SACW | 03 Oct. 2005
sacw
aiindex at mnet.fr
Sun Oct 2 20:29:36 CDT 2005
South Asia Citizens Wire | 03 October, 2005
[1] Pakistan - India: Will the next summit succeed? (M B Naqvi)
[2] Minorities In South Asia (K.N.Panikkar)
+ Declaration Adopted by the delegates to the
workshop on the Condition of Minorities in SAARC
Countries (New Delhi, 16-17-18 September, 2005)
[3] India: Access Denied : a secular country
with communal and sexist adoption laws?
(Editorial, The Times of India)
______
[1]
The News International
September 21, 2005
WILL THE NEXT SUMMIT SUCCEED?
by M B Naqvi
Indo-Pakistan Summit on Wednesday (Sept 14) only
succeeded in continuing the talks and saying that
terrorism and other impediments will not be
allowed to derail the dialogue. There was no word
about further agreements. President Pervez
Musharraf has put a positive spin on this
blankness. One hopes he is right. The Composite
Dialogue has failed in its first two rounds. It
was expected that this Summit would agree to
inaugurate the Third Round. It has not done so.
In a way, we are back to square one, if not
further behind it.
Let's enumerate the issues that require
resolution. One puts them in six boxes. The first
is about Kashmir. The second groups Siachin and
Sir Creek problems. The third comprises issues
connected with water, the offsprings of Kashmir
problem that are growing up. The fourth is the
nuclear issue all the implications of which are
not yet recognised. The ramifications of these
weapons are far reaching and if the problem is
not defined, debated and resolved, no other
settlement will work. It is linked to overall
purposes of the two countries: whether they will
be friends or enemies will hinge less on Kashmir
and more on nuclear weapons. The fifth are
questions of free trade, MFN status for India and
the rights of Indian goods' to and fro transit
through Pakistan. A lot of benefits for all are
involved.
Finally, there is free travel and the visa regime
between the two. Its importance is seminal.
Unless there is free travel for common people of
each country in the other's territories, there
would be little progress on any issue. In that
sense, all issues are inter-dependent though some
are more important. Among these are four: free
travel, free trade, nuclear issue and Kashmir.
Indications were that the New York encounter
would sort out Siachin and Sir Creek. Well, it
didn't. Whether the next encounters will or will
not resolve is the question. They are easiest to
resolve. Everybody knows that a settlement on
Siachin had been arrived at and a treaty had been
initialed. Sir Creek is also not a grave issue.
Would they settle these next time? Let's wait.
As for Kashmir, the assessment is like half full
or half empty glass. Pakistan wants a settlement
that "satisfies the two countries", though for PR
purposes Kashmiris' satisfaction is frequently
mentioned. The jointly accepted formulation is
"to the satisfaction of the two countries". For
Pakistan, Kashmir is a litmus test; it is still
for "Kashmir first and other things later". As
for a possible Kashmir settlement, Mr. Manmohan
Singh has again identified the Red Lines beyond
which India will not go: this is redrawing of the
present boundaries of Jammu and Kashmir state,
i.e. India's sovereignty over the state's parts
it controls, cannot be questioned. What may be
left is a half-formal and half-informal
settlement in separate regions that President
Musharraf had indicated at one stage. That Indian
Prime Minister has shown annoyance at President
Musharraf's mention of Kashmir in his General
Assembly speech throws a blindingly clear light
on the problem's current status.
Don't forget Kashmir has been a bone of
contention for 58 years. Strong vested interests
have grown up in both countries leading them to
militarise and has set each against the other.
The history of three wars and many quasi-wars is
militarisation's result. These vested interests
work against the India-Pakistan friendship, which
would hurt them. Industrial-military lobbies
comprise resourceful people with much influence,
for they ride on the chariot of patriotism.
Unless the common people on both sides
determinedly pressurise the two governments to
become close friends, the vested interests would
always prevent a final settlement. That needs to
sink in on both countries.
Nuclear weapons are a misunderstood issue. Two
hostile Nuclear Deterrents, confronting each
other from such close quarters, cannot permit
friendship between India and Pakistan. Period.
Nuclear weapons being weapons of attack only,
with no defence against them, two such states can
never trust each other. So long as the issue is
not resolved radically to either make the two
deterrents disappear or the relationship should
become so close that hostility between the two
becomes unthinkable --- such as is the case of
France and Britain. Probably, Indian and
Pakistani hardliners still believe in the
illusion that a dÈtente can possibly prevent the
two from going to war and enable political
agreements to work.
Well, no such detente has emerged in two years. A
certain number of CBMs have certainly been
implemented; some more are likely to be. But are
CBMs a solution? For the relationship to be so
reoriented as to make hostility between the two
unbelievable the two sets of Hostile Deterrents
will have to disappear; nothing else will work.
This issue needs far more debate to notionally
define solutions. It is a big issue and surpasses
Kashmir in importance.
