The Nehru Report and Muslim Rights — Page 57
[ 57 j clearer I think it desirable to point out that the Nehru c:ommittcc has supported the C:ongrcss and the Maha sabha view that when equitable lavvs will be formulated, the n1inorities will not stand in the fear of harm at the hands of 1najorities, and there �hall be no need to afford the1n special protection. The argument has all along been advanced by the Hindu community, and even in the Nehru-Report the same may be read between the lines. In fact, the Report has advanced a queer new argument. It says :- " If communal protection was necessary for any group in India it ·vVas not for two major communities, the Hindus and the Mosle--ns. It might have been neces sary for the small communities which together form 109{, of the total. " ( Nehru-Report, p. 28 ). Thus according to the Nehru Committee, minorities as a rule require no protective laws. If such laws are necessary, they are necessary for very small communities, and not for the Mussalmans. I am unable to follow the logic of this argument. The finding appears to me to be wholly contrary to reason. It may be held to be correct only if we assume the correctness of the following pro positions which is far from being the case:- (i) Between the large minority and the majority there are chances of friction less than those between the small minorities and the majority. (ii) Uniform laws always lead to due administration of justice. On my part I am not prepared to accept the correct. . ness of either of the two propositions, and I do not think any wise man will accept them to be correct. The first of the two propositions is incorrect, because the fact, that brings a majority and a minority into conflict, is not the difference of their numbers, but the presence of some