'Most Arab countries do not give sufficient religious freedom to their minorities'

March 30, 2012

Irfan7

Irfan A. Engineer is the Director of Institute for Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution; Centre for Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai. Son of Asghar Ali Engineer, internationally known reformist-writer and activist, Mr. Irfan Engineer was a practicing advocate at the Bombay High Court. He is also the Associate Editor of Indian Journal of Secularism.

Q: We talk about minorities being targeted in India but so is the case with minorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Do you see a pattern of sorts in the way minorities are treated in various countries?

A: Minorities are discriminated against everywhere in the world. In the US, blacks are targeted. In Pakistan and Bangladesh Hindus and Christians are discriminated against. The world is multicultural. The issue is how minorities are actually handled by the state. Some states are more liberal and some are less liberal. The more liberal ones are the democratic states. Even there, many factors come into play such as the activeness of the civil society, whether they have a strong human rights network and so on. You have countries like Canada. It calls itself a multicultural state wherein it gives rights to people of different cultures, autonomy and space to co-exist. It also teaches multiculturalism in its schools. On the other hand there was the Germany of Hitler who said that all Jews should be eliminated from his land. In South Africa there was racial discrimination although the blacks were in majority and not really a minority. They were oppressed because they were powerless. In Ruwanda, another African country, you find that a minority tribe called ‘Tutsis’ were being ill-treated. A military dictator belonging to the majority tribe called them ‘cockroaches’ and gave orders and even powers to the citizens to kill these Tutsis. So minorities are a target almost everywhere in the world.

Q: How do you see India’s treatment of its minorities?

A: India is a democratic country and I would say its legal system is better than that of the US. However in practice, India too has black spots as far as treatment of minorities is concerned. India was largely feudal in the past. Partition too contributed to some propaganda. All this is still fresh in the minds of the people. There are solidarities with one’s own communities and loyalties to only religion. The Muslim elite migrated to Pakistan and the ones left here were mostly the backward and the working class Muslims. There isn’t a strong civil society from within. The Christians too are a tiny minority in India but they at least have some human rights network and institutions to fight. Generally, it is an accepted norm that a state has to protect its minorities. But the real issue is protecting the minorities while giving them the freedom to maintain their cultural identity.

Irfan1 According to a report more than 40,000 people have been killed in communal riots in India and most of them were Muslims. So where is the security? There is hardly any Muslim representation in parliament and assemblies. It is not more than 5% in the parliament while the Muslim community actually comprises of 14% of India’s population. Underrepresentation means lack of development. You go to any Muslim majority area or a Muslim ghetto in India, you will find that the infrastructure and facilities provided by the government there will be poor. The Congress has carried out token indulgence as far as treating Muslims is concerned. They think by declaring Eid Milad as a National holiday or doing similar gimmicks, they will please the Muslims. By declaring holidays even Hindus will feel happy ke ek aur chhutti mil gayi (What do we lose? We got another holiday). That is not what the minorities want. They want development.

Q: You have spoken about religious nationalism in your public talks and that the Muslim League too was an exponent of this type of nationalism during the freedom struggle. Some political commentators are of the opinion that they too were demanding special status in power circles because they were wary of the fact that post-independence, the Muslims will be cornered and oppressed as a minority. Your thoughts?

A: Yes it started off like that. But gradually they moved off that point of view and Jinnah started deviating from the issues that were being looked at in the beginning which led to the creation of Pakistan. Jinnah’s thinking gradually differed from that of Allama Iqbal who also influenced the Muslim League movement initially. Iqbal wanted a state which had a mixture of Islamic and socialist principles. He was against oppression and believed that the Islamic system of Zakath was a step in that direction.

Q: What about the treatment of minorities in Muslim majority states like Pakistan?

A: In India, although there is ill-treatment of minorities, the laws of the country guarantee rights to the minorities. In Pakistan, the laws are oppressive in nature themselves. Look at the blasphemy law that Pakistan has. Christians live in constant fear. The legal system is faulty. There is a separate electorate and there are hardly any representatives from the minorities in the Assembly there. Compared to Pakistan, Bangladesh is slightly better although minorities suffer there too.

Q: Do you agree that countries that call themselves as ‘Islamic states’ have actually deviated from the teachings of Islam?

A: Definitely. There has been a huge deviation. The Pakistani blasphemy law about abusing Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), for instance. Look at the life of the Prophet (pbuh). An elderly woman would throw garbage on him every day when he would pass by her house. Not a single time did he say a word to her and one fine day when he noticed that no garbage was thrown on him, he enquired about the lady. He was told that she had fallen ill and he went to see her and prayed for her recovery. What blasphemy law are they talking about?

