tried to produce a solution on this behalf.

The problems of that time and the question are still unanswered and in another word the problem of minoritism has increased, rather its horizon has expanded; and this problem has received political nourishment. The power greed of the political parties has turned the situation worse. As a result of which the challenge of Pan Islamism and the Christianism and the process of enhancing population through conversion has increased rapidly. It would become clear that in the name of Pan-Islamism and Christianism a conspiracy is going on at the international level if the figures relating to the population is analysed on the basis of region, caste religion, sect and community. The government and the other political parties are aware of this fact but maintaining silence for their vested interests. Dr. Ambedkar had visualised this conspiracy and opposed the conversion of the Dalits to the Islam and the Christianity throughout his life. He had adopted the Buddhism which is not anti-Hinduism rather it is close to Hinduism as the Buddhism was flourished to remove the evils prevailing in the Hinduism. The conversion of Dr. Ambedkar is national, not international but in the changing political scenario of today the alliance of the Dalits and the Muslims is being thrust upon whereas Dr. Ambedkar himself was against any such alliance. This political game will prove detrimental for India in due course.

Dr. Ambedkar was well aware of the secessionist approach and the national and international objectives of the Islam. He had expressed this fact on many occasions but the scholars have ignored this fact deliberately and thus nourishment has been provided to the appeasement tendency.

A Chennai based Policy Research Centre has published a book "Religious Demography of India" in the year 2003. This book mentions the increase or decrease in the population of the followers of all the religions of India on the basis of the figures of last 100 years or more. The analysis made in this book indicates more or less the apprehension of Dr. Ambedkar.

The present book has been divided into seven chapters including the conclusion for to make study and analysis smooth. Two Appendices and a comprehensive Reference has also been given as complimentary of the subject with a view to make it supportive. In the References both the primary and the secondary sources have been used but more weightage has been given to the Primary sources.

In the first chapter, the question as to who are the minorities has been tried to review in Indian perspective. The author's aim is not to give any new concept and definition. Rather an attempt has been made to mention or analyse the linguistic, regional, cultural, racial or religious basis for getting the minority status.

In the second chapter an attempt has been made to analyse on the basis of the issues raised in the Round Table Conference of 1930-31 held in London as to whether the Dalits are minorities of the society in real sense. If not, whether this community should be considered as minority as the purpose of Dr. Ambedkar was not to confine the subject to the special status only rather he wanted to provide equal rights and economic security to this class. He vehemently opposed untouchability and for him caste system was the root cause of this. Hence he wanted to get this system abolished.

The central subject of the third chapter is religious minority. In this chapter the views of Dr. Ambedkar regarding Muslim minority have been given prominence. But the impact of the synonymous use of the Muslim community for the term 'minority' can be explicitly seen.

In the fourth chapter the views of Dr. Ambedkar regarding religion have been analysed. Dr. Ambedkar considers the religion responsible for disparity, oppression, exploitation, dissension and immorality prevailing in the Indian society but he considers religion indispensable as well.

The fifth chapter presents special reference and analysis to the conversion. Why did Dr. Ambedkar convert himself to the Buddhism? Why did he not adopt any other religion? Why did he discard Hinduism? Why did he not adopt the Islam or the Christianity despite allurement given by the Muslim Ulemas and the Nizam of Hyderabad and the Christian Clergy's?

This has been tried to analyse as to whether his act was in the interest of the nation or against the nation.

The sixth chapter is centred on the constitutional provisions. How did Dr. Ambedkar make constitutional provisions for the protection and what are their present status? What benefits have they derived? What loss they have suffered? All these issues have been tried to mention and analyse.

The last chapter is in form of conclusion. The entire issues have been tried to review in detached and unbiased manner. The purpose of the author is not to hurt the sentiment of any particular class but to bring those facts recorded in the ages of history, which are overlooked, before everyone so that those may be considered in future which may be helpful in salving the problem of the minority issue. An effort has been made to mention and analyse the subject is authentic manner. The author yet is responsible for the lapses and shortcomings in the book.

WHO ARE MINORITIES?

The work and thoughts of Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar is of utmost importance with a view to closely understand and analyse the Indian society and the contents of politics as a whole. It is important to study Dr. Ambedkar more for this reason that Justice was not shown towards his composite outlook. At present his fame and identity has been merged in a leader and a liberator of the downtrodden society of course, he waged a struggle throughout his life to accord proper and important place of dignity and rights to the Dalit community in the society and he established himself as an icon of self-respect, determination, struggle and resistance. About his work and thought Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru had said, "He was a symbol of rebel against the tyrannical elements of Hindu society".[1] He wanted to finish the evils of untouchability and religious fantasy which were prevalent in Indian society since long.

