The boycott of Muslim businesses in temple fairs in Karnataka is unconstitutional

Arvind Narrain, Robin Christopher & Shujayathulla

The Peoples Union of Civil Liberties – Karnataka (PUCL-K) in a statement said it is deeply disturbed by media reports on the barring of Muslims from participating in auctions for the annual festival in Mahanlingeshwara Temple in Puttur district. The media has reported that this prohibition has been followed by the Hosa Marigud Temple in Udupi District refusing to allot stalls to Muslims.

There are also statements by Bajrang Dal and Shri Rama Sena leaders calling for the economic boycott of the Muslim community.

The boycott calls are sought to be given a fig leaf of legitimacy by referring to Rule 31(12) of the 2002 Rules of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, which state that no property, including land, building or sites situated near the institution shall be leased out to non-Hindus. However as Senior advocate Chander Uday Singh pointed out this is a deliberate misinterpretation of the provision as Rule 31 only deals with long-term leases of immovable property owned by a temple (up to 30 years for land, and five years for shops and buildings).

It does not deal with the short-term licences which would be used to allot stalls or spaces to vendors during a festival.

Both economic boycott and calling for economic boycott is violative of the constitutional promise of non-discrimination enacted in Article 15. Article 15, explicitly prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, besides race, caste, sex or place of birth. Article 15(2) further proclaims that no citizen be subject to any ‘restriction’ with regard to ‘access to shops’, ‘maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public’.

It bears noting that for Babasaheb Ambedkar, ‘shops’ was to be interpreted broadly to prohibit people from excluding others from economic life through boycotts based on religion, caste etc. We should also remember that Babasaheb Ambedkar was a vociferous opponent of social and economic boycotts noting that it was a form of ‘tyranny of the majority’.

In his words, ‘the method of open violence pales before it, for it has the most far reaching and deadening effect. It is more dangerous because it passes as a lawful method consistent with the theory of freedom of contract’

The call for social and economic boycott should deeply worry all Indians because of the tragic history of the aftermath of such boycott calls in world history. In Nazi Germany hate speech dehumanizing the Jewish community was followed by calls for social and economic boycott which was followed by the enactment of laws depriving Jews of citizenship and finally the genocide against the Jews. Rwanda and Myanmar followed a similar path in their path to committing the ‘crime of crimes’, genocide. We should take these warnings seriously from history and silence is not an option for any constitutional authority.

All constitutional authorities must step in to ensure that governance in Karnataka is in accordance with the Constitution and we do not go down a path taken by other countries such as Nazi Germany and Hutu power Rwanda.