Minoritism

A third accusation levelled against secularism is 'minoritism' — the charge that Indian secularism unfairly champions minority rights. Is this justified? Consider four adults sharing a compartment on a very fast-moving train. Midway through the journey, one passenger expresses a wish to smoke. A second passenger says he cannot bear cigarette smoke. The other two say nothing and smoke as well. A vote is proposed to settle the disagreement: the two mild smokers side with the addicted passenger, and the non-smoker loses by two votes. The minority passenger loses out, but the outcome still looks fair, because a proper, agreed democratic procedure — voting — was followed.

Now change one detail. Suppose the non-smoking passenger actually suffers from asthma, and cigarette smoke could trigger a life-threatening attack in him. His preference not to be exposed to smoke is now a fundamental, urgent interest, not simply one preference among four. Would the same majority vote still be a fair way to decide? Clearly not — the addicted smoker should hold off until the train reaches its destination. When a genuinely fundamental interest is at stake, majority voting is simply the wrong procedure to use; a person has a prior right to protection of interests that are this significant. What is true for individuals here is equally true for communities: the most fundamental interests of minorities must not be harmed, and must be protected by constitutional law rather than left to the vote of a majority. This is exactly how Indian minority rights are constitutionally justified — they exist only in so far as they protect such fundamental interests, not as arbitrary favours. …