Jan-March 2006 - Institute of Sikh Studies

58ABSTRACTS OF SIKH STUDIES : JAN-MARCH 2006 / 537-38 NSto exercise its statutory power under the Act, thus making it redundant.The interesting point is that the Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhistsand even the Parsis (a miniscule community with less than 0.1 millionpopulation) had been notified by the Central Government under theprovision of the same Act, but the guillotine has fallen on the Jains. Thus,refusal is a clear discrimination against the Jain community.The Constitution, in Explanation to Article 25, recognises theexistence of the Jain religion, but brackets it with Buddhism andSikhism for the limited purposes of one section of the Article dealingwith a common social aspect. Only five days after the promulgationof the Constitution, the then Prime Minister Jawarharlal Nehru, throughthe letter of June 31, 1950, signed by his Principal Private Secretary,had assured a Jain deputation that the Jains are a district religiousminority and there was no reason for apprehending that they would beconsidered as Hindus. Thus the judgement is constitutionally unsoundand violates an explicit assurance of the executive. The appellantshave decided to seek a review of it.Having summarily disposed of the Jain demand, the judgementdevotes another 12 pages to what can only be called obiter dicta or thepersonal views of Mr Justice Dharmadhikari. He gives his version ofthe history of the freedom movement, in particular, the effort forresolving the communal problem in terms of the constitutionalsafeguards as demanded by the Muslim community and conceded instages by the imperial power.Finally, there was no communal settlement culminating in thePartition of 1947. His historiography is full of flaws; it confuses thesequence of events; it describes India Wins Freedom as the “personaldiary” of Maulana Azad and attributes to him the role of a “mediator”between Nehru and Patel, on the one side, and Jinnah and Liaqat AliKhan, on the other.In effect, the obiter dicta reduced the complex course ofnegotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, over 20years, in which Rajendra Prasad, Nehru, Subhash Bose and Gandhijiall participated (it is doubtful if Azad was directly involved at anystage) for finding a mutually-acceptable settlement to a one-shot event!Eminent jurist H M Seervai is quoted to place the responsibilityfor Partition on Gandhi, Nehru and Patel for having destroyed the