The fourth set of disputes are again easy if the
political will to resolve them pre-exists. If
not, they too become a major issue. For Pakistan,
water is increasingly being recognised as its
Achille's heel. It needs ever more water for
irrigation and drinking for an exploding
population. The hopeful factor in this is that
both countries want to remain bound by the 1960
treaty on Indus Waters. It provides a workable
framework to sort out such issues, if necessary
by arbitration. Baglihar issue has already been
referred to the World Bank for arbitration. But
given political will both issues can be resolved.
As for free trade and transit, Pakistan has made
Kashmir the fulcrum on which everything turns. If
Kashmir is not resolved, Pakistan would not give
India MFN status, shun free trade with it, nor
grant it transit rights for its trade with
Central Asia. This is inconsistent with the need
to exploit all economic opportunities. If no
trade and no transit for four decades have not
forced India to accept the Pakistani viewpoint,
another forty years can also be wasted. The
question is should Pakistan continue to insist on
"Kashmir or nothing"?
This policy has produced no results. It is
futile. India refuses to see it as a strong
pressure; it is unlikely to submit to Pakistan's
wishes. It is profitable for Pakistan to take
what is available and feasible. This means mutual
enrichment of trading classes. Economic
cooperation flows out of free trade and
development follows. Sky is the limit for
economic cooperation between India and Pakistan,
which can easily be extended to the whole of
South Asia. Islamabad can unlock trade, economic
cooperation and development by giving India the
MFN Status and easy transit rights.
Lastly, there is the question of free travel and
cultural exchanges between the two peoples.
Hitherto both states have restricted visas to
only a few on compassionate grounds. The paranoia
of intelligence agencies in the two countries
needs to be curbed; free travel by people will
not undermine either state. The states are well
established and strong enough to bear the
"threat" of free travel. All civilised countries
permit free travel. The Subcontinentals talk of
6000-year-old civilization. But their behaviour
belies any respect for their inheritance. Ideally
there should be no visas between India and
Pakistan. If they become friends, economically
cooperate and engage in free trade, free travel
and free cultural exchanges nothing injurious can
happen and much will be gained. Look at what
Nepal and Sri Lanka do. Scope for useful
cooperation in culture and media needs no
elaboration.
______
[2]
(i0
sacw.net & communalism Watch - October 2, 2005
http://communalism.blogspot.com/2005/10/minorities-in-south-asia-knpanikkar.html
MINORITIES IN SOUTH ASIA
by K.N.Panikkar
The increasing infringement of the rights of
minorities in the countries of South Asia during
the last two decades has been a matter of
considerable concern. The success of
fundamentalist forces to gain access to state
power in varying degrees of control and thus to
exercise influence over the government have
brought about a social and political climate
inimical to the interest of the minorities. At
the same time liberal support which is crucial
for the well being of the minorities had become
substantially weaker and uncertain. The partition
of the subcontinent had already undermined the
sense of security the minorities had enjoyed and
had jeopardized the social peace which
characterized the community relations. The
momentum acquired by fundamentalism during the
last two decades has worsened the situation. In
fact, the history of minorities in South Asia is
a history of increasing discrimination and
deprivation and undermining in the process the
historical tradition of living together, even if
with differences. This experience naturally
foregrounds the question about the rights of the
minorities and the safeguards necessary to ensure
them.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights adopted in 1966 had laid down that
in those states in which ethnic, religious or
linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to
such minorities shall not be denied the right, in
community with the other members of their group,
to enjoy their own culture, to profess and
practice their own religion, or to use their own
language .
The above prescription by the Covenant underlines
the cultural rights of the minorities which is
indeed critical, but not exhaustive in fully
defining the South Asian experience. For the
debilities from which the minorities in the
countries of the region suffer from are not
limited to the cultural; they are as much victims
of social and economic discrimination. Whether
minority as a category based on religion,
language, ethnicity etc would fully encapsulate
the problems faced by such groups, therefore,
becomes doubtful. Moreover, the minorities,
whatever their constitutive factor, are not
homogenous entities, but highly differentiated
groups, socially, culturally and economically. In
other words the category of minority is a
totalizing concept, reflective only of partial
social reality. When the question of minority
became a political issue during the national
movement, although internal differences were
sought to be erased, the limitations of the
concept was not altogether overlooked . Yet,
minority as a category became part of the
political practice and discourse. It raises the
question as to how a minority is constituted.
