Minority Rights Primer

There is no universally accepted legally binding definition of minority and minority rights. According to the Minority Rights Group (2015:267), minorities are ‘disadvantaged national, religious, linguistic or cultural groups who are smaller in number than the rest of the population and who may wish to maintain and develop their identity.’

The most widely accepted definition of minorities, that by the Special Rapporteur on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, is:

“a group numerically inferior to the rest of the population of a State, in a non-dominant position, whose members – being nationals of the state – possess ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics differing from those of the rest of the population and maintain, if only implicitly, a sense of solidarity, directed towards preserving their culture, traditions, religion or language.”

As Khan and Rahman note (1999:3), this definition implies that the factors that must be taken into account in identifying minorities are:

Numerical inferiority: Minorities are almost always imagined as numerically inferior although this is determined by reference to the size of ‘the rest of the population of a state’.
Non-dominant position: At the core, ‘minority’ is a political and sociological reality and is not merely numerical. The determining factor is the degree of political participation and social inclusion. ‘In fact, minorities are possibly undermined not so much by their weaknesses in numbers, but by their exclusion from power’ (Khan and Rahman; 1999:16)
Distinguishing ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics: Only those groups within a population are considered minorities who differ from the rest of the population of the state in which they exist by reference to ethnicity, religion or language. In Article 1, the United Nations Minorities Declaration refers to minorities as based on national or ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identity.
Nationality: Minorities are citizens of the state that they live in. They generally exclude refugees, foreigners and migrant workers, although some formulations are more inclusive and also include non-citizens (see United Nations 2010:4-5 on this.)

When applied to South Asia, this definition means disadvantaged religious, linguistic and ethnic groups are minorities as are Dalits (literally ‘broken people’ or ‘crushed’); as well as indigenous people, variously called Adivasi.

There are principally four ‘minority rights’. Taken together, these are established rights under international law; they are interrelated and built on the framework of individual human rights.

The Genocide Convention 1948, the United Nations Declaration on Minorities (UNMD) 1992 and the Durban World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) 2001 attempt to operationalize the right to survival and existence.

Article 1 of the UN declaration states: ‘States shall protect the existence….of minorities, within their respective territories….’ (United Nations, 1992).

The guidance for implementation on UN minorities declaration states:

‘Protection of minorities should focus primarily on the protection of the physical existence of persons belonging to minorities, including protecting them from genocide and crimes against humanity’ (United Nations, 2010:7).

The 2001 Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA) affirms that:

‘…..minorities, where they exist, must be protected and that persons belonging to such minorities should be treated equally and enjoy their human rights and fundamental freedoms without discrimination of any kind’ (para 66, p.13). It calls on states to protect the physical existence of minorities, including from genocide and crimes against humanity.

UNDM (1992) recognizes that persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities have the right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion and to use their own language in private and in public freely and without interference or any form of discrimination. These provisions are further strengthened by DDPA (2001) affirming that ‘the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity of minorities, where they exist, must be protected and that persons belonging to such minorities should be treated equally and enjoy their human rights and fundamental freedoms without discrimination of any kind’ (para 66). DDPA en- joins upon states ‘to prevent forced assimilation and the loss of cultures, religions and languages’ and encouraging conditions for the promotion of national, ethnical, cultural, religious and linguistic identities of such minorities and for diversity and plural identities to be protected and respected (United Nations, 2010:7).

UNDM (1992) provides that persons belonging to minorities may exercise their rights individually as well as in a community with other members of their group without any discrimination. Non-discrimination and equality before the law are the basic principles guiding human rights. Discrimination can take many forms – formal and substantive discrimination; direct and indirect forms of differential treatment; de-facto and de-jure; and discrimination in the private and public spheres (United Nations, 1992:11). For minorities to enjoy non-discrimination there should be formal freedoms and equality (such as equal access to social services and employment in the public and private sectors) and programmes for empowerment of those who in the past have been the subject of discrimination or who suffer persistent discrimination. This might call for differential treatment of such groups such as through ‘affirmative action’. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination allows for ‘special measures’ as does the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (‘temporary special measures’) and the Human Rights Committee that enjoins states to take affirmative actions to diminish or eliminate conditions that are discriminatory (United Nations, 1992:10).

