Globian Perspective: China

Showing posts with label China. Show all posts

Saturday, June 29, 2013

India, Its Neighbours and Issues of Religious Minority

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:

In early 50’s, the Hindu population in Pakistan (including today’s Bangladesh) was nearly 22% of total population which decreased to 1.6% as of 1998. There are great reasons to believe this proportion may have significantly dropped in this past decade due to high rate of forced-conversion of Hindus and migration out of Pakistan. In addition, the Islamization of the country and the rise of extremism has made the minorities easy (and often “just”) targets. Not only Hindus, but Christians, Qadianis (Ahmadies) and all other minorities have been systematically marginalized. The rise of extremism is even targeting the Shia-population (sect of Muslims) as evident by growing violent attacks in recent times.

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...

Thursday, July 14, 2011

21st Century: Future World Power(s)

I am not an astrologer. However, in this article I shall try to sketch what kind of world we will have by the end of this century based on my studies, observations and personal experiences. We all know the developed economies (mainly western countries) are having a very humble growth-rates (or stagnant growth in many cases), whereas the developing countries are having more or less better growth rates. The rise of the rest of the world (excluding western) is led by China, India, Brazil & Russia (i.e., BRIC nations). The richest country the USA, having GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of almost $15 Trillion, growing at about 2-3% a year is likely to be overtaken by China, (having GDP of about $5 Trillion) which is growing at almost 10% a year. Needless to say that everything comes down to the economy of a country, while assessing its power and global influence (if you have money, then only you can have a strong military, scientific advancement, industrialization & productivity, globally competitive human resource and so on). With this background information, let’s explore various view points:

Conservative American View: If America fails to sustain its SUPER POWER status, we are heading towards a catastrophe. If America is weakened, the world will be a barbaric place to live in, mainly because, the Americans will not be able to provide security to various nations, and will not be able to supply aid to poor nations. For example what about American presence in South East Asia to safe guard Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, and Philippines etc? What about Middle-East? Who is going to handle constant frictions between the Sunnis (everywhere except Iran) & Shies (mainly Iran), and above all, between Arabs & Israelis? Who will support the poor war torn nations of Africa and Asia? In general, the whole world order will be threatened, if America loses its power. There is no other country to fit into its shoe. The Chinese never speak up and have no legitimacy on moral issues, and fundamentally there is nothing like human rights in a communist state. America’s fall will be a moral collapse of the world.

Conservative Chinese View (also called pragmatic view in China): For the past 2-3 hundred years, the world has been governed on the conditions suitable to the west. However, now the west should be prepared to obey, rather than dictating its terms. The western ideas of democracy, capitalist-society and universal human rights have absolutely nothing to do with China. Rights and laws are subjective, depending on the social structure of a country, which can vary country to country. Every country/society should find its own solutions. Chinese government is to secure interests of the people of China, and all other governments should do the same for their people. The west has no right to tell others what they should do; let others figure out what is to be done. Even when there is genocide in some distant country, China should not intervene. Let those people find their solutions; and let time take its own course as it has taken to bring us all to this date. China will continue to remain a communist country and Chinese government will continue to secure interests of the people of China only. The west should adjust to this; else China will fight its terms out when needed.

The liberal thinkers around the world (including in US, & China): We are going to have a world that is multi polar. There will be no one super power country, but we shall have many countries with influential power. America will lose “Super Power” status, but it will not be its fall, rather it will be the rise of the rest (as Fareed Zakaria argues all the time). It will be something like the Britain, who lost its Super Power status by ’40s, but it has remained an influential global player even today.

Moreover, America still has great fuel to remain globally competent for a longer duration:

· Infrastructure and institutions for future technologies & industries like no other country has (i.e., Biotechnology, nanotechnology etc)

· World class universities & research labs (needless to mention, 37 of top 50 universities of the world are American)

· Attracts highly skilled immigrants (unlike any other developed country, America is growing younger as the population is on rise)

· It houses most of the global companies, most of the fortune 500s, and keeps generating newer multinationals

· And of course, from hip-hop to Harvard, from Hollywood to Gates foundation, its soft power is probably influencing the whole world like no other nation is in position of doing so.

My take: Thus, one great thing would be that the world would be truly democratic in nature. It is very ironic that the country which believes in democracy (USA) is trying to avoid sharing of power, while the country which believes in having only one party (China) is advocating for a multi-polar world, where power is shared between many. Nonetheless, we will not just have two great powers, but many indeed. Though India’s GDP is currently at 10^th position (about $1.5 Trillion), it is expected to grow faster than China, mainly because of its economic design and its demography. Let me explain this:

· China is attracting huge foreign direct investments (FDIs). In one month it attracts FDIs that India attracts in one year. Now, this is great for faster growth, but it is risky and you are dependent on foreigners to pump in money. At some point if FDIs are low or if people book profit and walk out of your country, it may surely hurt your growth rate.

· China’s one child per family program is great for population control, but it will make it grow old, whereas India will be one of the youngest countries of the world (challenge for India to take advantage of this unintended opportunity). This year UN has come out with a report that pointed out that China is going to have a demographic collapse over the next 25 years. It is going to lose 400 million people.

Of course, this is not a race. There is no gold medal for a country with the highest GDP or growth rates. After all, the quality of life of the individuals of a country matters, and both the countries will be able to do it best by cooperation with each other and the rest of the world. I was very glad when India simply declined the Bush administration’s tacit offer of obtaining help from America in return of taking stands against China (in short, Americans wanted India as a counter power to China). India does not have to choose between US or China; rather it should have deep warm ties with not only US & China, but with every other nation of the planet. Wellbeing of its people should be the only goal for India.

Moreover, both India & China will be closely followed by Brazil, Russia, South Africa, and Mexico and so on. The economic rise of the world would mean that the global poverty would fall below 15% by 2015 (it was 40% in 1981).

All nations will be required to act responsibly. Things that could hurt all sorts of projections are wars, social (and political) instability, scarcity of resources and environmental disasters. These constraints can be overcome only through cooperation and mutual respect. Hopefully, there will be no one country with all mussel power that threatens others.

What kind of India I wish: I think India should never become a hard Super-Power that suffocates the rest of the world, expands its boundaries and dictates its terms in arrogant manner. However, India must generate global citizens, who lead the world through education, mutual respect and sustainable development. India has a great potential of becoming a role model for the developing world, and it must realize its Soft-Super Power.

I welcome your comments....

Image Courtesy: http://www.paggu.com/business/us-india-and-china-relations/

Hans Rosling: Asia's rise -- how and when (c) TED conferences