|
Conference Report:
The Position of Minorities in India.
A Joint Colloquium with the Centre for South Asian Studies,
King’s College, London and INPAREL, 27 May 2003.
Introduction:
Michael Clarke
Professor Clarke welcomed participants to the Colloquium and introduced the speakers. He described the
work of the new Centre for South Asian Studies at KCL and hoped that collaboration between this Centre and INPAREL would prove fruitful in the future.
Richard Bonney
Professor Bonney echoed
Professor Clarke’s words. INPAREL was committed to ‘peoples to peoples’ dialogue in the sub-Continent; to human rights for all in South Asia; and for equality before the law (it was therefore critical of corruption,
the caste system and majoritarian abuses). INPAREL hoped in the longer term for a South Asian Charter of Human Rights enforced by a South Asian Court of Human Rights.[1] In the meantime, the objectives of South
Asian Forum for Human Rights (SAFHR), adopted in 1993, were worthy of support.[2] Human rights abuses were a general feature of the sub-continent, and not confined to India. However, the Indian claim to be the
‘world’s largest democracy’ and to have a ‘secular’, that is, pluralist, constitution meant that there had to be a relationship between theory and practice. This required a) an impartial criminal justice system at
the lower levels (not a ‘saffronised’ system as in Gujarat); b) an impartial administration; c) a commitment to the constitution and the impartial application of the criminal justice system by the central
government; d) an impartial and competent Supreme Court upholding the Constitution. The threat of ‘saffronization’ of the police, administration and judiciary meant that none of this could be taken for granted. The
danger posed by militarized hindutva was real. In its annual report (May 2003), the US Commission on International Religious Freedom has called upon the US Secretary of State to declare India a country of
‘particular concern’. ‘Despite India’s democratic traditions, religious minorities in India have periodically been subject to severe violence, including mass killings’, they commented. With the rise in power of the
Sangh Parivar’s political wing, the Bharatiya Janata Party, ‘the climate of immunity for the perpetrators of attacks on minorities appears to have strengthened’, they commented.[3] Similarly, the annual report of
Human Rights Watch commented on India: ‘in 2002, India witnessed its worst episode of communal violence in over a decade, demonstrating the increasingly volatile consequences of a broad and government-supported
Hindu nationalist agenda in the country. In February and March state-supported anti-Muslim violence in the north-western state of Gujarat claimed at least two thousand lives. As in Gujarat, attacks against
historically discriminated groups in other parts of the country, including Christians, Dalits (or so-called untouchables), and tribals, were carried out with virtual impunity. Attacks by militants continued to claim
many civilian lives in the disputed region of Kashmir and in the northeast.’[4]
Justice Suresh
Justice Suresh began by drawing attention to the Indian Constitution. He suggested that when it was
first written the Indian Constitution had two missing words: ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’. In 1976, when the Constitution was amended these words were added. However, it is exactly these two ideals which are under
threat at the moment in India.
The past decade has seen some of the worst incidences of communal violence and this has been fanned through the promotion of Hindutva, not for religious but for political ends.
He also noted that increasingly the RSS has been setting the government agenda and this has led to the increasing Saffronization of the civil service and the judiciary. This kind of influence has led to the
government taking action only against certain groups and ‘protecting’ or not prosecuting others. Examples of this can be seen in the distribution of trishuls, which are not seen as arms, and therefore, can be
legitimatly carried. Hate speeches have also increased in this period and most could be brought to justice under the Indian Penal Code, however, the government refuses to sanction such cases. The victims of the
communal violence in Gujarat found it hard to bring cases against the perpetrators as the judiciary in Gujarat were mostly government place-men.
The very fact that political parties are standing on religious
platforms is expressly forbidden in the Indian Constitution, yet time and time again, this principle is flouted.
Other examples can be seen in the anti-conversion laws of Tamil Nadu which not only contravene
the Indian Constitution (Article 25) but also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 18) to which India is a signatory. The Constitution allows for freedom of religion, as does the declaration of Human
Rights. Therefore, people should be allowed of their own free-will to convert or propagate their own religions, freely and without hindrance. In Gujarat, for example, if people want to convert then they need the
permission of the Collector to do so.
Justice Suresh suggested that the current BJP government is not loyal to the Constitution which enshrines India as a tolerant, pluralist democracy.[5]
Pralhad Jogdand: Position of Dalits in Indian Society
Prof. Jogdand first of all drew attention to the fact that Dalits are not a monolithic caste. Increasingly, in particular the mobile scheduled castes,
have become unhappy with minor changes, they want empowerment and want to move away from the margins of Indian society. Even though the Indian Constitution banned the practice of untouchability over fifty years ago,
little has actually changed. The Constitution was an essentially social document, but its implementation has been problematic, as Justice Suresh has already highlighted. Jogdand suggested that three issues were
vital to the empowerment of Dalits: protection (against exploitation and discrimination as well as under Indian law), welfare (proper healthcare) and education.