Constitution of Minorities
The numerical strength is a necessary, though not
a sufficient condition for the constitution of a
minority. A group with numerical disadvantage may
exist without experiencing itself as a minority,
either politically or socially or culturally. The
constitution of a minority is primarily
contingent upon two factors. First, the self
perception of the group as a minority in relation
to other groups in society on the basis of
certain experienced disadvantages and second,
discriminatory or hostile treatment meted out by
the majority. In this context the role of the
nation state becomes quite central. The minority
consciousness develops and legitimized when
discrimination, if not persecution, is
experienced. A community ‘begins to perceive
itself as a minority when it feels disadvantaged
in the context of the nation state; and the claim
for minority rights gets strengthened when a case
of discrimination’ is convincingly made . The
formation of the minority through such a process
is integral to politics and the exercise of
power, regardless of the system in which they are
practiced. In the light of this it is arguable
that minorities did not exist in pre-colonial
South Asia . Surely, different religious groups
did exist, but they were neither culturally nor
politically disadvantaged nor victimized. For in
matters of patronage discrimination on the basis
of religion was not pursued by medieval
governments, headed either by Hindu or Muslim
rulers. Such a policy of non-discrimination was
rooted in the social reality of commonly shared
quotidian life experience anchored in mutual
accommodation and respect. As a consequence,
although different religious groups existed with
different religious and cultural practices, there
were no minorities. The minority was the creation
of popular politics during the colonial period.
The colonial manipulation of religious division
in South Asia considerably contributed to the
process by which the minorities came to be
constituted as a distinct group. The infamous
British policy of pitching one community against
the other was at the root of the anxiety
articulated by the minorities when the
anti-colonial struggle gained momentum. Sir Syed
Ahamad Khan’s call to the Muslims to keep away
from the Indian National Congress led national
movement was an expression of this anxiety. In a
future political set up guided by democratic
principles, it was feared, that the minorities
would be deprived of power and privileges.
However flawed such a perception of democracy
might be the fact remains that it contributed to
the internal consolidation of Muslims and also
led to distancing themselves from other
communities. In the name of allaying this
apprehension, colonialism created safeguards in
the form of separate electorates which only
helped to increase the chasm between the
communities. Every step for constitutional reform
undertaken by colonialism reinforced community
consciousness to such an extent that by the time
the British decided to withdraw from India they
left behind a society of warring communities.
Hence the communal carnage at the time of
independence which not only left permanent scar
on the psyche of both the communities but also
vitiated inter- community relations.
The ways in which the interests of the minorities
were to be safeguarded figured prominently in the
debates over the constitution in both India and
Pakistan. While political representation on the
lines provided by the colonial rule was not
favoured by the nationalist elite, the claim for
cultural rights and religious freedom were
considered necessary . Therefore, provision was
made in articles 25 to 30 of the Indian
Constitution for the protection of cultural
rights and religious freedom of the minorities.
Their political rights were assured by the
secular- democratic character of the polity. In
Pakistan, Mohamad Ali Jinnah declared in his
speech to the Constituent Assembly that, ‘you may
belong to any religion or caste or creed, there
is no discrimination between one community and
another, we are starting with this fundamental
principle that we are citizens of one state.’
Following this principle the 1973 constitution
provided for religious freedom and protection of
minorities . Thus both India and Pakistan pledged
to respect cultural plurality, religious freedom
and political equality. However, in practice
these principles were often violated or even
discarded.
The distribution of minorities in South Asian
states was such that the members of almost all
religious denominations were present in one state
or the other which created a peculiar chemistry
of minority consciouness. The Muslims, Sikhs,
Christians, Buddhists, Jains and Parsees in
India; the Hindus and Christians in Pakistan and
Bangladesh and Muslims and Christians in Sri
Lanka have minority status. Such a situation led
to reciprocity in the treatment of minorities and
safeguarding of their rights. The idea of
reciprocity had found articulation during the
debate over minority rights in the Constituent
Assembly in India. Participating in the debate
Mahavir Tyagi who later became a member of the
Nehru Cabinet, had suggested that consideration
of minority rights should be postponed until
Pakistan’s stand on this question became clear.
Responding to it, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar, the architect
of the Indian Constitution, had asserted that the
rights of the minorities should be absolute
rights. They should not be subjected to any
consideration as to what another party may like
to do to the minorities within its jurisdiction .
Nevertheless, after independence reciprocity has
been the dominant principle which influenced the
treatment of minorities in South Asian states.
The way the minorities are treated in one country
finds a resonance in another. The extra
territorial identity attributed on the basis of
religious belonging often leads to reprisals
against minorities and their institutions. When
the Hindu fanatics destroyed the Babri Masjid in
1992 Hindu temples became targets of attack in
both Pakistan and Bangladesh. In Pakistan one
Hindu was killed and several others were injured
and at least two dozen temples were destroyed in
scattered incidents of violence against the
community . In Bangladesh reprisals took place
at a national scale .This in turn led to revenge
against the Muslims in India. This extra
–territorial identification has considerably
vitiated the condition of the minorities. Most
unfortunately the minorities are constantly
called upon to prove their patriotism, be it at
the time of war or at the time a cricket match.