He held varna-system of the Hindu society responsible for the untouchability and so he was against such system and wanted to eradicate the same. This was the fundamental issue on which Gandhi and Ambedkar dissented each other. Ambedkar wished that the caste system must come to an end forever whereas Gandhi was of the view that, 'Untouchability has nothing to do with the varna system rather it is resultant of the external perversion. Hence it is not necessary to eradicate varna system for removal of such perversion like that of untouchability."[2]

Caste system, untouchability eradication, minority status separate representation, the form of freedom movement are many of such issues on which Gandhi and Ambedkar didn't see eye to eye. But Gandhi never questioned the nationality and personality of Ambedkar, however, Gandhi had definitely questioned his understanding of Hindu religion."[3]

Gandhi couldn't assess Ambedkar correctly in this regard as Ambedkar was making an effort to eradicate untouchability with the support of the upper castes during the year 1927-1929. He floated an idea of creating unity between the untouchables and the Savarna Hindus in the name of organising Hindus. Ambedkar was of the view that untouchability could be easily eradicated by way of activating Brahmins and cultural socialisation. He was of the opinion "if the Brahmin community initiates reform process, other will easily follow it".[4] But he became the arch critic of Hinduism due to reactionary and non-cooperative approach shown by the Savarna Hindus. In other words his criticism was based mainly against the Brahmin community. But it does not mean that he opposed Hinduism completely. Contrary to it he had an attachment with Hinduism and its cultural values.

He simply wanted to remove evils prevalent in it. We get such glimpses after we read his research work. He has written therein, "there is no exaggeration in saying that the other nation can not match the cultural unity of India."[5]

Dr. Ambedkar and Gandhi both were against this social evil and wanted to eradicate it but they stood apart in their ways. Their differences have been highlighted to a greater extent but there are some thinkers who consider both of them as complementary to each other. G.V. Sardar (Gandhi ani Ambedkar) is one such author who has projected both of them as complementary to each other in his book written in Marathi."[6]

The study, observation and analysis of History will reveal that many social reformers, saints and politicians have born from time to time who by their deeds and thoughts tried their best to eradicate evil of untouchability from the Indian society to ameliorate the socio-economic and political condition of the downtroddens. Notable among them is the name of Ambedkar who himself had suffered the humiliation due to this problem and this is one of the reason that his thought is more aggressive in comparison to Gandhi. But it would be an injustice against the multifacet talent of Ambedkar if he is confined to the sole issue of downtroddens. And exactly this has been done by some writers having vested interest. The people at large today are aware of only two facts about Ambedkar, one he waged a struggle for the down-trodden society and secondly he was the chairman of the drafting committee of the constituent Assembly. There are many ideological aspects related to Ambedkar, which have been deliberately overlooked by the thinkers and the authors for their vested interests. Even today political manoeuvring is visible everywhere in his name.

For this reason the composite thoughts of Ambedkar couldn't have been brought forth so far. 'Dr. Ambedkar and the minority' is one such subject which has unfortunately not been discussed so elaborately and least importance has been attached to it. In this book, an attempt has been made to analyse this subject.

Who are minorities?

The issue of minority and majority has been the most controversial and widely discussed subject in the Indian political arena both before and after the Independence. The empirial British government always aggravated this problem for its administrative interests as well as for its divide and rule policy. This though (creation of Pakistan/division of India) had taken a permanent shape by the time of attaining freedom for the country. Some of the political elements have constantly nurtured this issue for the power and vested interest of their respective parties. As a result of this minoritism is the most politically exploited subject in the present political scenario and with the mention of this very word 'minority' we tend to think of the Muslim community instantly. Our attention is naturally diverted towards the riots related to the specific community, division of the nation in shape of Pakistan and other related subjects. The question as to who are the minorities and why they are so is still controversial and unreliable as was before.

It is essential to observe its background for studying this social challenge and some questions appear suo moto the moment an effort to analyse this is made as for example which social classes constitute the minority class.

