|
By Rashme Sehgal The difference between the communalisation of Kashmir and of Gujarat is that there is no State complicity in the former, and no remorse in the latter, says Pakistani activist Asma Jehangir, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion for the UN, who recently toured India
Pakistani activist Asma Jehangir, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief for the United Nations Human Rights Council, spent two-and-a-half weeks travelling around India for a firsthand appraisal of freedom of religion and belief. During her tour she met with several ministers, court judges and human right activists.
Jehangir’s mission started on March 3, 2008, in Amritsar and subsequently she visited Delhi, Jammu, Srinagar, Ahmedabad, Mumbai, Thiruvananthapuram, Bhubaneswar and Lucknow. She will be submitting a detailed report with conclusions and recommendations to the United Nations Human Rights Council. As this was not the first visit of the mandate (her predecessor undertook a mission to India in 1996), Jehangir’s report will also be a follow-up on developments during the past 12 years, in order to analyse what has changed and why. In this interview, Asma Jehangir talks about religious freedom, the link between globalisation and religious intolerance, and the Gujarat riots. What conclusion did you arrive at about freedom of religion? How much freedom is actually being practised on the ground? There is a great deal of religious diversity in this country, so overall this has been a very enriching experience for me. I accept that Indians respect a diversity of religions and beliefs. But at the same time, several religious minorities have complained that organised groups based on religious ideologies have unleashed the fear of mob violence in many parts of the country. Law enforcement agencies are often reluctant to take any action against these groups. Less than three months ago, there was widespread violence in the Kandhamal district of Orissa. The violence was targeted against Christians living in dalit and tribal communities. Members of the Christian community alerted the authorities in advance but, as I understand, little action was taken. Are you saying that religious intolerance is increasing? Many of my interlocutors have pointed to the positive impact of Indian secularism as embodied in the Constitution. By and large, Indians do value secular principles and I was told time and again that the term “secularism” does not necessarily mean the same here as it does in other countries. Historically, there have been believers of a whole range of religions and beliefs living in India. The central government has developed a comprehensive policy pertaining to minorities, including religious ones. In this context, I would like to compliment various recent reports on religious minorities, for example those drafted by the committees headed by Justice Rajinder Sachar in 2006 and by Justice Ranganath Mishra in 2007. Such committees mandated by the government are a good example of mechanisms put in place to analyse the situation and put forward recommendations for the government to take action on. However, religious intolerance has increased. It is not the government but the people who make up a country. I met several groups around the country, including groups of Kashmiri Pandits living outside Jammu and Kashmir, and I asked them if they wanted to return to the valley. It was very touching to hear how they were forced to leave and the fact that they remain dislocated to this day. This matter needs to be resolved. They were hounded out because, in their case, it was the majority syndrome that was being played out. In Gujarat, it was the reverse and the Muslims faced this same majority syndrome at the hands of Hindus. In Uttar Pradesh, I was informed of several cases of violence and rape as a reaction to cases of intermarriage between believers of different religions or castes. The bias is so strong that it makes the protection of victims a difficult exercise. Do you think is it safe for the Kashmiri Pandits to return to the valley? During my stay here I met the chairman of the Minority Commission. He is very energetic and is looking at new creative ways of monitoring issues affecting minorities. I also met the human rights commissioner in Srinagar. The commission there is understaffed and is working under a lot of pressure. When dealing with minority issues, I feel they must show a special sensitivity and not use a ham-handed bureaucratic approach. I visited Gujarat, which I learnt had witnessed 443 major communal incidents between 1970 and 2002. As such, the warning systems were there. In my discussions with victims I could see their fear which is exacerbated by the distress that justice continues to evade most of them. What do you think is the difference between the handling of the Kashmiri Pandits and victims of the Gujarat riots? Early action was taken in the case of the Pandits. When they sought help from the State, they received it. There was no State complicity, as is the case with Gujarat. Even today, riot victims in Gujarat face increasing ghettoisation and isolation and they are living in very dismal conditions. The assertion of the state government (in Gujarat) that development by itself will heal the wounds does not seem to be realistic. It is crucial to recognise that development without a policy of inclusiveness of all communities will only aggravate resentments. Furthermore, I am disturbed that at various meetings with members of civil society during my