New York Time's version of religious intolerance in India

Recently an editorial appeared in the NYT signed the Editorial Board.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/26/opinion/religious-intolerance-in-india.html?referrer

Here is my response to it which I am sure wont make it to the readers letters section.

This is in reference to the recent editorial published in NY Times regarding the religious conversion controversy in India. While I find that it correctly mentions several facts about the recent events. It does not cover the whole picture.

Hinduism being a non proselytising religion is under constant assault by western fundamentalist Christian churches which have a stated goal to Christianize India.

Organizations like JoshuaProject, Worldvision, Harvest India and innumerable other missionary churches have in past and at present continue to use allurements like superstitious faith healing, cash, medical services, education etc to "Harvest Souls" & save "poor Indians" from the "darkness" of their "false gods" & "evil spirits". Billions of dollars are directed each year to India for this purpose. Recently a case was registered in Kashmir against a Christian pastor trying to convert Muslim youths in Kashmir by allurement.

Christian missionaries are known to come to India on tourist visas and illegally engage in proselytism of children in their schools.

Christian churches are also known to support terrorist organizations that target local Hindus. Killing of Swami Lakshmanananda in 2008 by left wing extremists supported by Christian organizations which resulted in Kandhamal riots in Orissa and the recent killings of 80 Hindu Vanvasis by NDFB terrorists in Assam are a few examples. One of the stated demands of Christian NDFB terrorists is to replace the traditional Devanagari script of Bodo language with Roman alphabets.

So the issue is not as straightforward as NYTimes seems to suggest, that the so called oppressed Hindus convert to other faiths under their own volition.

I hope in future your paper carries a more balanced story on the real facts on the ground and calls the american churches by name which play a part in generating discord in India through their unethical practices backed by loads of US dollars.

Personal Tragedy V/S National Tragedy

When a man commits an illegal act and gets caught, it is no doubt a personal tragedy for him and his family. I am sure most people regret that they erred in their judgement. They would certainly not like to be in jail and would wish that the past act would never have taken place. Unfortunately the legal process in our country has its own pace. The under trial has to go through a long trial in the courts. For an innocent person such a trial can itself be the punishment on the other hand for the guilty it may even be an act of buying time. The Bombay blast case has gone one for 20 years. The victims of the blast have waited 20 years for justice which is still elusive because the masterminds of the blast are still beyond the reach of law.

Sanjay Dutt was convicted by the supreme court for illegal possession of banned weapons and sentenced to the minimum sentence prescribed by law. Then he along with some other accused punished for similar crime were given 1 month to surrender. Today Sanjay Dutt got another reprieve to surrender after another 4 weeks. He wanted to finish his films before going to jail to serve his sentence for which he wanted 6 months reprieve. So the court in supposedly "humanitarian grounds" gave him 4 weeks with no further extension and he accepted. All in all this whole episode gives the appearance of a bargain for delay rather than humane gesture. If the producers have money locked in on Sanjay Dutt then the question here is of money not of "humanitarian grounds". A mother who has a child appearing for his school exams probably deserves more humanitarian gesture for month delay rather than a movie actor who wants to finish his films so that he and his producers do not suffer a loss.

Whatever be the real truth, in the end this case gives an impression of deliberate delay to keep a rich, politically connected celebrity out of jail for as long as possible, rather than one of delivering justice where justice is due. Mr Dutt's claiming suffering due to inordinate delay does not cut the bill; after all Mr Dutt did not spend his years out of jail, since he was first arrested, doing national or social service to deserve a reprieve. He was busy making money, living the good life and working for entertainment of his movie loving fans. It does not quite cover for the loss that the victims of the 93' Bombay blast had to suffer. Given the circumstances under which he has been found in illegal possession of banned weapons, he has knowingly or otherwise been linked with the entire bombing episode which he should have certainly avoided.

Whatever be Sanjay's personal tragedy it does not cover for the national tragedy which people of India have collectively suffered. The court seems to have erred, but people are not pleased and the politicians along with the government of Maharashtra should be forewarned, not to act on Sanjay's mercy plea in a way which will lead to dissatisfaction among the people of Bombay, because they are in no mood to forgive.

