How do we see the calls for genocide and social boycott of Muslims in India in light of what Dr B.R. Ambedkar and the Indian Constitution say?
—
INDIA is beset by a worrying rise of aggressive calls for a genocide of Muslims by Hindu organisations and at ‘dharam sansads’ (Hindu religious gatherings).
Such hateful propaganda has become a staple of social media, along with calls for social and economic boycott of Muslims.
Increasing brutality
Many leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have also delivered speeches asking people not to engage with Muslims for business and economic purposes and have even asked the masses to boycott those who use push carts to sell vegetables, fruits and other commodities and earn a meagre income to sustain themselves and their families.
Only recently, in Purola, Uttarakhand, Muslims owning shops and business establishments were menacingly told to shut their shops and leave the place. They were described as land jihadis and were threatened with dire consequences in case they continued to stay there.
Also read: There is no justification for the economic boycott of Muslim vendors
Odisha, known for the peaceful coexistence of people professing diverse faiths, saw circulation of leaflets on social media in the Odia language calling for social and economic boycott of Muslims.
India is beset by a worrying rise of aggressive calls for a genocide of Muslims by Hindu organisations and at ‘dharam sansads’ (Hindu religious gatherings).
A few weeks ago, Muslim migrant labourers working in Gurugram and other parts of Haryana were driven out by Hindutva organisations. The inhabitants of those areas were warned not to hire their services.
Threats to exclude the Muslim community from the social and economic realms of our country have become recurrent, disturbingly regular and routine in all BJP-ruled states.
The ruling governments in these states are hardly taking measures against those who are bent upon violating the fundamental rights of Muslims to engage in trade and commerce and issuing calls to socially and economically boycott them.
Dr Ambedkar’s vision
Against this backdrop, it is instructive to recall Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s words who, in the draft Constitution for the United States of India, very presciently provided a separate section, titled “Provisions for the protection of minorities”, which specifically prescribed “protection against social boycott.”
The draft Constitution drafted by Dr Ambedkar in 1945 was submitted by him to one of the sub-committees of the Constituent Assembly and formed part of the documents of the assembly which gave to the country our Constitution which has stood the test of time.
In fact, Dr Ambedkar could foresee, as early as 1945, that minorities in India might be boycotted and their rights as citizens would be severely compromised in independent India. His commendable vision shone even before the Constituent Assembly began functioning on December 9, 1946.
It is true that Ambedkar’s prescient fears in this regard were informed by his experience as an Untouchable, as he had experienced the use of boycott as a tool against Dalits by upper castes first-hand.
It is instructive to recall Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s words who, in the draft Constitution for the United States of India, very presciently provided a separate section, titled “Provisions for the protection of minorities”, which specifically prescribed “protection against social boycott.”
Yet his apprehensions have come true in another sinister way and we are now confronting a terrible situation where Hindutva groups are spreading hate and calling for a social and economic boycott of Muslims with impunity.
It is fascinating to note that in Article II and Section III of the draft Constitution, Dr Ambedkar defined boycott and provided, “That social boycott, promoting or instigating a social boycott or threatening a social boycott … shall be declared to be an offence.”
Definition of ‘boycott’
The definition of ‘boycott’ given by Dr Ambedkar assumes relevance for our time to firmly deal with the repeated call for the boycott of Muslims and the callous disregard of the problem by the ruling government at the Centre.
The definition was broad in scope and provided that a person’s refusal to another person to let or use or occupy any house or land in the ordinary course of business would be deemed as boycott.
Even refusal to deal with, or work for hire or do business with another person or to render to them or receive from them any service in the normal manner of doing business would amount to boycott.
Also read: Veil, ignorance and the veil of ignorance
The definition also provided that refusal to do any of the aforementioned things on the terms on which such things should commonly be done would amount to boycott.
It also provided that any way of injuring, annoying or interfering with such other persons in the exercise of their lawful rights would be treated as a boycott.
The definition given by Dr Ambedkar would undoubtedly cover the frequent calls issued by Hindutva organisations for social and economic boycott of minorities in India seen after 2014.
It is imperative to note that Dr Ambedkar, inter alia, also provided that harm caused to a person in body, mind, reputation or property, or in his business or means of living by virtue of boycott shall be part of the offence of those who have boycotted him.
Ambedkar’s prescient fears in this regard were informed by his experience as an Untouchable, as he had experienced the use of boycott as a tool against Dalits by upper castes first-hand.
He also outlined the offence of instigating or promoting a boycott, stating that, “whoever publicly makes or publishes or circulates a proposal for or makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report with intent to, or which he has reason to believe to be likely to cause, or in any other way instigates or promotes the boycotting of any person or class of persons, shall be guilty of the offence of instigating or promoting a boycott”.
The aforementioned provisions are applicable to the gathering crisis caused in India now due to the relentless calls for boycott of Muslims in our country.
Boycott of minorities as cognisable offences
“All these offences,” Ambedkar said, “shall be deemed to be cognisable offences” and “the Union legislature shall make laws prescribing punishment for these offences”.
The proposed Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita should contain the definition of boycott of minorities given by Ambedkar and if possible widen it by including other provisions.
Although we still do not have a Central Act to prevent social boycotts, in 2017, Maharashtra became the first Indian state to enact the Social Boycott (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2016. The law disallows social boycotts based on caste, community, religion, rituals or customs.
Protection against communal executive
It is quite illuminating to note that Dr Ambedkar, while enshrining the provisions against boycott of minorities, also made a provision in Article II and Section III that the Constitution of the United States of India shall provide protection against “communal executive”.
“All these offences,” Ambedkar said, “shall be deemed to be cognisable offences” and “the Union legislature shall make laws prescribing punishment for these offences”.
This is of abiding relevance, particularly for the present juncture when the Union executive is maintaining a deafening silence on the issue of boycott calls against Muslims. In doing so, it generates an impression that citizens are now witnessing the emergence of a communal executive.
To firmly deal with calls for boycott of Muslims would mean that the Union executive should eschew communal biases and take stringent measures against those committing the offence of boycotting Muslim minorities.