The extra- territorial identity has made the
minorities extremely vulnerable in all South
Asian states. A letter to the Editor in the
widely read English newspaper Dawn, decried the
popularly shared notion that by ‘virtue simply of
being Hindu, they may be willing to work as
Indian agents to the detriment of Pakistan. In
other words, their patriotism is to be doubted.
This way of thinking deserved to be discarded not
only because of its validity is dubious, that its
persistence invites fiction to become reality,
but because Indian seduction is something which
many Pakistani Muslims may also be susceptible.
Pakistani Hindus pose much less of a threat to
our national integrity than some Muslim forces
currently operating in the country do.’ This
statement is also true of the Hindus and Muslims
of India. Despite the exemplary record of the
Muslims in almost all walks of life the Hindu
fundamentalists continue to question their
patriotism and loyalty to the nation.
Attitude of the State
In all South Asian states minorities are
relatively poor. One of the reasons for their
plight is the indifference and neglect of the
state. A good example of this attitude of the
state is reflected in the minority’s share of
government employment, which in almost all cases
does not match their numerical strength.. It is
possible that disabilities historically inherited
like the relatively limited access to modern
education and poorer social position might have
contributed to it. But fifty-eight years is a
sufficiently long period to overcome these
disadvantages. In India the representation of
Muslims in government administration is abysmally
low. Among the central government employees the
Muslims constitute only 4.41 per cent. The
situation in the state governments is slightly
better with the Muslims accounting for about six
percent. But these percentages are drastically
reduced in superior cadres. In class IV employees
the Muslims constitute 5.12 percent, in class II
three percent and class I only 1.61 percent.
Muslims also suffer from similar disability in
other fields of economic activities . The
situation prevails in other South Asian
countries is not substantially different. In
Pakistan discrimination against non-Muslims is
quite apparent. In the army, for instance,
non-Muslims rarely rise above the rank of a
colonel and even they are not assigned to
sensitive positions. It is so in the civil
service also .That state has not found a way to
ensure their legitimate share in governmental
opportunities is a matter which adversely affects
social relations.
Although the minorities are constitutionally
entitled to equal rights, in actual practice this
principle is not always respected. Both Pakistan
and Bangladesh had begun as secular states where
no discrimination on the basis of religion would
be tolerated. Mohammad Ali Jinnah had envisioned
Pakistan as a secular state where ‘Muslims will
not be Muslims and Hindus will not be Hindus, not
in a religious sense, but in a political sense,
as citizens of a secular, democratic Pakistan’.
Bangladesh when it came into being was fashioned
as a secular republic. But both these countries
soon changed track to adopt Islam as state
religion which automatically placed the
minorities in a disadvantageous position.
Naturally what followed was discrimination
against the minorities in political practice. In
Pakistan, for instance, franchise rights are
limited for the minorities. The non- Muslim
voters can elect only ten members to the 217 seat
lower house of parliament. Moreover, they can
only vote for their co-religionists. In the
upper house which is more powerful the minorities
have no representation. The democratic rights of
non-Muslims are thus severely restricted . The
minorities have been protesting against this
discrimination and restriction .
The Pakistan government has enacted a series of
laws which are particularly repressive for the
minorities. For instance, the Blasphemy law
enacted in Pakistan in 1986 which provides for
punishing those who offend the Koran with life in
prison and death penalty for those who insult the
Prophet. Since its enactment, dozens of
Christians have been killed for having slandered
Islam, 560 people have been accused and 30 are
awaiting trial. The law is often invoked by the
fundamentalists in pursuit of their conservative
agenda. Using it for settling personal vendetta
and for appropriating property are also quite
common . The religious affairs minister, Ejaz ul
Haq admitted that in the last 18 years the law
has been abused. From 1927 to 1986 there had been
only 7 cases of blasphemy, but from 1986 to 2005,
4000 cases have been reported. The Christians who
indulge in theological debate and discussions
have born the brunt. The death of John Joseph,
the Bishop of Faislabad, who took his life to
protest against the case of Ayub Masih’s death
sentence for blasphemy, has sharply brought out
the iniquity of the law . An unfortunate
consequence of the law is that it discourages,
even prevents, critical enquiries into
theological matters. The protests organized by
the minorities were of no avail.
The laws enacted for the prevention of terrorism
in India has been extensively used to terrorise
the minorities. The majority of those who have
been arrested and jailed under the Terrorist and
Disruptive Activities ( Preventive) Act [ TADA],
1985 and Prevention of Terrorism Act [ POTA],
2001 belong to minorities. In Gujarat those
arrested under POTA are almost entirely drawn
from the Muslim community . They have been kept
in jail without trial and subjected to inhuman
treatment and severe torture.