Let us forget the "Day We Want to Forget” - Response to piece by Dr Altaf Hussain

Kashmir Times published an opinion article on 16 March 2013 “Sale of Kashmir: A Day We Want to Forget” - Dr Altaf Hussain Para. The author of the article seems to have made a very selective reading of Indian History while making his assertion about the “darkest day in Kashmiri history” and his assertion that “a group of otherwise unrelated tracts were converted to form a Princely State, which had nothing in common except a ruler imposed on it, purely for political considerations”. It does not serve truth because many rulers in Indian history had formed several states by conquest or treaties. This is precisely how the Mughal Empire also came into existence. Another fact of the matter is that the strategy used by the British to extract rent from Indian rulers and conquer territory was pretty much the same throughout India. It is described in one line as "Divide and Rule".  Story of their capture of Punjab and treating Jammu and Kashmir as a vassal state was no exception and similar history can be found starting with the British capture of Bengal with the aid of Mir Jaffar in 1757.

 

People of the country have moved beyond the past because the past rulers and the British intrigues of the past are no longer relevant. After all every community or ethnic group of people can harp on the excess committed by some Maharaja or Nawab or Emperor depending on how you want to read history and how far back in history you want to go. Each one of us be it Punjabis, Gujratis, Sikhs, Bengalis, Rajputs, Malyalis or so on can cite from history how one ruler was replaced with next and how he was worse than the last and so on. The British ruled us by dividing us on religious and ethnic lines and left a parting gift of Partition of subcontinent on communal lines which lead to a million plus people who were otherwise living peacefully together getting killed in communal riots.

 

It is relevant to note that the independence of the entire subcontinent of India from the European colonizers was brought about through what is known as the Indian Independence movement. The entire population of the subcontinent became free thanks to that. The movement for creation of Pakistan was not a movement of independence of Pakistan it was a communal movement for separation and we all know the consequence. It is hence important to note that the future of the people of what is left of India lies in the best traditions of secularism, tolerance and respect for law. There is noting to be gained from the kind of article Dr Altaf Hussain Para has produced except to inflame passions and create regional divide in the minds of the people of State of J&K in terms of ethnicity and religion.

 

The state of Jammu and Kashmir on our side of LOC is a single democratic political state unit, people belonging to all ethnic groups, all religions groups are equal and have equal right to life and liberty. The present phase of violence which started in '89 will in larger context only be seen as blip in our history of coexistence in peace. Peace can only prevail in J&K and by extension in rest of India through secular traditions, tolerance and respect of law and constitution, which is the only guarantee for safety and prosperity of all communities including minority communities in any part of the country.

 

The Idea of India and the legal representation of the Idea of India which is the constitution of India is what guarantees safety and prosperity to any kind of minority or majority population in the subcontinent. From Afghanistan to Myanmar only India stands out as a country where by constitution and law minority rights are protected, stresses to this guarantee in the form of operational weakness of our democratic and administrative institutions not withstanding. No other country has managed to do this. Hopefully the people of J&K and the readers of Kashmir Times will take a more holistic approach to our shared History rather than make selective reading from it for narrow political motives.

Kashmir - Is more autonomy the solution?

When one reads about the clamor in media for implementation of more autonomy proposal from GOI interlocutors for Jammu and Kashmir one wonders if more political autonomy is a solution. The real question to ask about solution for Kashmir is to ask what are the steps that need to be taken to ensure that the Kashmiri minority which has had to escape the valley and is living like internal refugees be able to return to the valley and live in peace?

There was an article published in the Greater Kashmir newspaper published in J&K under the headline "Kashmiris hate India like rats hate cats." about a statement made by one of government appointed interlocutors. There are many contradictions in those statements and the headline in the newspaper. Saying "Kashmiris hate India" is a suggestion that India and Kashmir are separate entities. Then the generalization that Kashmiris hate India is far too casual. The interlocutors could not have met each and every Kashmiri nor would they have thoroughly analyzed all the reasons and aspects of their dislike or hatred to come to the conclusion that they hate 'India' or is it that they are filled with hate thanks to certain events of their life post 1989 cycle of violence and what is needed to get them on board is 'truth and reconciliation' not appeasement by promises of autonomy which is path to further alienation and drift from the national mainstream. What exactly about India do the ones who are filled with hatred hate? Is it that India is a secular, democratic, republic which by its constitution guarantees equal rights to all irrespective to his or her background? I doubt if any Indian can hate an India built on as noble and progressive ideal like that.