Caste is still a very important issue in Indian
society. Atrocities have been committed against, in particular the mobile scheduled castes such as the converted Buddhists.
The new economic policy which India has adopted is in many ways working against the
empowerment of the Dalits. The three cornerstones of this policy are: liberalization, privatization and globalization. Privatization in particular is having a detrimental effect on the Dalits. Schools and colleges
are increasingly being privatized and are open only to the wealthy (and therefore higher castes) whereas the state schools are empty, find it hard to employ well-qualified staff and often suffer from severe
shortages in terms of books and equipment. The state, which as enshrined in the Constitution is a welfare state, has increasingly rowed back from its obligations and responsibility. Increasingly, the state has
shaken of its responsibility to care for the poor and is responsible only for law and order. The mentality has very much become survival of the fittest, and so the poor are left on the margins, only able to attend
second-rate schools. Jogdand nevertheless highlights education as being the main need for Dalit community. There is a need for a good education at primary level, as well as sufficient health facilities and thus
capacity development of the people so they can work towards empowerment.
Caste is an issue which dominates all aspects of Indian life: for example, it is very hard for Dalits (even ones who have professional
jobs) to purchase land. Land is very much seen as a status symbol and therefore Dalits should not be allowed to compete on the same level as higher castes. Discrimination is part of everyday life for Dalits.
One issue which was briefly touched on was the plight of Dalit women who suffered deprivation on three levels: class, caste and gender. Their plight is often overlooked. Education of women is needed to enable them
to achieve empowerment.
The state must intervene and take up its responsibility for building a democratic, prosperous and social society. Proper development of the Dalits is needed.
The data taken from
government sources speaks for itself: out of the 547 judges only 13 were from Scheduled castes and 4 from scheduled tribes. There is no reservation in the judiciary. The rest is dominated by the upper castes. This
is a picture which is replicated through Indian society (even for profession where there is reservation for scheduled castes).
John Prabhudoss: Policy Institute for Religion and State
Christianity, although not classified in a recent official report as an Indian religion, came to India approximately 2000 years ago, some centuries before it came to Europe. The external threat has been used against
minorities from the sixth century onwards. History is being rewritten by scholars with vested interests with certain historic periods being seen as the ‘golden age’ of Hinduism.
Discrimination against
Christians is rife. There have been several incidents which have been reported in the international media such as the violence in 1998 against Christians; churches were burnt and priests murdered. Even the
international Christian community has for the large part ignored the plight of Christians in India.
This is due to the ignorance which surrounds the activities and the ideology of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad
(VHP-World Hindu Council), an organization with ties to the Bharatiya Janata party (BJP) - the leading member of the ruling coalition in New Delhi. In the west, in particular in the US and the UK, VHP and its
sister organizations are seen as legitimate social/charitable organizations which aim to promote the Hindu religion and institutions in India. However, as has become clear in recent years the VHP has a clear
political agenda that has little to do with charity. Many Christian organizations have unwittingly given donations to organizations and programmes linked to the VHP. The VHP has become very powerful among the Indian
expatriate communities. 70-80 % of trustees of temples in the US are members of the VHP or strong sympathizers of the Hindutva ideology promoted by the VHP. A similar picture exists in the UK. The international
community has turned a blind eye to this, either through ignorance or because these issues are of little importance to them. For example, the US government has remained largely silent on the massacres of Muslims
that took place in Gujarat with the connivance of the elected state government leaders belonging to the BJP.
It is however, not just minority religions like Christianity which seem threatened in India, but
the very idea of a pluralist democracy. Hindu fundamentalism has increasingly taken hold in Indian politics and the international community has remained silent in the face of human rights violations because India is
of strategic and economic importance in the region. In the US, the Hindutva lobby has become the second most powerful lobby group and has joined hands on many issues with the powerful Jewish lobby groups. The VHP
also funds, through the generous donations of Non Resident Indians all over the world, think tanks and pressure groups in the US to make sure that the case for promotion of the Hindutva ideology is well presented.
It is important that the international community looks beyond short term gains and interests and focuses on these human rights abuses, not just of Christians but of all minorities as these have huge social,
economic and strategic implications for the future of India.
Dabinderjit Singh: Sikhs, our future without justice?
Dabinderjit Singh began by giving an overview of Sikh history.
Pre-independence, the sacrifices made by the Sikh community were disproportionate to the Sikh population: for example, the population of the Punjab accounted for 13% of India, however, 77 % of all of those hanged
and 81 % of all of those who received life imprisonment were Sikhs. 60% of the Indian National Army was Sikh.
Post-independence, the Sikh population was split and 40% became refugees. Independence itself has
been marked by forgotten promises and by the violence which has marred the Punjab, which was once a fertile, wealthy and settled area. The Sikhs to this day have not signed up to the Indian Constitution because they
are not recognized as a separate group.