UNDM (1992) affirms that persons belonging to minorities have the right to participate effectively in cultural, religious, social, economic and public life. Herein, the right to participate in ‘public life’ includes, among other rights, those relating to elections and to being elected, the holding of public office and other political and administrative domains. Also the right to participate effectively in decisions on the national, and where appropriate regional level, concerning the minority to which they belong or the region in which they live. This right, according to UNDM is ‘in fact essential to preserving minorities’ identity and combat social exclusion’ (United Nations, 1992:12).

These provisions imply that mechanisms are required to ensure that the diversity of society with regard to minority groups is reflected in public institutions such as national parliaments, the civil service sector, including the police and the judiciary and that persons belonging to minorities are adequately represented, consulted and have a voice in decisions which affect them or the territories and regions in which they live.

Participation must be meaningful and not merely symbolic and recognize, for instance, that minorities are commonly under-represented and that their concerns may not be adequately addressed. The participation of women belonging to minorities is of particular concern. What is needed is not just their formal representation in governing institutions but effective participation in decision making so as to promote among minority communities the ownership of decisions.

The Afghan Constitution (of 2004) does not define minorities, but it does identify 14 ethnic groups and nationalities. Ethnicity (based on language) determines the construction of much of Afghanistan’s identity although religion too has played an important role. Pashtuns and Tajiks are the main ethnic groups, with Pashtuns being dominant.6 In the absence of a national Census, it is difficult to say what their exact numbers are but estimates put the Tajik population at 35 per cent (Pashtuns by the same reckoning are anywhere between 40-45 per cent of the population). There are a large number of ethnic minorities. As for religious minorities, these are mostly small groups with Sikhs and Hindus being the principal ones as also Baha’is. Shias (Hazaras mostly, but also Qizilbashs) are also seen as religious minorities.

Bangladesh’s Constitution makes Islam the state religion. However it protects the rights of all citizens. Article 28 (1) states ‘The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.’ Bangladesh’s national identity has been influenced by Bengali language and culture, with the former playing a central role. More recently, religion – Islam in this case – has been increasingly becoming a central element of national imagination so much so that commentators talk of a change in national imagination from ‘Bengali’ nationalism to ‘Bangladeshi’ (Bhardwaj, 2010:3). Non-Bengali speakers – indigenous groups and Urdu speakers – are the principal linguistic minorities, and Hindus and Buddhists are the main religious ones.

Bhutan does not have a written Constitution but its national identity under the monarchy is constructed around Buddhism and the dominant Dzongkha linguistic identity. Interestingly and bucking the trend of numerical dominance marking majorities, Ngalungs, the dominant group in the kingdom – living in the north-west, who profess Buddhism and speak Dzongkha – make up only 15 per cent of the population and are thus really a minority ruling elite. Sharchops (who are Buddhists but speak a minority language, and inhabit the north-east) are demographically the dominant group. They make up 50 per cent of the population and are the principal minority. But it is the Lhotsampas (the southerners professing Hinduism and speaking Nepali), making up 30-35 per cent of the population at last count, who are minorities in the true sense.

India’s Constitution defines minorities as religious and linguistic, and these besides ethnicity, are the main markers of minorities in the country. The Constitution defines itself as secular in religious terms, with Hindi language and taking the pre-eminent, although not the sole position. But increasingly, the national identity is being sought to be redefined in Hindu religious terms. Muslims (14 per cent of the population, 2011 Census), Christians (2.3 per cent), Sikhs (1.72 per cent) and Buddhists (0.7 per cent) are the main religious minorities, there also being a large number of linguistic and ethnic minorities. Although not officially defined as such, Dalits and Adivasis (included largely within the Hindu fold, but a significant section also professing minority faiths) form the largest section of the ‘minority’ population with a small upper caste elite dominating power and influence.