visit to Gujarat, plainclothes government agents took down names of all my NGO interlocutors and also made their presence felt afterwards. On several occasions, I had to insist that the police officers leave the room during my NGO meetings. The terms of reference of fact-finding missions by Special Rapporteurs (see UN Doc E/CN 4/1998/45, Appendix V) are very clear in this regard. These terms of reference guarantee confidential and unsupervised contact with witnesses and other private persons as well as an assurance by the government that no persons, official or private individuals who have been in contact with the Special Rapporteur in relation to the mandate will for this reason suffer threats, harassment or punishment or be subjected to judicial proceedings. I must also point out that when I went to Srinagar, a lot of people expressed remorse about their (the Pandits) having been forced to leave. I met a lot of students and activists who said publicly that they would like them to come back. They said it was the most emotional thing that had happened to them. I did not come across any expression of remorse amongst the people who matter in Gujarat. It’s about how a majority can intimidate a minority: one has to put oneself in their shoes. What has the man-on-the-street told you about this increasing communalisation? What I have been told by the public at large is that the government has to be more vocal, more assertive in handling the issue. People believe this is happening because of vote-bank politics. I am a rapporteur, not a judge. I can only report on what I have heard. Do you believe there is a connection between globalisation and growing religious intolerance? There is a connection between globalisation and religious intolerance. The kind of development taking place must be equitable. Unfortunately, the development model that has been created is leading to increasing disparities. Development must be distributive and contiguous for women and children and religious minorities. How do we face these challenges? India has traditionally been home to those who have faced religious persecution. If there are going to be zealot groups keeping governments hostage, then one needs to stress that it is the government’s job to keep these groups under control. How does one curb communal tension? There needs to be vigilance -- people and governments need to be on the look-out for early warning signs. Small skirmishes are often warning signs. People need to follow events in the mainstream and vernacular press. The latter often has a vested interest in religious matters. In Orissa, the Christian leadership had warned the government about anticipated violence but the authorities did not pay heed to these warnings. The Minority Commission needs to play an active role and have an open-door policy. I would like to emphasise again that during the past 10 years, religious intolerance has increased; religious identities have sharpened. This does not happen only because of globalisation. A whole series of events are responsible for the build-up. The flip side is that wherever communal tensions have arisen, people have come to each other’s rescue and helped one another. In India, there is an ongoing debate between freedom of religion and freedom of expression. Where should the line be drawn? There is an ongoing debate on the issue of where we draw the line between freedom of religion and freedom of expression in the UN itself. We cannot asphyxiate the debate by putting curbs on freedom of expression. Did you interview people who have converted from one religion to another? No, I did not speak to anyone who had recently converted. I did speak to people who had converted around 10 years ago. They are still feeling the heat. If you are a member of a scheduled tribe and choose to convert to Christianity or become a Muslim, your right to affirmative action (to reservation) is taken away. If the same individual re-converts, his affirmative action comes back. I don’t think this principle of reservation should be taken away. Democracy is always about checks and balances. Democracy gives people an opportunity to speak out. That allows for much more freedom, and that is important. What do you feel about the judicial system in India? There is a great deal to be said about the judicial system in India, but I have heard complaints about the criminal legal system at the subordinate levels and in some states. There have been complaints about the forensic system, which, people say, is in bad shape. There is no proper witness protection. I have learnt from the interior ministry (home ministry) that a lot of training is being given in this field. I was also told that the investigation department is being separated from law and order. Also that high court judgments have shown religious bias. But, overall, most people have praised the Supreme Court and insist it is above bias. I am concerned however about the extended timeframe of investigation in cases involving communal riots, violence and the massacres that took place in 1984, 1992 and 2002. All these incidents continue to haunt the people affected by them, and impunity emboldens the forces of intolerance. While an inquiry into large-scale communal violence should not be done in indecent haste, it should be accorded the highest priority both by the investigators, the judiciary and any commission appointed to study the situation. Unreasonable protraction of the inquiry only keeps tensions simmering and devalues justice. InfoChange News & Features, April 2008
|