The sixties were marked by increased agitation for the recognition of Punjabi as a distinct Indian language. In the seventies, arguments of the diversion of river
waters to other states and hydropower were accompanied by calls for greater economic development of the Punjab. In 1973, a call came for greater autonomy, which was supported by other minorities in the Punjab. The
state of emergency in 1975 also hit the Sikhs disproportionately hard. On 13 April 1978, the killing of orthodox Sikhs and campaigns of baptism led to non-violent protests.
In the eighties, and in particular
1984, the Sikh community suffered again a great deal. The siege and attack on the Golden Temple in Amritsar and the anti-Sikh pogroms which followed the assassination of Indira Gandhi were dark days for the Sikh
community. It has been estimated by human rights organizations that the death toll in Delhi alone in November 1984 was 10-17,000.
In November 2001, seventeen years after the anti-Sikh pogroms, the world still
has not reacted. Where is the justice for the Sikhs? In 2003, Amnesty International has published a report ‘Breaking the cycle of torture in Punjab’ which suggests that the authorities are still using the same
tactics as when there was armed insurgence in the state. State officials believe themselves to be above the law and able to violate it with impunity.
A recent report, published in May 2003, highlights the
hundreds of cremations which have taken place of people held in police custody in the Punjab. The Sikh political party has now however, moved closer to the BJP and RSS.
Sikhs outside India have an important
role to play in gaining justice for the Sikhs in India. They are able to speak out for the Sikhs in India who do not have access to the international community.
Without justice, the Sikhs have no voice. The
Sikhs within India are often portrayed as being militaristic and it is true that there are large numbers of Sikhs in the Indian Army. However, it is likely if war were to break out again between India and Pakistan,
be it nuclear or conventional, that this war would be fought in the Punjab. This event may lead to the break-up of India, where would this leave the minorities?
Footnotes:
[1]
Ross Masood, Towards a New Regional Order in South Asia (INPAREL South Asian History Academic Papers, 4, Leicester, 2002), 211-219.
[2]
1) To promote respect for universal standards of human rights with emphasis on universality and interdependence of human rights. 2) To provide a forum for exchange of ideas and concerns between the human rights organisations and human rights activists of the seven countries of South Asia. 3) To expose human rights abuses in the region. Human rights are abused in dark places and the abused persons are often forced into silence in their own country. By organising regional conventions and dialogues and through publication of reports SAFHR will provide the human rights NGOs and activists an opportunity to expose these abuses. SAFHR shall strive to develop a regional campaign against such abuses by national governments of the region. 4) SAFHR shall establish a communications network among South Asian human rights activists and NGOs and shall bring out regular publications on human rights issues. 5) SAFHR shall undertake programmes and campaigns to generate awareness for the rights of the minorities, displaced persons and refugees and work for the reduction of statelessness. SAFHR shall campaign for ratification of UN conventions and protocols for the protection of refugee, stateless persons and migrants by the states of the region. 6) Through the mechanism of people to people dialogue, SAFHR shall strive to create inter-state and regional level peoples' forums for intervention in situations of intra and inter-state conflicts, lobby with governments and South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) for creation of such regional conventions and mechanisms which will improve the quality and standards of human rights all over the region of South Asia.
[3] <www.rediff.com/news/2003/may/14us.htm>
<www.uscirf.gov/reports/02May03/finalReport.php3#_Toc39640791> :
‘The Commission has grown
increasingly concerned about abuses of religious freedom in India, including the communal violence and killings that took place in Gujarat in 2002. After the killing of 58 Hindus by Muslims on a train in the town of
Godhra on February 27, 2002, retaliatory violence in Gujarat by Hindus against Muslims resulted in the deaths of at least 1,000 Muslims, many of whom were burned alive. Several reports suggested that the government
of Gujarat, which is dominated by the Bharatia Janata Party, and some members of the police force may have been implicated in planning the violence and doing little to halt the attacks against Muslims. These reports
came from many domestic and international sources, including India’s own National Human Rights Commission. Alarmed by the religious violence and in response to the U.S. Administration’s failure forthrightly and
publicly to condemn the killings of Muslims in Gujarat, the Commission held a hearing in June 2002 to learn more about the situation, highlight violations of religious freedom in India, and discuss how the United
States, through its policy toward India, can play a role in helping to protect religious freedom there. In July 2002, Commission Chair Felice Gaer and Vice Chair Michael Young met with the Indian Ambassador to the
United States. In August 2002, the Commission sent a letter to Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, urging him to raise religious freedom concerns with the Indian government during his trip to South Asia.
Deputy Secretary Armitage told the Commission that he did so. The Commission also met with several Members of Congress to discuss the violence in Gujarat and the U.S. government’s response. In light of the alarming
level of religious violence that occurred in that country, in September 2002, the Commission recommended that India be designated as a CPC.’
[4] www.hrw.org/wr2k3/asia6.html
[5] For his subsequent interview: www.le.ac.uk/pluralism/inparel_forthcoming.html
|