Maldives defines itself as an Islamic state. And despite the apparent homo gentility of a largely Muslim population there is significant ethnic and linguistic diversity – Sinhalese, Dravidians and Arabs with overlays of respective languages. These are also the lines along which minorities are defined.

Nepal’s new Constitution (2015) defines the country as ‘a nation of minorities’ given that no single group in the new dispensation is overwhelmingly dominant. The old order, recently pulled down, saw Nepal largely as a nation of Hindu hill-castes. The new Constitution recognizes minorities and bases this on multiple axes of caste, geography, ethnicity, language and religion in an effort to include them all. In that sense, Nepal’s is a case of an expanded concept of national identity and of the definition of minorities.

Pakistan’s Constitution defines Pakistan as an Islamic republic and recognises minorities – religious and ethnic. The former are principally Hindus, Christians and Sikhs, and the latter Baluchs, Sindhis, Pakhtuns and Mohajirs. The national identity is centred around Islam – Pakistan’s self-image of being the land of Muslims – with Punjabi language (and ethnicity) providing the glue. Defining national identity purely in religious terms has however not helped Pakistan bridge its ethnic and religious divides and crucially is now leading to contestations around religion too with Sunni identity taking precedence to the exclusion of other Islamic sects, Ahmadis and Shias most prominently. These communities increasingly find themselves in a state of limbo neither included in dominant imaginations of the nation, nor clearly defined as minorities with clear rights.

In Sri Lanka, national identity is an amalgam of Buddhist and ethnic Sinhalese elements. The Constitution defines itself as secular, but gives foremost place to Buddhism. The Tamil speaking population –mostly Hindus, inhabiting the country’s north-east – is the principal minority that has felt largely excluded, the outcome of which and also the cause of continuing exclusion being the long standing armed ethnic movement that the Sri Lankan state has recently crushed militarily. Other minorities that have also felt wronged, more so recently, are Muslims dispersed across the country as well as Christians.

Some conclusions can be drawn from the previous section based on what the national identities are, how these influence the definition of minorities – de-jure and de-facto – and what that means for minorities and their ability to access citizenship rights:

In most cases, national constitutions define the communities, hence that is a good starting point to identify minority communities to focus on and assess their conditions. However, at other places identification is itself problematic. The Ahmadis’ case in Pakistan is a peculiar one where a group is forcibly and officially turned into a de-facto minority and refused identification within the larger and dominant Muslim identity. They suffer a double jeopardy when they are neither officially declared a minority – thus accepting them as citizens entitled to basic rights – nor being able to access those rights without denouncing their religious beliefs.
Similar is the case of Bhutan where Nepali speaking Lhotsampas have been declared non-citizens and large sections have been forced out of the country effectively making them stateless. In Bangladesh, Urdu- speakers, otherwise called ‘stranded-Pakistanis’ and in Sri Lanka, ‘Indian’ or ‘estate’ Tamils, have similarly been disenfranchised denying them the basic rights of citizens – most are ‘stateless’ – not to talk of any special protective measures. Likewise, large sections of Muslim Bengali speakers in the Indian state of Assam are often labelled ‘Bangladeshi’, implying illegal migrants questioning their citizenship. This is taken to its extreme in the case of Maldives where all non-Muslims are non-citizens. There are other albeit less fraught cases too: In India, although Jews and Baha’is are clearly religious minorities they are not declared so officially whereas smaller groups with similar socioeconomic conditions (such as Jains, considered a branch of Hinduism) have been categorized as a minority. This, within India’s regime of minority rights has implications for protective and promotional rights for the groups such as ‘personal laws’ that govern family law matters as well as rights to manage their own educational institutions.