The Hindu fundamentalist organizations in India
like the Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh and the
Vishwa Hindu Parishad have been trying to impose
an unofficial blasphemy law in an effort to curb
critical religious thought and secular cultural
interpretation of tradition. Those who have been
engaged in such efforts have been intimidated and
even physically attacked. An exhibition based on
multiple texts of Ramayana put up by a cultural
organization of Delhi was attacked and
dismantled, the paintings of M.F.Hussain was
disfigured for attempting an unconventional
interpretation of Goddess Saraswathi, Deepa
Mehta, a film maker was not permitted to shoot a
film on Hindu widows and a series of other
incidents have taken place during the last few
years. These incidents caught the public eye
because prominent people were involved in them.
But intimidation and coercion impinging upon the
human rights of the minorities are fairly
widespread. Such tendencies are manifest among
the Muslims also. A liberal Muslim theologian in
Kerala, Chekannur Maulavi, was abducted and
murdered by fundamentalists.
Attack on Minorities
In all South Asian countries minorities have been
subjected to physical intimidation and attack
which over the years have become so well
organized that they have assumed the character of
a progromm. In India, the Sikhs, Muslims and
Christians have been the targets of attack by the
members of the majority community. As a sequel to
the assassination of Indira Gandhi in 1984
thousands of Sikhs were killed and their property
was plundered all over the country. Even after
twenty years and a dozen or so enquiries those
who were responsible for the crime have not been
brought to book. The attack on Muslims and
Christians by the Hindu fundamentalist groups are
far too many to recount. These attacks are
characterized by two main features. First, overt
and covert support of the government and
secondly, popular participation cutting across
caste and class lines. These tendencies clearly
manifest in the carnage unleashed by the Hindu
fundamentalists against the Muslims in Gujarat .
The collusion of the government and
fundamentalist forces have led to a near anarchic
situation for the minorities in Bangladesh. In a
submission before the Human Rights Commission
Bina Rai Biswas, an activist from Bangladesh,
gave a graphic account of the atrocities to which
the minorities are subjected. According to her
the violence against the minorities ranged from
burning alive to death, gang rape of children and
elderly women, attack on temples, churches and
orphanages, looting, unlawful and forced land
grabbing and eviction and forced conversion to
Islam . Many of them were left with no other
alternative but to migrate, mostly by using
illegal means. In Sri Lanka too the Christian and
Muslim minorities have been the targets of
physical intimidation and attack .
One of the strategies of fundamentalists to
marginalize the minorities is to cast them in the
role of the enemies of the nation. Several
methods are adopted for this purpose. Among them
their demonization through a reinterpretation of
their role in history has had an abiding impact.
The Hinduisation and Islamisation of history in
India and Pakistan respectively undertaken with
the connivance of the governments is a part of
this agenda. The main purpose of the rewriting of
history and the revision of textbooks promoted by
fundamentalist forces in these countries has been
to achieve this objective. In India it is a major
project of Hindu fundamentalism which was sought
to be implemented through the government agencies
like the National Council for Educational
Research and Training (NCERT) and the Indian
Council for Historical Research (ICHR). By
establishing through the reinterpretation of
history on the lines of P.N. Oak and N.S.Rajaram
the Hindu civilisational character of Indian past
the minorities are located as outsiders whose
presence is at best tolerated but not welcome. A
series of historical events are invoked from the
invasion of Mohamad Gazni to the rule of
Aurangazeb to demonstrate the historical wrongs
the minorities have done to the nation. The
political sense the fundamentalists made out of
the demolition of Babri Masjid was that it
rectified a historical wrong committed by the
Muslims. And many more are yet to be rectified.
History thus serves as an ideology of Hindu
fundamentalism to exorcise the minorities from
the body politic. The carnage in Gujarat was
preceded by a long process conscientisation of
the Hindu Samaj about the wrong done to their
ancestors by the minorities.
The Islamic states of Pakistan and Bangladesh
have also reordered their history which impinges
upon the religious freedom of the minorities.
Reviewing the textbooks prescribed in Pakistan
the Institute for Sustainable Development Policy
and the Human Development centre have examined
the textbooks used in Pakistan. These reports
point out how in the name of history ‘students
are forced to read a carefully crafted collection
of falsehoods, fairy tales and plain lies’. The
school curricula are clearly biased against and
hostile to the minorities. The Hindu, for
instance, ‘rarely appears in a sentence without
the adjectives ‘conniving’ or ‘manipulative’ .
Moreover the textbooks are so designed that the
Hindus are forced to learn about Islam and
Islamic rites, even if they do not so desire .
Given the discrimination and relative
backwardness the minorities suffer, although in
varying degrees in different states, a course of
action from within which would ensure the
well-being of the minorities is called for.
Understandably the ongoing response is not
univocal but polyphonic; it betrays a variety of
tendencies. A powerful attraction is
minoritarianism which promotes a genre of
politics based on internal consolidation of the
community. Another tendency, particularly when
faced with the pressure of majoritarianism and
the aggression associated with it, is to resort
to militancy. Both these tendencies are
reinforced by ghettoisation which is initially
adopted as a means of self- defense.
