In the Indian subcontinent, whenever
issues are raised that deal with nationality and religion, the public response
is usually from the emotional, rather than rational standpoint. Despite being
the biggest of all, India is in a tricky situation while confronting its
neighbours on issues of religious minority. Its population distribution by
religion is: 80% Hindu, 14% Muslim, 2.5% Christian, 2% Sikh, 1% Buddhist, 0.5%
Jains and others (as per 2001-Census). However, its neighbours (except Nepal)
have Hindus in minority; for example – Pakistan >96% Muslims, Bangladesh 90%
Muslim, Sri Lanka 70% Buddhist. Therefore, if Indian officials raise issues pertaining
to minorities in neighbouring country, the neighbours see that purely from a religious
prism as if mumbling in secrete –“Of course, they’ll raise issues of Hindus,
because they themselves are Hindus”.
In addition, communal riots within India
hurt its credibility tremendously. Imagine an Indian diplomat in Pakistan working
on asylum applications of a Hindu-family on the grounds of religious freedom
during the times of anti-Muslim riots in Maharashtra (or Gujarat).
However, constitutionally India is a
secular country and the state is required to protect all citizens by law. If
that is compromised, the law of court (with all its limitations) supports the
victims and not the perpetrators. In the broader picture, minorities in India
have significantly flourished politically, socially & economically and in
proportion of total population since 1950. The Muslims (biggest minority group)
were about 9% in 50s; and today (year 2011) form about 14.5% of total
population. Indian education system does not vilify any religion at any level; in
fact there has been a conscious and consistent effort for promoting religious
diversity and acceptance since independence era. So far in my life, I have not
seen a single Indian movie that promotes superiority of Hindus or demonizes
non-Hindus (or punishes the “infidels”). Though things are far from what is
expected in an ideal society and the pace of religious integration of
communities is frustratingly slow, the foundations are strong and cohesive in
nature.
On the other hand, things have gone bad to worse in
Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.
Minorities in Pakistan:
Clip from Tehelka's youtube channel:
Minorities in
Bangladesh:
Bangladesh is not as hopeless as Pakistan in
securing its minorities. However, the decreasing relative population of
minorities paint an unpleasant picture. As of 2001, the percentage of Hindus
was just about 9.6 as compared to 22% in 1951. Minorities have been
systematically marginalized. Nonetheless, relatively
stable democratic government and recent economic rise of Bangladesh are
positive signs. For more details on minorities in Bangladesh go here: http://www.hrcbm.org/.
Minorities in Sri Lanka:
For
non-Tamilian Indians Sri Lanka’s case has been a puzzle. Given Buddhism’s birth
and rise in India from Hinduism, average Indians do not see any difference between
Hinduism and Buddhism. It is assumed that Sri Lanka being a Buddhist must be a
close ally. However, the conflict between Tamilians and Sinhalese have been
deeply woven in Sri Lankan social fabric. The ethnic conflict (Sinhala Vs.
Tamil) is often perceived as religious conflict (Buddhist vs. Hindu) in Sri
Lanka and most Indians fail to understand that. As noted by Heyneman
(2002), Sri Lankan text books have glorified the Buddhist (or ethnically
Sinhalese) kings and vilified Tamilian (or Hindu) “invaders” for many decades.
The Tamilians have always been the villains in the dominant historical
narrative. Sri Lanka has feed to its people anti-Tamil sentiments. As a result,
Tamilian minority has not been able to integrate with the Sinhalese and Sri
Lanka remains socially divided. Moreover, the scenario has been further
deteriorated by absolutely idiotic Indian foreign policy of successive Congress
governments in 80’s. First they covertly trained Sri Lankan Tamilian militants
to fight for their political rights in Sri Lanka. When things uncovered and the
issue became international, Rajiv Gandhi sent Indian soldiers to fight with the
Sri Lankan forces against the Tamilian militants. What a classic case of sheer lunacy!!!
Today the Tamilian armed-resistance has ended with innumerable human rights
violation by Sri Lankan armed forces. The biggest losers have been Sri Lankan
Tamilians.
So, what should India do?
One camp states very clearly – It is none of our business. We only focus inside
of our borders. We have countless problems, why bother solving internal conflicts
of our neighbours? The problem with this view is that it is too narrow. As India rises, it has to take regional (and gradually global) responsibilities. People who favour this stand often cite China and its "non-interference" policy. I think that is not a good analogy, given that the Han-Chinese have never been ethnically cleansed in other parts of the world. If Han-Chinese are in trouble internationally, I highly doubt if China will restraint.
Another
camp says – India is a Hindu dominant country. There is no other country in the
world which will defend Hindu minorities in these countries. We should never
let people suffer just because they are Hindus; and we must use our strength to
counter that. However, strong adherence to this view leads one to foreign policy disaster as evident by the episode of Tamil-tigers in the India-Sri Lanka relations. Going overboard and exploring military actions is never a solution for social-issue, especially for a minority community in another country.
My take:
1) Strictly
protect citizens (especially, the minorities) in India against all sorts of
hate-crimes.
2) Provide
incentives to neighbours for integrating their minorities into mainstream
(e.g., trade agreements with condition of history textbook revisions, decrease
in crimes against minorities etc.)
3) The
Hindu-religious organizations need to move out. Hindus in India do not need you
as much as Hindus in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka need. That’s
something to learn from the Christians. Even the political fractions like VHP,
Bajarangdal or RSS need to work in these countries to build schools, hospitals
and to politically empower communities there.
4) Indian
politicians need to be more assertive while visiting neighbouring countries. There
is no political boldness in talking about Hinduism on the banks of Ganga. Visit
ancient temples in Pakistan, and then talk about Vedic civilization of the Indus and religious
harmony from there.
5) Got
to do all the above things simultaneously and persistently.
Note: Secularism
should never be confused with in-action for religious bigotry. Secular state
should and must strongly take a stand against such hate-propaganda inside as well as
outside of its borders.
Welcome your ideas on this...
Welcome your ideas on this...