Does this question hold any substance, whether the basis of this question is religion; or whether language is the basis of such question or the region, caste or class is the basis of this question? All these questions don't allow us to reach on a common decision. This is the very reason that commonly acceptable definition hasn't been evolved in this regard. The purpose of this book is not to find a definition which must be acceptable to all, but to raise and analyse the problem factors. Theodore P. Right Junior in his article has expressed the same view, "It is generally considered that Hindus are in majority.... But to say this is wrong and misleading. There are many subcastes minorities in this vast community called as Hindu.... and many are the places where Muslim community attain the majority status.[7] The renowned thinker Myren Weener subscribing to the abovesaid views has written that the issue of minority and majority depends much on self-analysis and element based definition. A class constituting as majority may be minority from another point of view."[8]

1.                  The Sikhs were not considered as minority till 1984 but now they are likely to be considered as minority. Their educational Institutions, religious 'institution and the elections related to these are the evidence of this fact. But the Hindus in the Punjab state has started themselves calling as minority because the demographic majoritism is in favour of the Sikh community.

2.                  Muslim community are the largest religious minority community of India on the basis of religion but this community is in majority in Jammu-Kashmir and the Hindus are in minority there.

3.                  The followers of the Jainism is the oldest minority.[9] But they are considered as a part of the Hindu religion and they don't consider themselves separate from the Hinduism.[10] But some of the Jain organisations have started projecting themselves as minority but majority of the Jain society doesn't approve this demand. The character of Jain community is business oriented like that of the Vaishya community and therefore Jainism was not recognised as a separate or minority religion.

4.                  There are many regional segments of the population who have always considered themselves minorities on the basis of their language. Assamese, Bengali, Nagas, Tamils, Gujjars of Leh region consider themselves minorities and want specific protection provision for themselves in the constitution.

5.                  Some thinkers have placed the Dalits who are the most backward, downtrodden and undeveloped society in minority category. Such views have been endorsed not only by Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar but also by Gandhi who had written in an editorial of his magazine Harijan, "scheduled castes are real minority class of India."[11] Dr. Ambedkar had explained this issue in detail and said that.

"There are several minority classes who must get their distinct political identity but all of these minority classes are not similar. There is a great disparity among them and they differ from one another at large scale. Each of these minority classes has a distinct social status. For example Parsi community is the smallest group of minority.

Social and economic status of this community is at par with that of the majority community. On the other hand the social status of the Dalits which is the second largest minority group after the Muslim is big zero."[12]

D.K. Vaishantre analysing the outcome of Poona pact held between Gandhi and Ambedkar has written, "specific representation and reservation provided through common electorate in lieu of the separate electorate has somewhat accorded the status of minority community to the Dalit Society."[13] The Congress also expressed the same view. But many other scholars did not accept this view. Dr. Ambedkar keeping the social strata's and social status in view said, "The scheduled castes must be recognised as minority community not on the basis of religion, language and race but on the basis of Hindu social institutions which have oppressed and treated Dalits inhumanly."[14]

On the basis of aforesaid facts it can be understood that Dr. Ambedkar was not agreed with the concept of the minority community that is prevalent in the present. He was of the view that Dalit community also must be recognised as minority community like Muslims, Sikhs, Parsis and Christians because many facilities, provisions and change in social attitudes are required for bringing the Dalits into mainstream. Dr. Ambedkar analysing the status of Dalits had said, "If we categorise the minority classes on the basis of their social and political rights, we will find that many of them are enjoying these rights and their minority status doesn't debar them from their civil rights. But the case of Dalits is quite different because they don't have any rights and even if they have been given some rights, they are not allowed by the majority class to exercise those rights... All the majority classes are sailing in the same boat but they are in different compartments. Some of them are in the first class, some in the second class and some in the third class. But it is painful to note that the Dalits are not even in the third or fourth class compartments, though they too are in the same boat."[15]

That is why Dr. Ambedkar right from beginning was arguing in favour of such system for the minorities through constitutional provisions based on Justice, equality and conscience. He wanted such system which may protect the interest of the minorities without showing any kind of discrimination against them. This is the reason for his supporting the demand of separate electoral process for the other minority classes in the second round table conference in which he had participated as a Dalit representative.

It should not be deduced from the aforesaid support that Dr. Ambedkar supported the demand and reactionary policies of the Muslim community. He had dissented at several occasions with the views of the Muslim community and their leaders. He had outlined the Dalits as minority only because he was moved by the pathetic condition of the Dalit society and he wanted to end their plights in any way. His approach towards them can be explicitly observed in 'State and Minorities'.[16] In this report, he defined the fundamental rights, rights of the minorities and the protection of the interest of the scheduled caste. It was his analysis that the scheduled castes are more needy, hence the protection provided for the citizens and the minorities would not be appropriate for the development and revival of the scheduled castes. He was of the view that some specific constitutional provisions for the protection of the Scheduled castes must be made to save them from the oppression and discrimination at the hands of the majority class.[17]

