Thus except for a few concession which the assembly admitted for anglo-indians, no other religious minority could secure any political rights. The concession to anglo-indians as finally incorporated in the constitution comprised of provisions authorizing the president not to nominate more that two members of the anglo-indian communit to the house of people if in its opinion that the community was not adequately represented, a similar provision for nomination in the state legislative assemblies, both for the period of 30 years only, a provision for reservation in the post of railways, customs, postal and telegraph services for ten years, the reservation was on the same basis as provided before 1947. Moreover there was a special provision of special education grants for ten years which was available to the community in 1948. The constituent assembly did not concede any political rights to any other minority. What it ultimately conceded turned out to be rights relating to education, language and culture, and came to be incorporated as articles 29 and 30.
Inter – Relationship of Articles 29(29) and 30(1)
The framers of the constitution never intended that Article 29(2) to act as restraint on the content of the right articles 30(I). The way in which Article 29(2) came to assume its final shape in the Constituent Assembly in an interesting story. Originally the present Article 29(2) was part of the integrated scheme devised to protect educational interests of religious and linguistic minorities. The simple object of what now constitutes Articles 29(2) was to protect minorities from being discriminated against in regard to admission into state educational institutions. The recommendation of the minorities Sub-Committee made on April 19, 1947 for being incorporated as fundamental rights in the Constitution contains a provision in clause in which read: No minority whether based on religion, community or language shall be deprived of its right or discriminated against in regard to the admission into state education institutions.
The advisory committee approved this recommendation and incorporated it in the interim report. When it came in front of the assembly there was a lot of debate and discussion. Ambedkar referred the clause back to the advisory committee for clarifying its scope in respect of state-aided institutions about which no mention has been done in the said clause. When the assembly look up the re-drafted article for consideration, a member of the Assembly, Purnima Banerji moved an amendment seeking to prohibit state-aided institutions also from discriminating against minorities. Explaining the scope of clause 18(2), K. M. Munshi said that the scope is restricted to this that where the state has got an educational institution of its own, no minority shall be discriminated against. Now this does not recognize that the state cannot own an institution. Which excludes minorities. This minority right is intended to pretended to prevent majority control legislatures from favouring their own community to the exclusion of other communities.