Ghettoisation, however, has very deleterious
social, psychological and political consequences.
What induces the minorities to congregate in
Ghettos is a sense of uncertainty and fear which
breeds communalism and violence. In states like
Uttarpradesh and Gujarat in India Ghettoistion
has taken place so extensively that internal
‘borders’ have come into being, demarcating
residential areas of different communities. The
fundamentalist forces which thrive on the
religious obscurantism and cultural backwardness
of the communities spare no effort to encourage
these tendencies which keep them bound together
and isolated. At the same time the state, because
of political reasons, tends to compromise with
the fundamentalist forces and thus help
perpetuate the influence and leadership of
obscurantist forces.
In these circumstances the minorities in South
Asia require a new deal, both from the state and
civil society. The state should ensure equality,
both in principle and in practice and should
create conditions to enable their economic and
cultural advancement. At the same time the civil
society should realise the importance of
recognizing the rights of minorities in a
democracy and evolve methods for defending them.
The minorities on their part have to chart out a
path different from community consolidation,
social obscurantism and political isolation. In
such a course of action the emphasis should be on
realizing the rights of citizenship through
struggles for secularism and democracy. It would
involve a rejection of religious leadership,
without necessarily rejecting religious faith,
and authoritarian and communal political
ideologies and practices. The future of
minorities in South Asia would depend upon the
success of such a struggle.
In conclusion, let me go back to where I had
started. I had begun by referring to the
importance of intervention for influencing the
state and the civil society to protect the rights
of the minorities. The state has not been the
best guarantee of minority rights; instances of
vacillation are not wanting, nor occasions when
the intervention of the state went against the
interests of the minorities. The rights of the
minorities, be it in the field of education,
employment or cultural freedom, can not be
safeguarded without the active support of the
state. If the state is indifferent or hostile the
minorities can hardly progress, even survive.
Therefore it is importance to ensure that the
state remains secular.
At the same time the consciousness of the civil
society is a crucial factor in the well being of
the minorities. Enough has happened in the
countries of South Asia during the last two
decades to suggest that the society is vulnerable
to religion centered populist propaganda. A
consequence of this has been the marginalization
of the minorities in public space and the denial
of civic opportunities to them as has happened
and continue to happen in a state like Gujarat.
This is an extremely grave matter which impinges
upon democratic practice. The discrimination that
minorities face is, therefore, not a problem of
the minorities alone; it is a democratic problem.
It is imperative that the struggle for the rights
of the minorities should be integral to the
struggle for democratization, secularization and
for social justice.
In conclusion, let me go back to where I had
started. I had begun by referring to the
importance of intervention for influencing the
state and the civil society to protect the rights
of the minorities. The state has not been the
best guarantee of minority rights; instances of
vacillation are not wanting, nor occasions when
the intervention of the state went against the
interests of the minorities. The rights of the
minorities, be it in the field of education,
employment or cultural freedom, can not be
safeguarded without the active support of the
state. If the state is indifferent or hostile the
minorities can hardly progress, even survive.
Therefore it is importance to ensure that the
state remains secular.
At the same time the consciousness of the civil
society is a crucial factor in the well being of
the minorities. Enough has happened in the
countries of South Asia during the last two
decades to suggest that the society is vulnerable
to religion centered populist propaganda. A
consequence of this has been the marginalization
of the minorities in public space and the denial
of civic opportunities to them as has happened
and continue to happen in a state like Gujarat.
This is an extremely grave matter which impinges
upon democratic practice. The discrimination that
minorities face is, therefore, not a problem of
the minorities alone; it is a democratic problem.
It is imperative that the struggle for the rights
of the minorities should be integral to the
struggle for democratization, secularization and
for social justice.
[This is the text of Keynote address delivered to
the workshop on the Condition of Minorities in
South Asia held at Delhi from 16 to 19 September
2005]
o o o o
(ii)
DECLARATION ADOPTED BY THE DELEGATES TO THE
WORKSHOP ON THE CONDITION OF MINORITIES IN SAARC
COUNTRIES HELD IN NEW DELHI ON 16-17-18
SEPTEMBER, 2005 at Parliament House Annex, New
Delhi
Reaffirming our commitment to secure the right to
life, freedom, dignity and equality of all human
being under law and in reality.
Recognizing that within each country there are
minorities based on religion, language, ethnicity
and nationality who are disadvantaged and
vulnerable because of their inadequate share in
power and decision making.
Realising that owing to majoritarian character of
states and polities and denial of right to
equality to minorities in the common national
domain and right to preserve their distinct
identity, minorities have generally faced varying
degrees of threat to their existence, and to
their language, religion and culture everywhere.
Noting that such situations of discrimination,
exclusion and assimilation have been source of
violent conflicts, secession and insurgencies and
even wars.
