The Nehru Report and Muslim Rights — Page 61
[ 61 ] ed only on behalf of a minority numbering, say lOo/r J of the total, the majority in Esthunia should plead that the minorities in their country are too few to need any pro tection, being 10% only. One fact, however, is apparent in both cases. The motive is the same. That irrespec tive of the minorities being small or large, the majority is unwilling to concede to them their rights, and is bent upon their destruction on some pretext or others. MERE UNIFORMITY OF LAWS IS NO SUFFICIE�T SAFEGUARD FOR MINORITIES. Having proved the falsity of the doctrine that the need for protection depends upon the size of the minority, I now turn to the other proposition, namely, that the mere enactment of uniform laws ensures the due administra tion of justice. I have used the word � uniform • to signify both justice and equality. The two possible significances of the proposition are that- ( 1) when the same laws apply to all, justice becomes established, and there is no occasion for anyone to grumble, and (2) when both parties are treated on a basis of equality, and the laws are such as give due consideration to the need of both parties, then also there is nothing to complain about. To my mind the doctrine is fallacious in both of its interpretations. For, it is wrong that the formula tion of one and the same law for all communities gives no occasion for grievances because it leads to the establishment of justice. Nor is it right to assert that when laws are framed in fairness with a view to secure the respective rights of different communities according to their needs, their rights are safeguarded, and there