When even culturally and civilizationally independent countries of world are moving closer to each and removing barriers by creating EU and APEAC, we in India who have inherited an Idea of India which was bold and unique for its time and lead to the creation of a multi-cultural pluralistic multi-religious, multi-ethnic, secular and democratic republic for the people of the subcontinent, who are tied to each other by history of coexistence and civilizational ties over several millennia are unfortunately drifting apart due to petty regionalism and communal divisions. I am in no way a so called 'Hindu Nationalist' nor am I sympathizer of a reactionary  ideology of majority domination. I am sold to the "Idea of India" as any as might exist and with the force of those credentials I have exceptions to some of the suggestions of the interlocutors report created by the team. The most exceptional was on the Idea that Jammu and Kashmir needs more autonomy. I agree to the Idea of more decentralization of governance but not more autonomy of the kind that are contained in some of the provisions of article 370 which are so divisive and so against the Idea of India that the great makers of our constitution who under grave misgivings agreed to it only as a temporary provision. I am making an assertion that if the people of J&K are alienated today it is not because of removal of autonomy it is due to the sense of separation which was unfortunately built by the existence of such a provision for a 60 years. It does not take long to see what might happen say if you apply this article 370 to any part of India. The population of that part will forever be hostage to the regional and communal strife and identity politics rather than be on path of economic prosperity. If no outsider is allowed to become a Kashmir and adopt Srinagar or Jammu or Rajauri as home because of the retrograde state subject laws that exist there then what ties with the other regions of the country do we expect. It is 60 years of drift that had to be corrected not create a recipe for more drift. If it was the partition of Bengal and the separate electorate on the basis of religion that sowed the seeds of India's partition on religious lines then it is also the kind of constitutional provisions that were created for J&K with lead to growth of separatism in the valley.

The extermist forces in Kashmir will assassinate every voice of reason and are responsible for many a deaths including that of Maulana Showkat who had raised his voice against stone pelting by youth in 2011. There is a constant propaganda  regarding various aspects of Afzal Guru case that goes on in the local Kashmir media. While it is true that his abrupt hanging and denial of the right to his family to meet him for the last time was cruel and I second some arguments about jumping the queue but I am not sure if we can sit in judgement about the merits of the pronouncement of death sentence to him. I am not sure if not executing Afzal Guru for political reasons would serve the image of justice and law in our country either. Can we trust nothing in this country not even the highest court? Can we go on delaying carrying out court judgments for political reasons? How do we propose to fight extremism? By cowing down to it or by addressing the reasons for it.

Finally I would like to say that any solution to the difficulties in Jammu and Kashmir lies in more integration not less. Sikkim  has been successfully integrated in India and is today not only showing high economic growth and lower poverty levels but is peaceful and comfortable both in its regional and national identity. The reason why the Moists extremists of Nepal were not able to fan the flames of the Greater Nepal movement is a testament to its successful integration. I am in no way expecting that the entire article 370 can be abruptly removed but giving more autonomy to the State government is certainly a step in the wrong direction. More decentralization can be attempted and the state gov can be encouraged to implement some of the panchayat governance reforms which are clearly helpful in winning the hearts and minds of the people which is quite evident from the assassination of the sarpanchs by extremist forces. We should be doing everything that the extremist forces do not want us to do while keeping in mind that we do not wish to take steps that lead to less integration.

As a thought experiment I would say what are the steps that need to be taken to ensure that the Kashmiri minority which has had to escape the valley and is living like internal refugees be able to return to the valley and live in peace. We don't need to heed to divisive forces but answer to the steps that lead to improvement of the lives of ordinary citizens and marginalize the very vocal separatist and extremist forces. In a talk show organized by noted Pakistani progressive writer and editor Tahir Gora has given a forum to Kashmiri minority and Kashmiri Muslim participants to discuss the problems of the minorities and what is the reason they feel has lead to this alienation in Kashmir. There in lies the real solution unfortunately no one in India is listening.

Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence Bill

I have followed several television debates, and newspaper articles on the new proposed Prevention of Communal & Targeted Violence Act(PCTV) and have heard arguments from both sides. But I have not heard anyone making a balanced analysis that mentions both the flaws and the benefits of the new bill.