Bhardwaj, S.K. (2010), ‘Contesting Identities in Bangladesh: A Study of Secular and Religious Frontiers’. Asia Research Centre Working Paper 36. London: London School of Economics.

Capotorti, Francesco (1991), Study on the Rights of Persons Belonging to Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities. New York: United Nations.

Chakma, Suhas (ed.) (2006), SAARC Human Rights Report, 2006. New Delhi: Asian Centre for Human Rights.

Council of Europe (1995), Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and Explanatory Report. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Khan, Borhanudin and Muhammad Rahman (1999), Protection of Minorities: A South Asian Discourse. Dhaka: EurasiaNet.

Mahmudul Haq Human Development Centre (2015), Human Development in South Asia, 2015. Lahore: MHHDC.

Manchanda, Rita (2010), ‘Introduction’, in Rita Manchanda (ed.), States in Conflict with heir Minorities: Challenges to Minority Rights in South Asia. New Delhi: Sage

Mepham, David (2014), Putting Development to Rights: Integrating Rights into a Post- 2015 Agenda. New York. Human Rights Watch. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/ world-report/2014/essays/putting-development-to-rights.

Minority Rights Group (2010), State of the World’s Minorities and Indigenous Peoples. London: MRG.

Minority Rights Group (2013), Strategy 2013-2016. London: MRG.

Minority Rights Group (2014), State of the World’s Minorities and Indigenous Peoples. London: MRG.

Minority Rights Group (2015), State of the World’s Minorities and Indigenous Peoples. London: MRG.

Minority Rights Group (2016a), Peoples under Threat, Data. Retrieved from http://peoplesunderthreat.org/data/.

Minority Rights Group (2016b), Peoples Under Threat, 2016. Retrieved from http://peoplesunderthreat.org/wp-content uploads/2013/10 Peoples-under-Threat-2016-briefing1.pdf.

Minority Rights Group (2016c), Human Rights and SAARC. Retrieved from https://www.minorityrightscourse.org/mod/page/view.php?id=1774.

Mishra, Vidhyapati (2013), ‘Bhutan is No Shangri La’, The Opinion Page. New York Times, 28 June. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/29/opinion/bhutan-is-no-shangri-la.html?_r=0

Nepali, Rohit K. (2009), Democracy in South Asia. Sweden: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA).

Panikkar, K.A. (2005), ‘Minorities in South Asia’, Keynote address delivered to the workshop on the Condition of Minorities in South Asia held in Delhi on 16-19 September. Retrieved from URL: http://www.sacw.net/DC/CommunalismCollection/ArticlesArchive/ knp15102005.html.

Salter, Mark (2011), ‘Democracy For All? Minority Rights and Minorities’ Participation and Representation in Democratic Politics’, The International IDEA Democracy Forum Madrid, Spain, 28-29 November, ‘Background note.’

The World Bank (2009), Addressing inequality in South Asia. Washington DC: The World Bank.

United Nations (1992), Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities. Geneva: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

United Nations (2010), Minority Rights: International Standards and Guidance for Implementation. Geneva: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

United Nations (2012), Protecting and Promoting Minority Rights: A Guide for Advocates. Geneva: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

United Nations (2014), ‘Minority rights key to an inclusive post-2015 development agenda’. Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/ Minorityrightskeytoaninclusivepost2015developmentagenda.aspx#sthash.18zsyOJO.dpuf.

US Commission on International Religious Freedom (2015), Annual Report, 2015. Washington DC: US Commission on International Religious Freedom.