Irfan5 Most Arab countries do not give sufficient religious freedom to the minorities in their lands, whether it is the Shia minorities or ethnic, tribal and other minorities. In Islam, the minorities are referred to as ‘Zimmis’ which means that they are under the protection and responsibility of the Islamic state. If you see the life of the Prophet (pbuh), you will see that he gave religious freedom to the followers of other religions in Medinah. He had even allowed a Christian delegation to pray inside his mosque (Masjid-e-Nabavi). Isn’t this multiculturalism? The Prophet (pbuh) and the Christians, Jews and atheists had signed a pact that each one will follow their respective religions but if Medinah is attacked, then all will join as one and fight the invading army. Isn’t this multiculturalism and co-existence? Allah says in the Quran that He has created nations and tribes and different communities so that people may know each other and not fight each other. So multiculturalism and diversity is created by Allah Himself. Hazrath Nizamuddin Aulia (ra) once told his student Amir Khusro (ra) when he saw a Hindu woman praying on the banks of a river, not to hate her as she too was worshipping the Almighty. The Quran says doing justice is next to piety. What Arab countries are doing today is following the will of their respective Sultans. If a Christian preacher is to enter some Arab countries, he has to do so with the permission of the Sultan. In some Arab countries even the Friday sermons of Muslims are to be delivered after being approved by the Sultan. So where is the religious freedom? The essence of Islam is being a good citizen. What is important is to practice the values of the Quran.

When people, especially Hindus ask me about the treatment of minorities in Arab countries, I say I support the minorities’ cause there. But I also counter question them as to what kind of treatment did our neighbouring Hindu Rashtra (Nepal) mete out to its minorities? I had been to Nepal and I found that minorities in Nepal, especially Dalits, peasants and the working class were being ill-treated. There were minorities who complained about not getting a right to property and so on. No wonder democracy got huge support in Nepal.

Q: Types of minorities differ and so do their problems. What should be done to ensure that their rights are protected?

A: Yes. A minority community in one country will be a majority in another. When Babri Masjid was demolished in India, Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh fell prey to violence. If you look at most unrest in the world, you will find that somewhere the minority angle will always be there. Bangladesh itself was carved out because of the conflict of a minority Bengali Muslim population that revolted against Pakistan. Even in the World Wars that took place you will find that ill-treatment of minorities was one of the factors – Hitler’s treatment of the Jews for example.

There are two models one can look at as far as treatment of minorities goes. The first one is the ‘Melting Pot Culture’ which the United States has wherein it claims that although there are people of various cultures living in the US, they are all ‘American’. It is like you put in various masalas and flavours in a vessel and they all blend and melt together to form one dish. That’s why it is called the melting pot culture. I feel it is an outdated concept because with this model, the different cultures risk the hazard of maintaining their cultural identity. The second model is the multicultural model or the ‘Salad Bowl’ wherein every ingredient adds to the beauty of the dish but maintains its own identity at the same time, unlike the previous model where the masalas that were put in lose their identity once the dish is prepared. I feel this should be the approach in treating minorities. People talk about minorities joining the ‘mainstream’. When they do so, they must first define what they mean by ‘mainstream’.

Across the globe, it is generally accepted that minorities have three basic rights. The first being security. The second is the right to produce and reproduce their culture. The third is not to be discriminated against on the basis of language, culture, religion etc. The state has to give special protection and rights for minorities.

Q: Many see reservations as tools that governments can use to help the cause of minorities. What is your take?

A: Reservations are just one of the affirmative actions that the governments can take to uplift minorities. The government can do better things. Even in reservations although people argue that the reservation criteria should be shifted to income-based rather than caste-based, they forget to take into account the social situation. A poor Brahmin cannot be put on the same pedestal as a poor Dalit because of the kind of history and the social capital of their respective communities that exist. I ask people who argue in favour of the income based reservation if a Brahmin family is willing to give their girl to a well-educated and rich Dalit boy in marriage? The backing of their respective communities and so many other factors come into play. Also, when you talk about reservations you must keep in mind that there is a difference in an upper caste urban boy getting 90% marks and a tribal boy getting 70% marks. The tribal boy perhaps knew only his mother tongue which is a local tribal language and then he goes to a government school where he has to pursue education in Kannada and then when he goes for an entrance test he has to face the exams in English. On one hand you have an urban boy being pestered by his mother to have cashew and curds and all the facilities at his disposal and on the other you have this tribal boy struggling his way out and sick of the society telling him that he is useless. So marks are not the only criteria.

But I feel more than reservations, importance has to be given by the government to address their problems as a whole. Make education accessible for the weaker sections and minorities, provide livelihood for the parents of such children, write off their fees… Then there is no problem in everyone competing.

Irfan2

Photos by Savitha B R

Comments

Add new comment

Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.

