In religious contexts, there is a tendency to equate uniqueness with separateness; whereas they are contraries. Individuals are unique only when they are faithful to their individual qualities and develop them for the greater good. The obsession with being unique for oneself is self-indulgence, which is incompatible with the religious culture of all communities.
Persons deem themselves ‘separate’ or exclusive when they are self-seeking and entertain biases. In their hands, even the best provisions become problematic. Encouraging and enabling religious and linguistic minorities to develop a self-centric outlook is not compatible with Article 30(1) of the Indian constitution. Moreover, it undermines the communities concerned.
Consider an instance from Kerala. Members of the South Kerala Diocese of the Church of South India are now caught in the turmoil caused by the abuse of minority rights. A couple of decades ago, the diocese established a medical college, which enjoys minority rights. In 2019, the bishop and his cabals were found to have allegedly collected Rs 7.5 crore from ineligible medical education aspirants, promising them admission. The alleged scam came to light after three students moved the High Court of Kerala. The bishop and the director of the medical college admitted to the fraud and agreed to reimburse their money.
With that, the turmoil began. From where was the money to be found? What had been collected from applicants had already disappeared. The bishop decided to pay it out of church funds. This was resisted by the diocesan treasurer, who was suspended. A few of his fellow priests, who expressed solidarity with him, were also shown the door. The issue has snow-balled into a bitter and massive confrontation between the bishop and the rest of the church. The bishop is allegedly using state machinery to suppress the dissenters.
Also read: ‘For God’s sake…’ – What Ambedkar said about rule of majority in India
Minority rights have become management rights
My extensive experience with how minority educational rights are currently used makes me believe that they have become a hindrance to the Christian community. The main reason for this is easy to see. The Constitution envisages minority rights as community rights. But in practice, they have become management rights. The community has little clue how these rights are used. They have no way to minimise the abuse, even though minority rights are claimed on their behalf. This is unfair and unjust. And the gravity of this problem increases in proportion to the degeneration of the religious community concerned, creating a vicious cycle.
Now consider the ongoing tussle between St Stephen’s College and Delhi University. The admission guidelines evolved by the university are in tune with the scope of minority rights. The ambit of Article 30(1) is limited to the right to admit up to 50 per cent of candidates preferentially from the minority community concerned. So, any exclusive process defended under the aegis of minority rights should relate only to the selection of such candidates, and not to general category admissions.
I am reasonably sure of this—if the university had allowed interviews for unreserved category candidates, and disallowed it for Christian candidates, the college would have made no fuss about it. From personal experience I can vouch that there was always keenness about unreserved category admissions, and indifference to the reserved category.
We are not living in an ideal world. Huge interests play wherever there is prestige. They burst in even through back door keyholes. As the 12th principal of the college, I have no hesitation in stating that the interview-centric admission process at St Stephen’s is seriously vulnerable to manipulation. It has been so always. As the head of the department of English in the 1990s, I refused to participate in admissions because I could not ensure the fairness of the process. It was not always the best candidates who got admitted, and the institution suffered in the process. This deception was camouflaged by the presence of brilliant students who inadvertently helped to cover up for the dubious entrants.
Two facts are to be kept in mind if the present stand-off is to be understood properly. First, even though the weightage for interviews is, on paper, only 15 per cent, in effect, it is 100 per cent. This should be easy to see. Suppose you are a candidate with 100 per cent marks in Class 12. You are shortlisted with those above, say, 98 per cent, as is the case at St Stephen’s. You can lose to the last candidate on the list if you are given 10/15 and he is given 12.1/15. Who will know? It cannot be established that you have been short-changed. I am surprised that the Supreme Court gave its stamp of approval to this process in 1991. Being troubled by this, I reduced the interview weightage from 15 per cent to 10 per cent on my own.
Second, extreme importance is attached to general category admissions. Why? As a former Church of North India (CNI) bishop told me curtly, “Christians can’t pay.” Now, it is not only in cash that such ‘payments’ are made. It is also in terms of patronage and privilege. While I was in the saddle I used to say that the prestige of the institution far exceeds its academic substance.
Also read: If India has to develop, public policy must make space for minorities
Revisit minority educational rights
It is interesting to note that the teachers who are clamouring for the right to interview general category students are also those who resent the Christian character of the college. Not that they don’t understand this anomaly. It is assumed that minority rights can be divorced from the culture and needs of a community, and used at will to sub-serve interests that are alien to the ambit of Article 30(1). This is fraud, no matter how elaborately it is defended and how cleverly the abuse is concealed. St Stephen’s College needs to tell the rest of the country how interviewing general category students benefits the Christian community. For the life of me, I can’t figure this one out!
I am no one to predict how this confrontation will play out in the Delhi High Court. But I am sure of one thing. There is a need to re-visit the mechanics and proprieties of minority educational rights. A right that is apt to be misused in the format it exists, and needs to be examined under a microscope. It is in the interest of minority communities and the country alike. It is dishonest to root for constitutional provisions while intending them to be alibis for perpetuating vested interests.
Valson Thampu is former Principal of St Stephen’s College, University of Delhi. Views are personal.
(Edited by Zoya Bhatti)