All countries in the region provide a guarantee of life and security to all their citizens. This includes minorities. Yet there is widespread physical violence and denial of right to life disproportionately of members of minority communities across the region. Minorities also suffer disproportionately when they are denied civil and political rights. We notice three broad trends here:

Violence against minorities is, in essence, about state failure, that is, the state’s inability to protect minority groups from violence by private parties. This is an aspect of state failure given that the police is unable to protect vulnerable minorities from attacks by non-state parties (mostly militant arms of fundamentalist groups movements and individual and group acts of violence), and that law courts are unable to hold the perpetrators to account, thus failing in the state’s foremost duty to protect. In these situations state agencies are either overwhelmed by non-state actors or have weak capacity to protect minority citizens to begin with. Examples here include the violence by Afghan Taliban on Hazaras and women and other minorities in Afghanistan; by groups such as the Ansarullah Bangla Team and the Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) on minorities and progressive bloggers in Bangladesh; by Bajrang Dal, Shiv Sena and other Hindu right wing groups affiliated to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh against Muslims and Christians in India; by militant Islamist groups such as Sipah-e-Sahaba, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Pakistan Taliban against Shias, Hazaras and other minorities in Pakistan; and in Sri Lanka in recent years against Muslims and Tamils by Buddhist nationalist groups such as the Bodu Bala Sena and Sinhala Ravaya.
Besides poor state capacity, violence against minorities also represents weak rule of law, specifically the selective application of laws by agencies of the state denying minority groups’ protection under the law and access to justice. Poor efforts by the police and security forces to prevent anti-minority violence (either directed at individuals or the entire community) from breaking out, and once it has, weak efforts to contain it, is one aspect of this weak rule of law. Equally, other aspects of the criminal justice system including recording of crimes, investigating them and prosecuting perpetrators are all fraught, especially when it affects minority groups, in effect denying members of minority groups the right to equal protection under law. This selective application of the law is much more than weak capacity to protect; in most cases it represents collusion between state actors and anti-minority groups result- ing in systematic erosion of the rights of minorities to equal citizenship. These take many forms – state actors being influenced by majoritarian anti-minority ideologies and biases in discharging their responsibilities at best, to state actors abdicating their responsibilities allowing anti-minority groups to overwhelm state institutions and using those against minorities in its worst form. Biased policing and delivery of justice, much normalized across South Asia, is a good example of the former and genocides and pogroms not uncommon in the post-colonial history of the region that of the latter.
In some cases, it is not so much the weak application of the laws that is problematic, but the laws themselves contain the seeds of violence against minority groups. Blasphemy and anti-Ahmadi laws in Pakistan, Vested Property regulations in Bangladesh and laws against cow slaughter and conversions in India are examples of regulations that provide opportunities (in how they are applied) for biased state actors colluding with private anti-minority groups to perpetrate violence against vulnerable members of minority groups.
Finally, cases where the state directly denies the right to life to members of minority groups. Illegal detentions, torture, custodial deaths, extra-judicial killings and fake encounters and enforced disappearances are all human rights violations that occur with regularity in the region with minority groups disproportionately affected. Much of this takes place in the context of nationalistic conflicts – in Kashmir and the North East in India, Baluchistan, Karachi and NWFP in Pakistan, against Tamils in Sri Lanka (and in the past in the Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bangladesh, besides against Maoists in Nepal). The global ‘war against terror’ has provided another setting for subversion of justice with national security providing a cover for large-scale violations of the right to life, minorities again suffering the most. In both contexts, harsh ‘extra-ordinary laws’, devised by the state to counter ‘anti-state’ violence provide the basis for systematic violations. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958, 1990, the (J&K) Public Safety Act 1978 and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 2004 in India; Protection of Pakistan Ordinance 2013 and its amendment, the Actions (in Aid of Civil Power) Regulations 2011 and Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 including its many amendments in Pakistan; Public Security Ordinance 1947,Prevention of Terrorism Act 1979 and Emergency Regulations, 2000, 2005 in Sri Lanka; and the Nepal Public Security Act 1989 and the Anti-State Crimes and Penalties Act 1989 in Nepal are instruments used by South Asian states against their peoples, mostly minorities. Besides violating due process, state impunity is a key factor here with law and the criminal justice system aiding impunity of state actors (to violate rights) and the systematic denial of justice, either juridical or compensatory.