Realizing that there is a worldwide concern for
equal rights of minorities as individual citizens
and collective rights as identity based groups,
which require adequate constitutional safeguards
and machinery of implementation and redressal,
and which also require promotion of understanding
between communities and governments and mechanism
of preservation and resolution of conflicts.
1. We the delegates to the three-day Workshop
took stock of the situation of minorities in the
countries of the region under law and in reality,
wherein we noted that
a. Minorities based on religion, sect, language,
ethnicity and nationality in each of the
countries of the region faced varying degrees
discrimination, exclusion assimilation and on
occasions threat to life, property, dignity and
freedom by organized majoritarian groups with one
agenda of exclusion and hate with complicity of
the State.
b. The source of such a state of things lies in the following: -
I. Inadequate protection of the rights of
minorities under constitution, laws and machinery
of implementation of existing provisions.
II. In some countries there is no constitutional provisions are discriminatory
III. In some others, there is no constitutional
safeguards for rights of minorities
IV. In countries where constitutional provisions
on right to equality and to preservation of
language and culture and freedom of religion
appear to be adequate, in practice denial of
these rights is rampant.
V. Poor state of rule of law and non-observance
of human rights where the law-enforcement system
is partisan and justice system has given rise to
pervasive impunity.
VI. Even in democracies where periodic elections
are held under multi-party system, the electoral
systems are unfriendly to minorities making them
unable to secure their due share in legislatures
and other elected bodies.
VII. Minorities are grossly under represented in
all spheres of national life and especially in
institutions of governance, e.g. the police,
armed and Para-military forces, the judiciary and
the civil services.
VIII. The culture history and religion of
minorities do not get appropriate representation
in educational materials and in media on the
contrary they are marginalized, excluded are
distorted and negatively stereotyped.
2. In view of the above, we recommend the
following measures to be adopted by the
Governments of each country is the SAARC:
Adequate protection of the rights of minorities
to equality, non-discrimination, non-exclusion
and non-assimilation under Constitution, law,
policies and programmes.
2.1 Institutions to ensure enjoyment of these
rights by minorities in reality, providing
accessible mechanism of prompt redressal.
2.2 Polities to conform to the norms of inclusive
democracy, ensuring due share to minorities in
legislatures and governance.
2.3 Affirmative action programmes for
equalization of opportunities for minorities,
ensuring there due share in public employment and
in socio-economic development.
2.4 Giving adequate representation to minority
language, history, culture and religion in the
educational material and in media, while enabling
the minority to acquire knowledge of the
language, history and culture of the national
life as a whole.
3. Protection and promotion of pluralism and multi-culturalism
4. Promotion of prevention and resolution of
inter-community and minority versus State
conflicts and disputes, providing peaceful and
just solutions.
5. Collectively adopting under a SAARC Human
Rights Convention based on international human
rights norms and accommodating regional
particularities, instruments on the protection of
minorities and institutional mechanism for
monitoring and redressal of grievances.
5.1. Under these instruments adopting
multilateral/bilateral treaties on the treatment
of non-citizens like members of divided families,
migrant workers, refugees, asylum seekers,
prisoners and stateless persons.
6. We recommend the following measures to be adopted by the civil society:
1. Undertake active promotion of these norms and
principles, especially of pluralism and
multiculturalism and rule of law
2. Undertake advocacy of their adoption by the government
3. Promote inter community tolerance, mutual respect and accommodation
4. Organise effective intervention in situations
of denial of rights to minorities and their
oppression.
7. We appeal to the security forces of the States
and armed opposition to strictly adhere to the
ethical groups legal norms on the conduct of
hostilities as codified in the Geneva Convention,
1949 which require protection of life, dignity
and freedom of non-combatant civilians,
especially women, children, old and disabled
persons and worshippers.
7.1 We also appeal to religious leaders of all
communities in the region to evolve and endorse
such ethical norms on the protection of innocent
civilians uninvolved in conflicts including
communal and sectarian conflicts.
8. We the delegates to the Workshop do hereby
resolve to constitute a South Asia Council for
Minorities (SACM), whose aims objectives will be
the following: -
a. Promoting equal human rights of all minorities in South Asian countries.
b. Promoting adequate protection of rights of
minorities to equality and non-discrimination and
to their distinct religions, cultural and
linguistic or national identifies under
constitution, law, policy and programs of each
country.
c. Promoting norms of gender-justice in areas of
cultural autonomy of minorities including
community-based family laws.
d. Promoting adoption of SAARC Human Rights
Convention and SAARC Convention and Commission on
Rights of Minorities and Non-Citizens.
e. Promoting inter-community understanding,
tolerance and conciliation through dialogue and
peaceful resolution of disputes.
f. Promoting strict observance of humanitarian norms.
8.1.1 The Council shall have chapters in all the SAARC countries
8.1.2 Initially each chapter will have a
Convener and co-conveners and ad hoc Committees.