What about Kashmiri Pundits? Three Decades of Exodus

Ram Puniyani

February 22,2020

This January 2020, it is thirty years since the Kashmiri Pundits’ exodus from the Kashmir valley took place. They had suffered grave injustices, violence and humiliation prior to the migration away from the place of their social and cultural roots in Kashmir Valley. The phenomenon of this exodus had been due to the communalization of militancy in Kashmir in the decade of 1980s. While no ruling Government has applied itself enough to ‘solve’ this uprooting of pundits from their roots, there are communal elements who have been aggressively using ‘what about Kashmiri Pundits?’, every time liberal, human rights defenders talk about the plight of Muslim minority in India. This minority is now facing an overall erosion of their citizenship rights.

Time and over again in the aftermath of communal violence in particular, the human rights groups have been trying to put forward the demands for justice and rehabilitation of the victim minority. Instead of being listened to those particularly from Hindu nationalist combine, as a matter of routine shout back, where were you when Kashmiri Pundits were driven away from the Valley? In a way the tragedy being heaped on one minority is being justified in the name of suffering of Pundits and in the process violence is being normalized. This sounds as if two wrongs make a right, as if the suffering Muslim minority or those who are trying to talk in defense of minority rights have been responsible for the pain of Kashmiri Pundits.

During these three, many political formations have come to power, including BJP, Congress, third front and what have you. To begin with when the exodus took place Kashmir was under President’s rule and V. P. Singh Government was in power at the center. This Government had the external support of BJP at that time. Later BJP led NDA came to power for close to six years from 1998, under the leadership of Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Then from 2014 it is BJP, with Narerda Modi as PM, with BJP brute majority is in power. Other components of NDA are there to enjoy some spoils of power without any say in the policies being pursued by the Government. Modi is having absolute power with Amit Shah occasionally presenting Modi’s viewpoints.

Those blurting, ‘what about Kashmiri Pundits?’ are using it as a mere rhetoric to hide their communal color. The matters of Kashmir are very disturbing and cannot be attributed to be the making of Indian Muslims as it is being projected in an overt and subtle manner. Today, of course the steps taken by the Modi Government, that of abrogation of Article 370, abolition of clause 35 A, downgrading the status of Kashmir from a state to union territory have created a situation where the return of Kashmiri Pundits may have become more difficult, as the local atmosphere is more stifling and the leaders with democratic potential have been slapped with Public Safety Act, where they can be interned for long time without any answerability to the Courts. The internet had been suspended, communication being stifled in an atmosphere where democratic freedoms are curtailed which makes solution of any problem more difficult.

Kashmir has been a vexed issue where the suppression of the clause of autonomy, leading to alienation led to rise of militancy. This was duly supported by Pakistan. The entry of Al Qaeda elements, who having played their role against Russian army in 1980s entered into Kashmir and communalized the situation in Kashmir. The initial Kashmir militancy was on the grounds of Kashmiriyat. Kashmiriyat is not Islam, it is synthesis of teachings of Buddha, values of Vedant and preaching’s of Sufi Islam. The tormenting of Kashmiri Pundits begins with these elements entering Kashmir.

Also the pundits, who have been the integral part of Kashmir Valley, were urged upon by Goodwill mission to stay on, with local Muslims promising to counter the anti Pundit atmosphere. Jagmohan, the Governor, who later became a minister in NDA Government, instead of providing security to the Pundits thought, is fit to provide facilities for their mass migration. He could have intensified counter militancy and protected the vulnerable Pundit community. Why this was not done?

Today, ‘What about Kashmiri Pundits?’ needs to be given a serious thought away from the blame game or using it as a hammer to beat the ‘Muslims of India’ or human rights defenders? The previous NDA regime (2014) had thought of setting up enclosures of Pundits in the Valley. Is that a solution? Solution lies in giving justice to them. There is a need for judicial commission to identify the culprits and legal measures to reassure the Pundit community. Will they like to return if the high handed stifling atmosphere, with large number of military being present in the area? The cultural and religious spaces of Pundits need to be revived and Kashmiryat has to be made the base of any reconciliation process.

Surely, the Al Qaeda type elements do not represent the alienation of local Kashmiris, who need to be drawn into the process of dialogue for a peaceful Kashmir, which is the best guarantee for progress in this ex-state, now a Union territory. Communal amity, the hallmark of Kashmir cannot be brought in by changing the demographic composition by settling outsiders in the Valley. A true introspection is needed for this troubled area. Democracy is the only path for solving the emigration of Pundits and also of large numbers of Muslims, who also had to leave the valley due to the intimidating militancy and presence of armed forces in large numbers. One recalls Times of India report of 5th February 1992 which states that militants killed 1585 people from January 1990 to October 1992 out of which 982 were Muslims and 218 Hindus.

We have been taking a path where democratic norms are being stifled, and the promises of autonomy which were part of treaty of accession being ignored. Can it solve the problem of Pundits?