The process of making the constitution started in the background of the demand of Pakistan and division of the country. Therefore, no specific effort was made to define the term 'minority' in the constitution. It was explicitly observed in the constituent Assembly that even the use of this word was avoided. Perhaps this was so for the backdrop of the division of the Nation. During the discussion on the draft of the constitution, T.T. Krishnanchari on 16^th November 1946 presented a motion in the constituent Assembly that "certain classes may substitute the minority class in the 16th part of the constitution."[18] This amendment was unanimously adopted without undertaking discussion. The chairman of the Draft Committee, Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar, while passing this amendment in the constituent Assembly said, "this word cannot only be used technically to guide the minorities but also to include those classes which is technically not minority."[19]

Only two articles in the entire constitution provide full protection to the rights of the minorities. Article 29 says any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same. We can reach this conclusion on the basis of Article 29 that minority status has not been granted only to the people of any particular religion rather its scope is very wide.

Another article (30) directly protects the interest of the minorities. It says all minorities whether based on religion and language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. By analysing these two articles it becomes amply clear that the constitution of India envisages to protect minority class formed on any of these three basis viz. language, religion and culture."[20] The difference based on language and religion can be comprehended. It may not be impossible but it would be difficult to find definition of culture which may be acceptable to all. Prof. Smith D.E. in an important study undertaken through the observation of work of biologists, sociologists, psychologists and philosophers has mentioned about 164 definitions. "Most of the definitions connect the concept of culture with tradition of material, social, religious and artistic achievement, convention, behavioural process, general belief and values. Value makes culture qualitative and purposeful."[21]

Like Prof. Smith the member of the Draft committee, Prof. K.T. Shah advancing his views about culture in the constituent Assembly said, "This is not a singular subject comprising of language, region, script etc. rather it is a vast subject like ocean which includes material and spiritual legacy of any community. Culture includes everything be it art, science, religion or philosophy."[22]

No one can reach any decision with regard to the question as to who are the minorities if same is inquired and analysed on the basis of culture as because there is wide cultural diversity in India. There is another view also in this regard. Prof. Balraj Madhok says, "culture in Indian context is related to the nation, not to the religion. In India the thing like Muslim culture or Christian culture doesn't exist. There is only one culture in India. Indian culture is equal for every Indian."[23] But Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad negating the views of Prof. Madhok says, "The views of Indian culture is controversial because India has attracted the people of different religions and races for the centuries and every community made a room for it in the mixed Indian society and so every community and religious group has a culture of its own."[24]

Hence it is a difficult proposition to determine minority group on the basis of culture because unity of thoughts is lacking and this lacking has enhanced the ambition of political and social classes. So, with the mention of the very word minority, the people begin to think around the minority groups formed on the basis of religion. Undoubtedly our ideological boundary gets limited with the thought of religious minority. We start analysing as to who belongs to the minority and who belongs to the majority, what are the constitutional provisions and its feasibility aspects. This attitude works in Indian society. Here in India Hindus are in majority, and Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Parsis etc. are minority. Dr. Karn Singh also has written while deliberating about the religious base of minorities and majorities, religion has played two important roles not only in India but in the whole world. Religion has united a large section of the society and on the other hand it has created a rift between the societies, individuals, groups, nations."[25] The analyis made by Dr. Karn Singh is appropriate in the context of Indian society. The concept of religion based minority class and culture has harmed Indian nation more than any other concepts could have done. There are several issues like communal hatred, riots, division of India, creation of Pakistan, provision of protection made after Independence, policy of appeasing minorities adopted by the union and state governments, policy of religious conversion through social propaganda, which are existing as problems before the society. Renowned scholar Dr. D.N. Sen has expressed similar concern while pondering over this problem, "People are more sensitive towards belief, they are not so sensitive of any other things."[26] As a result of this the selfish politicians exploit the issues related to the people's belief to fulfil their greed of power. This is more accurate in respect of the minority community as they have a feeling of insecurity in them right from the beginning and the representative governments of the so called majority society adopts appeasement policy due to this very reason.

Every segment of Indian society gets easily influenced by the issue of religion and belief. This aspect can be seen even in the words which was uttered by Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar while speaking on the subject, "the effect of religion on Indian life in the constituent Assembly, "Religious concept in India is so wide that the people throughout their lives are under its grip. Nothing is independent from religion here."[27]

Dr. Ambedkar responding to the people who put a question mark on the social and political utility of the religion had said, "For some people religion is not essential for the society but I do not support such views. I consider foundation of religion essential for life and social behaviour."[28] 

He always emphasised on the need of religion through all his books, articles and speeches. According to him, "Religion is a part of legacy."[29] Normally he has been projected as anti-Hindu religion