An argument being put forward by many of the proponents of this bill(including the drafting committee) claiming this bill is not discriminatory is that "Hindus" will also be protected in Jammu and Kashmir by virtue of them being a minority community there (of course they don't mention it is subject to J&K assembly accepting this bill). The argument being made by some opponents is that it is essentially an appeasement of Muslims. Here is my take on this bill.

Anyone who reads the draft bill is greeted with the statement that states "It extends to the whole of India. Provided that the Central Government may, with the consent of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, extend the Act to that State". There in front of us is the reality of our country, where we have given so much autonomy to a minority community simply for being a majority in a particular state and yet the secessionist and divisive elements prevail in J&K. The moderates demand more autonomy and the extremists demand secession. Positive discrimination alone did not ensure communal harmony.

This forms my prime argument about the inherent flaw in this bill. The flaw is that of division of population in front of law and the definition of the victim "group". My argument is that any amount of special rights to a group for being a victim group will not bring justice finally for the individual. Simply because this is an intractable problem, there is no right division. There is no right definition of a “group” victim or victimizer. In fact if this bill read in exclusion of the definition that this act uses for “group”, and the word group is used in a more general term as understood in common language then this act would be an excellent act and nobody in his right mind would disagree with most of the things mentioned here. In fact the definition of “communal and targeted violence” in this act is coloured by the definition of “group”. The victims of the “group” seem to be the real victims and the other victims are second class citizens when it comes to delivery of justice as per this law.

Let me mention what I have always believed about any division based on groups. I would say when you have to divide, divide down to the individual, not to any particular group. So when you have to protect anyone by law, protect the rights of an individual, irrespective of what group, or subgroup he or she may belong to as per a certain definition of a group.

So I don't quite agree with the definition of group (minority) as per this bill, and special protection for that group. Special privileges for Schedule Cast and Tribes in our country were provided to ensure they are protected and have opportunities of growth. 60 years of positive discrimination has not been enough to bring the SC/ST “group” equal rights and respect.

The current framework has only served to institutionalize that discrimination and bring it in the DNA of our country. The so called reservations have only led to more demands from other groups and subgroups for reservations favouring them. The so called general category has become more antagonized against the SC/ST/OBC because of reduced opportunities for them. The recent cut off of 100% in Delhi University which created such an outcry is of course only in general category.

I fear that further divisions of our society are being created in this anti-riots bill. Every citizen should be equal in the eyes of the law. When you define minority for special privileges, how to you define them? Do you define them only in terms of the religious and linguistic minority in a particular state by population? What if there is a Christian family living in a Muslim dominated ghetto in Nagaland. Who is the minority here the Christian family or their Muslim neighbours? Also why does the bill treat all Schedule Cast as one group, there are majority and minority religions in the SC and ST categories too. What if a majority Christian ST group commits violence against a minority Jain ST group? Where is protection for this “group” under the provisions of this law?

We are a secular country that means citizens are equal in front of the law no matter which religion they belong to. Religion is a private affair for the individual and should have no legal bearing in a secular country, except that every individual has a right to pursue his religious beliefs. The constitution does not say that every specially defined “group” has a right to pursue his religious beliefs. The keyword is "individuals" or “citizens”. This bill has simplified its definition of minority group by using the population in the entire state as a whole. This may be simple to define in a law, but does it address all acts of violence by one “association” on another “association”( the law uses “association” in place of the general term of group which we use in common language).

It is fair to assume the greatest culprits have been the public servants who have been derelict in their duty and have taken sides in a communal violence. That means the law should have restricted itself to sever punishment for such dereliction of duty and should make it mandatory for them to take immediate actions as per law to protect the victims of violence. That would have been enough to ensure that the administration does not become a party to the riots. But creating provisions which discriminate against an individual simply because as per the law he belongs to a majority group is not fair. We as a nation have to evolve and grow over this group and sub-group mentality.

If we have to divide, divide down to the individual and protect every individual's right, by treating him or her equal to any other individual, in the eyes of the law. That is the foremost fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution, every individual is equal before law. I am not a constitutional law expert but my intuitive understanding of right to equality under the constitution is that PCTV act in its present form infringes upon a citizens right to equality before the law. Barring special provisions for advancement of women, children, socially or educationally backward and SC/ST the state cannot create laws that are discriminatory.

Lastly I would like to argue that bringing this divisive draft bill in public domain at a time when public opinion is against the government on the Lokpal bill, is highly suspect, and may very well have been intended to deflect attention.