Right to identity, culture and conscience, is a key minority right. It is particularly important for multi-ethnic societies and in helping promote diversity ensuring that these rights are available equally to all, including minorities. Overall, South Asia fares poorly on the right to identity and culture. Most states provide some sort of freedom of identity, but the general trend is to promote the identity and culture of the majority community towards integrating the various diversities into a homogenized conception of the nation. Majoritarian ideas and imaginations, themselves the outcome of the peculiar history of the region, are behind much of this push for assimilation. These result in severe restrictions placed on minorities. Let us look at the different arenas closely.

Religious freedom is a key marker of right to identity and culture. There exists a wide spectrum here with Maldives disallowing in law any practice that is non-Islamic; poor in Bhutan where registration requirements mean that only Buddhist and to some extent Hindu groups are allowed freedom of religious practice; poor again in Pakistan against Ahmadis who are prevented from practicing their faith; to availability of formal religious freedoms in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka (and Pakistan for religious minorities) but practical restrictions on freedom of religion there, given the atmosphere of fear and intimidation against religious minorities in all these countries.
Language affiliations and freedoms is another key right to identity. It is also mixed up deeply with issues of ethnicity and in the context of SouthAsian history, has been an important trigger of conflicts. Bangladesh’s is the most famous case with the Liberation War (1971-72) waged by Bengali nationalists against, among others, the linguistic assimilationist policies of the Pakistan state. Tamil ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka too had its roots in the linguistic policies of the Sri Lankan state restricting Tamil language. Other prominent ethnic movements in the region – Kashmir and those in north-eastern India for instance – draw sustenance from perceived assimilationist policies and practices of the national government. In non-conflict contexts too language and ethnicity continue to be sites of discrimination and denial for minorities. This is reflected in language homogeneity and domination against minority languages. Urdu and other non-Bengali languages in Bangladesh; Baluchi in Pakistan; Nepali-speaking Lhotsampas in Bhutan; and minor languages in Afghanistan are examples of this. India has shown the way in accommodating linguistic demands and autonomy through administrative decentralization and by creating linguistic/ethnic provinces but the fate of dispersed minority languages, especially Urdu, has been harsh worsening with the growing hegemony of Hindi, the dominant language.

Non-discrimination in accessing services and opportunities is a key minority right. This has implications for the socioeconomic condition of minorities and their well-being. Across the region, laws promise equal access and non-discrimination to all in public services and opportunities. And yet minorities make up disproportionate sections of the poor and excluded in all countries. Hindus and Christians in Pakistan, Muslims (besides Dalits and Adivasis) in India, Dalits and Muslims in Nepal and Dalits and indigenous groups in Bangladesh suffer the worst socioeconomic drawbacks. Their access to services such as health and nutrition, sanitation and education, as well as to opportunities such as remunerative employment, credit and markets, is limited. Discrimination is at the heart of exclusion with minorities denied equal access to services and opportunities that the rest of the population expects as a matter of right. Discrimination works at multiple levels – local, where services are provided, but also at the policy level, where absence of a mechanism to identify and check discrimination enables discrimination to play out unfettered.

Across the region there is a dearth of efforts to address the deprivations faced by minority groups in the socioeconomic sphere. It is possible to deal with the situation through targeted programmes aimed at the specific disabilities and discriminations that minority groups face. India has an elaborate programme of support for Dalits and Adivasis including better access to services, housing, employment and education. In comparison, recent support programmes for minorities seem to be very modest in their design. Their implementation leaves much to be desired. Across the region there is little policy focus on addressing minority disabilities including poor documentation, tracking and reporting of data disaggregated by minority groups and little attention to cast the spotlight on how universal anti-poverty programmes and services work especially for minority groups. Overall, minorities and minority well-being are not a policy priority. This is a serious weakness.