8.1.3 Besides country-wise chapters. The SACM
will have a Delhi-based Convener and Co-conveners
and a Committee consisting of founder members
from all countries.
Resolved to nominate following members in the Council:
1. Mr. K.N. Douglas Devananda, Honorable Minister of Sri Lanka
2. Mr. Subodh Kant Sahay, Honorable Union Minister, Government of India.
3. Mr Justice Saleem Marsoof, Honorable Supreme Court Judge, Sri Lanka
5. Mrs Chitra Lekha Yadav, Deputy Speaker, House of Representatives, Nepal
5 Mr. Dev Das, Honorable Member of Parliament, Pakistan
6. Mr. Akram Masih, Honorable Member of Parliament, Pakistan
7. Mr. Sihabudeen Nijamuddin, Honorable Member of Parliament, Sri Lanka
8. Dr. Nirmala Deshpande, Honorable Member of Parliament, India
9. Mr. Hannan Mollah, Honorable Member of Parliament, India
10. Mr. Iqbal Saradgi, Honorable Member of Parliament, India
11. Prof Amrik Singh, Former Vice Chancellor, India
12. Mr. Ronchi Ram, Karachi, Pakistan.
13. Dr. Robina Saigol, Country Director, Action Aid, Pakistan
14. Mr. M Parkash, Chairman, Minority Rights Commission of Pakistan
15. Mr Hasan Ul Haq Inu, President, Jatiyo Samjtantrik Dal, Bangladesh
16. Mr. Pankaj Bhattacharya, Minority Rights Activist, Bangladesh
17. Mr. Riza Yehiya, Colombo, Sri Lanka
18. Mr. M Rafique, Executive Secretary, Asian
Federation of Muslim Youth, Sri Lanka
19. Mr. Subroto Choudhury, Advocate, Supreme Court Bangladesh
20. Dr. Udit Raj, President, Justice Party, India
21. Dr. Mohinder Singh, Member, National
Commission for Religious Linguistic Minorites,
Govt.of India
22. Mrs. Shabnam Hashmi, Social Activist, India
23. Mr. Fazle Hossain Badshah, Bangladesh
24. Mr. Paul Divaker, India
25. Mr. B. M. Kutty, PILER, Karachi, Pakistan
26. Mr. Lama Lobzang, Member National Commission
for Scheduled Tribes, Government of India.
27. Mr. Navaid Hamid, Convenor, SACM
_____
[3]
The Times of India
September 30, 2005
Editorial:
Access Denied
There are 12 million orphaned children who need
parents. And 44 million destitute children who
are denied the warmth of a family. Playing
spoilsport is a 115-year-old Act - the Guardians
and Wards Act - which does not allow Muslims,
Christians, Jews and Parsis to adopt a child as a
"parent".
All you can be is a "guardian". Hindus including
Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs, on the other hand,
are governed by the Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA), which allows
adoption only of Hindu children by Hindu parents.
Why should a secular country have communal
adoption laws? Or sexist laws for that matter?
According to HAMA, a Hindu married woman cannot
adopt, it's only her husband who can, though with
her consent. However, if he has a non-Hindu wife,
he doesn't need her consent to adopt. Clearly,
there are many anomalies in our adoption laws,
arising from gender bias and deference to
personal laws of minorities, which need
correction.
In this context the Supreme Court notice earlier
this week, to the Union ministries of law as well
as social justice and empowerment, to extend the
adoption right to all communities is welcome.
Article 39 of the Constitution, which states "The
State shall direct its policies towards securing
that childhood and youth are protected against
exploitation and moral abandonment", formed the
basis of HAMA. Given that, why should the state
not ensure this protection to Muslim, Christian,
Parsi and Jewish children?
The government's reluctance to bring them under
the ambit of this protection amounts to
abdication of responsibility towards orphans and
destitutes of the minorities. By giving in to the
pressure of personal law lobbies the government
is giving assent to their contention that it does
not have the right to legislate for all citizens.
The state must ensure that no religious group
thrusts its views on any citizen. If a Muslim or
Christian wants to marry in accordance with the
Special Marriage Act, he is allowed to do so. He
should be given the right in the case of adoption
as well.
In any case the right to adopt is an enabling
provision, not a coercive one. No one should have
any problems with it, as there's no compulsion to
adopt. But for those who want to do so,
irrespective of community or gender, the option
should be provided under a universal adoption law.
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Buzz on the perils of fundamentalist politics, on
matters of peace and democratisation in South
Asia. SACW is an independent & non-profit
citizens wire service run since 1998 by South
Asia Citizens Web: www.sacw.net/
SACW archive is available at: bridget.jatol.com/pipermail/sacw_insaf.net/
Sister initiatives :
South Asia Counter Information Project : snipurl.com/sacip
South Asians Against Nukes: www.s-asians-against-nukes.org
Communalism Watch: communalism.blogspot.com/
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.
More information about the Sacw
mailing list