Comments

Add new comment

Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.

CAA: Should United Nations Norms be respected in Domestic Policies?

Ram Puniyani

March 14,2020

In the wake of Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) UN High Commissioner, Michele Bachelet, has filed an intervention in the Supreme Court petition challenging the constitutionality of the Citizenship Amendment Act, as she is critical of CAA. Responding to her, India’s Foreign Minister S. Jai Shanker strongly rebutted her criticism, saying that the body (UNHCR) has been wrong and is blind to the problem of cross border terrorism. The issue on hand is the possibility of scores of people, mainly Muslims, being declared as stateless. The problem at hand is the massive exercise of going through the responses/documents from over 120 crore of Indian population and screening documents, which as seen in Assam, yield result which are far from truthful or necessary.

The issue of CAA has been extensively debated and despite heavy critique of the same by large number of groups and despite the biggest mass opposition ever to any move in Independent India, the Government is determined on going ahead with an exercise which is reminiscent of the dreaded regimes which are sectarian and heartless to its citizens, which have indulged in extinction of large mass of people on grounds of citizenship, race etc. The Foreign minister’s assertion is that it is a matter internal to India, where India’s sovereignty is all that matters! As far as sovereignty is concerned we should be clear that in current times any sovereign power has to consider the need to uphold the citizenship as per the principle of non-discrimination which is stipulated in Art.26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political (ICCPR) rights.

Can such policies, which affect large number of people and are likely to affect their citizenship be purely regarded as ‘internal’? With the World turning into a global village, some global norms have been formulated during last few decades. The norms relate to Human rights and migrations have been codified. India is also signatory to many such covenants in including ICCPR, which deals with the norms for dealing with refugees from other countries. One is not talking of Chicago speech of Swami Vivekanand, which said that India’s greatness has been in giving shelter to people from different parts of the World; one is also not talking of the Tattariaya Upanishad’s ‘Atithi Devovhav’ or ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbkam’ from Mahaupanishad today.

What are being talked about are the values and opinions of organizations which want to ensure to preserve of Human rights of all people Worldwide. In this matter India is calling United Nations body as ‘foreign party’; having no locus standi in the case as it pertains to India’s sovereignty. The truth is that since various countries are signatories to UN covenants, UN bodies have been monitoring the moves of different states and intervening at legal level as Amicus (Friend of the Court) to the courts in different countries and different global bodies. Just to mention some of these, UN and High Commissioner for Human Rights has often submitted amicus briefs in different judicial platforms. Some examples are their intervention in US Supreme Court, European Court of Human Rights, International Criminal Court, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. These are meant to help the Courts in areas where UN bodies have expertise.

Expertise on this has been jointly formulated by various nations. These interventions also remind the nations as to what global norms have been evolved and what are the obligations of individual states to the values which have evolved over a period of time. Arvind Narrain draws our attention to the fact that, “commission has intervened in the European Court of Human Rights in cases involving Spain and Italy to underscore the principle of non-refoulement, which bars compulsory expulsion of illegal migrants… Similarly, the UN has intervened in the International Criminal Court in a case against the Central African Republic to explicate on the international jurisprudence on rape as a war crime.”

From time to time organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have been monitoring the status of Human rights of different countries. This puts those countries in uncomfortable situation and is not welcome by those establishments. How should this contradiction between ‘internal matter’, ‘sovereignty’ and the norms for Human rights be resolved? This is a tough question at the time when the freedom indices and democratic ethos are sliding downwards all over the world. In India too has slid down on the scale of these norms.

In India we can look at the intervention of UN body from the angle of equality and non discrimination. Democratic spirit should encourage us to have a rethink on the matters which have been decided by the state. In the face of the greatest mass movement of Shaheen bagh, the state does need to look inwards and give a thought to international morality, the spirit of global family to state the least.

The popular perception is that when Christians were being persecuted in Kandhmal the global Christian community’s voice was not strong enough. Currently in the face of Delhi carnage many a Muslim majority countries have spoken. While Mr. Modi claims that his good relations with Muslim countries are a matter of heartburn to the parties like Congress, he needs to relook at his self gloating. Currently Iran, Malaysia, Indonesia and many Muslim majority countries have spoken against what Modi regime is unleashing in India. Bangladesh, our neighbor, has also seen various protests against the plight of Muslims in India. More than the ‘internal matter’ etc. what needs to be thought out is the moral aspect of the whole issue. We pride ourselves in treading the path of morality. What does that say in present context when while large section of local media is servile to the state, section of global media has strongly brought forward what is happening to minorities in India.

The hope is that Indian Government wakes up to its International obligations, to the worsening of India’s image in the World due to CAA and the horrific violence witnessed in Delhi.

Comments