Participation in public life including adequate representation and role in decision making in governing institutions is a key determinant of minorities’ realisation of equality and well-being. Most South Asian constitutions profess equality and non-discrimination to all citizens, including minorities. Yet, minorities’ exclusion from participation in public life including in governing institutions is widespread. This has a wider impact on the realisation of all other minority rights. Here we focus on the representational dimension of participation, looking at:

Political representation in elected bodies at the national and lower levels
Representation in civil services

There are broadly two trends here:

Legally denied, where the law itself discriminates between groups and minorities are denied equal treatment, for example, in accessing public office. Pakistan does not allow a person of any other faith but Islam to stand for office as President. In the case of the Prime Minister though the law does not prevent non-Muslims, restrictions kick in in terms of preventing non-Muslims from taking oath of office thus effectively keeping this position out of reach of minorities. Ahmadis, given that they are deemed non-Muslims, too are denied this right of standing for office. Their exclusion in participation runs deeper as they are denied even the right to vote in elections. And whilst the Constitution puts in place mechanisms for protection of minority representation in national and provincial assemblies through separate quotas these are not robust enough to ensure either proportionate or meaningful representation of religious (and ethnic) minorities in these houses. Similarly Maldives, Bhutan and Afghanistan discriminate against minorities when they restrict their access to political office.
Denied in practice: India does not discriminate formally against minorities in access to political and public office including the highest ones. And yet minorities, especially Muslims, are very poorly represented in elected assembles at national, state and local levels effectively blocking them off both from decision making and from a sense of being wedded to national processes. Critics have pointed to the design of the electoral system that encourages majoritarian outcomes combined with the absence of any proactive efforts to bring minorities, especially religious minorities, into governing institutions as being the cause of much of this poor representation.
Nepal is charting a new course in the region in terms of crafting an inclusive regime of political representation and participation for minority groups. It seeks to do this through devising an electoral system that seeks not only to keep the doors to political representation open to all (through the first-past-the-post system) but combines that with measures for positive support to traditionally marginalized groups (Dalits, religious minorities and women among others) to be better represented in Parliament and newly devolved provincial assemblies through a com- bination of ‘proportional representation’ and ‘quotas’ for marginalized groups. The new arrangement is already showing results with a marked increase in the representation of Dalits, women and minorities. This is still an evolving system but one that holds promise for a region where the norm is for minorities to be kept out of political power.

Civil services and the public sector in general are equally unrepresentative in the region mirroring the barriers that minorities face to political representation. There seems little effort by states to encourage greater minority engagement through programmes such as quotas. India, with an elaborate system of ‘reservations’ for Dalits (Scheduled Castes) and Adivasis (Scheduled Tribes) and other ‘backward’ groups in Parliament and state assemblies fails to provide anything similar for religious minorities. The handful of countries that do reserve quotas among other measures to encourage minority representation seem not to be able to show many results of those policies – quotas for religious minorities in Pakistan in the army and civil services and for adibashis in the Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bangladesh, have not resulted in great improvements in their representatives.

Several conclusions can be made drawing on the analysis presented in this section:

The poor condition of minorities in the region effectively means denial of basic rights to vast numbers of people (mostly on account of the discrimination that minority groups face). These are rights that most states provide in their constitutions and that which they are committed to providing (through international covenants that they are signatories to). In sheer numbers alone we are talking hundreds of millions of citizens who are denied basic rights to life, security, identity and culture, socio-economic well-being and participation. The vast scale of the denials also contributes to the poor ability of South Asian countries to meet their national development and well-being goals.
Poor rights for minorities have implications for conflicts. Behind many of the ethnic conflicts in the region – those fighting for greater autonomy within nation-states as well as movements for self-determination seeking independent states for themselves – are minorities and their perceived sense of grievances. Most negotiated solutions to these challenges – the Mizo Peace Accord, and that for linguistic accommodation in India; the Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord in Bangladesh; and the Comprehensive Peace Accord in Nepal, for example – have been about agreements on arrangements that purport to provide better for minorities. Clearly, efforts at minority rights’ protection and promotion are steps towards conflict prevention too.
Underlying this poor show of minority rights are weak policy commitments to delivering for minorities with little resort to robust institutional mechanisms for minorities or to targeted programmes and projects and poor attention to reviewing outcomes including through collecting and reporting data disaggregated by minority groups. In other words, minority rights, indeed human rights, are not a policy priority for most South Asian states.
Part of the reason for the weak policy priority for minority rights by South Asian states is the region’s strong majoritarian atmosphere. Nationalistic mobilization, both ethnic and religious, seeks to create homogenous societies and the first victims of this dynamic are usually minority groups. In recent times, majoritarian mobilization has intensified across the region. As the Minority Rights Group (2010:110) notes, ‘a growing trend of radical, sometimes militant, nationalism and religious extremism throughout the region, is posing a major threat to religious minorities.’ Islamist mobilization in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, the Hindu right wing in India and Buddhists in Sri Lanka, all seek to move towards hegemony of one religion and culture at great cost to the countries’ minorities. In this context, any talk of minority rights is seen by majoritarian groups and state actors as challenging the state and hence it is quickly delegitimised.

Majoritarian impulse is inherent in nation-states. In the case of South Asian states, historical legacies strengthen the majoritarian trend. These are about the region’s colonial encounter (including anti-colonial struggles) politicizing ethnic and religious identities. But more important as a factor was the creation of the post-colonial states through partition of much of the subcontinent splitting up ethnic groups across new and arbitrary borders and fears of the political elites all-around of further disintegration of successor states. Given this history the trend across the region has been for antagonistic nationalism (between successor states) with frequent conflicts (inter-state as well as against minorities) all with adverse consequences for minorities. As a result, denial of minority rights in practice even though guaranteed in law carries on with impunity.

There are other factors too which contribute to the rising trend of major- itarian nationalism in the region:

Institutional design: Parliamentary democracy with the first-past-the- post electoral design which is common to most South Asian nations favours ‘majority take all’ outcomes and ‘ethnic outbidding’ with contestants pandering to majority votes even at the cost of marginalizing minorities. It is no wonder then that elections and electioneering in the region are the sites of much minority bashing.
Clash between elites for control over the state – related to the above is the tendency of elites in their contests over control of state institutions to pander to majority interests and sentiments even at the cost of minorities. Elite contests with their narrow interests have a tendency to structure national debates along ideological lines that then end up ben- efiting majorities at the cost of minorities.
The media across the region is a reflection of and a driver of populist sentiments. The media– print and electronic – fuels jingoistic nationalism again ending up working adversely for minorities.
Finally a word about democracy in the region and the place of minority rights in it. South Asia has had a mixed experience with democracy. Some states have had long experiences with democracy although mostly in its formal sense (of holding elections and periodically changing governments). Others have had a more chequered history where even formal democracy is only a recent phenomenon. The poor condition of minorities across the region then is a reflection of South Asia’s ‘democ- racy deficit’, with the idea and practices of citizenship and equal rights not having taken roots and access to rights, justice and opportunities contingent on peoples’ ascriptive identities.

Given these adversities, the protection and promotion of minority rights then is going to be about deepening democracy. In the current context that would imply developing the state to treat all groups equally by putting in place systems to check differential treatment such as anti-discrimination laws and mechanisms and affirmative action policies to help marginalized groups overcome exclusions and disabilities. Central to this venture must be creating and entrenching safeguards including minority rights’ protection regimes, strong mechanisms for protecting human rights, establishing the rule of law, entrenching an independent judiciary, establishing non-dis- crimination policies and mechanisms, providing affirmative action policies and promoting diversity and multi-culturalism.