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...

How can India Tackle Terrorism from Pakistan?

(Image: India-Pakistan border in Ranbir Singh Pura, on the outskirts of Jammu, India. Courtesy of Channi Anand, NewYork Times)

Aggressive Indian view: Enough is enough. Our army is more than twice the size of Pak-army. We are technically sounder than them in all three wings of armed forces (i.e., army, navy, & air-force). We know the exact locations of terrorist camps in Pakistan (mainly, in southern Punjab & Pak-occupied Kashmir). What are we waiting for? A bigger attack??? Even if our air-strikes on those terrorist camps result in a war, we have an upper edge. Pakistan has neither money nor resources to sustain a war with us even for a month (most likely, for not even 20days), as it hardly has any international support. And there is no way it can dare to use atomic-weapons as the result would be more catastrophic for itself. We only need a government with some political will, and Pakistan will be a thing of the past. No Pakistan, no terrorism - story finished.

My take: Such speeches make great impact on the masses, and truly, can electrify public emotions against Pakistan. Also, this may win elections, and may make one very popular, attracting a large number of followers. However, this is absolutely a bogus set of flawed arguments, aimed at disguising masses heading towards a disaster. Let me explain:

· It is very important to understand how “security” of citizens is defined. Does it mean only physical security? I would like to define “security” as a comprehensive term, which consists of physical as well as economic, social & psychological security. State’s job is not just to look after its people’s physical security, but it is also suppose to make sure its people have good education, health care facilities, employment opportunities and a better quality of life in-general. If the state chooses the “aggressive-view” option as presented above, how is that going to affect the “comprehensive security” of the people of India? On the other hand, it is more likely that the people will have to sacrifice their current quality of life (of course, war will hurt every socio-economic indicator badly). We would be required to then forget about 10% GDP growth and put hold on our success stories at least for a few years, if not for ever. And the obvious unimaginable destruction (i.e., socio-economic, environmental & of precious human lives) that a war brings will put India far behind the rest of the world. I don’t think that will make people of India more “secure”.

· Now, even if you win the war, what next? The state of India is struggling to provide basic facilities to its people, how will it take responsibility of another 17crore? Can’t we see how America is struggling to manage Afghanistan currently? Fall of Islamabad does not mean end of troubles. The number of non-state warlords of Pakistan will multiple by many times, and of course, the terror strikes will increase unthinkably all over India. Can’t we see the present state of Pakistan- how the number of suicide bombing has crazily increased in past five years (as some terror groups feel the fall of Kabul is due to Pakistan’s support to the US)? (see link: http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/pakistan/index.htm)

Fatalities in Terrorist Violence in Pakistan: 2003- 2011

Year	Civilians	Security Forces (SFs)	Terrorists	Total
2003	140	24	25	189
2004	435	184	244	863
2005	430	81	137	648
2006	608	325	538	1471
2007	1523	597	1479	3599
2008	2155	654	3906	6715
2009	2307	1011	8267	11585
2010	1796	469	5170	7435
2011*	226	98	384	708
Total	9620	3443	20150	33213

* Data till February 20, 2011, Source: SATP

This will be like throwing over a billion people in mire of an absolute chaos and endless cycles of violence. We surely don’t want this to happen.

· Wars cannot be completely won or lost in today’s times, and it results in a compromise (e.g., recent war of USA- Iraq, & USA – Afghanistan on its way to a compromise). Practically, it is never possible to wipe out a whole country. Pakistan is a reality and it will always remain there (unless its people have some other plans).

· Extremism is psychological and guns will only provoke it. Remember, our fight is against anger; and aggression on our part will fuel extremism in Pakistan. Suppose, there are 20% extremists in Pakistan, our aggression will make them mainstream majority. If we kill one Hafeez Syed, some other will adapt to his psyche and continue attacks on India. [Note: I am not suggesting Hafeez Syed should not be killed. If the court sentences him to death, he must be punished without delay. However, this will not solve larger issue of terrorism and the problem will still persist for India.] Instead, we should kill that anti-India psyche.

· By being aggressive, we shall undermine the liberal, educated, middle-class people of Pakistan who are similar to us. Remember, Pakistani government was denying Kasab’s connection to Pakistan, but it was the main stream television channel Geo News of Pakistan, which uncovered Kasab’s family in Faridkot (in Pak). There are innumerable examples of how this class of people are introspecting in their social-fabric and are trying their level best to overcome anti-India sentiments. (Article continues below videos)

Prof. Sajjad of Lahore University of Management Sciences analyzes Anti-India ideology of Pakistan (courtesy: Dawn News)

Prof. Hoodbhoy talks about how big mistake was it to consider militants assets (courtsey: Express News)

Nazir Naji (writer) talks about terrorist safe haven in Pakistan and how it has generated existential threat to it (courtsey: Dunya TV)

Other links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZ8f3s24ZoM (Najam Sethi, prominent political analyst and journalist, advocating end to India-Pakistan rivalry)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4D9goJqQME&feature=related (Hasan Nisar, popular urdu writer at Jung, indicating fault-lines in Pakistani society)

· Any observer of Pakistan would agree that these moderate people are losing voice in their country gradually (increasing number of moderate leaders are being killed). This is very dangerous for India, because they are giving a fight to the extremism in their society, which is India’s objective as well.

What should India do then?

Do I mean India should do nothing? Absolutely not… There are smarter ways which are likely to be proved far more effective in long term than a military action. [Note: I am not for demilitarisation. India must have a strong military to defend itself from every threat. I don’t want India to become a “Sone ki Chidiya” (golden sparrow) of the past that any beggar of east or (especially of) west loots away.]

· India should expand trade relations with Pakistan by many folds. Economy is one of the most important factors in international relations, if not everything. Look at China & US. The US has severe reservations for China’s militarily expansions, and it hates the idea of a world with two hard super powers (militarily at par with each other). However, it will never dare to attack the Chinese, as its economy is deeply dependent on them. After all, China is the biggest money lander to America. Coming back to the point, the common Pakistanis will clearly realize that their interest is in India’s growth and not in India’s down fall. For e.g., if Pakistani farmers are benefiting from exports of their mangoes to India, they would want India to grow so they can have bigger market and get better price returns, which in-turn will fuel their own growth. The more economic-interdependence, the more obsolete “anti-India sentiments” will become.

· We definitely need great increase in people to people contact. One can think of attacking another, when there is emotional detachment. If people have known the ground realities, have had direct interactions with the “other side”, have known their version of the story, some sort of bondage is bound to be established. Both sides (India & Pakistan) should exchange students, faculty members, artists, & intellectuals on a large scale. Visitor visas must be made easily accessible (of course, with proper background check).

· On political level, India must aggressively resolve less contentious issues (i.e., water, Siachen, Sir Creek etc). Kashmir must be resolved through backchannel (without any media hype) diplomacy with full priority. Issue of Baluchistan should be tackled only after Kashmir is resolved to push Pakistan on negotiating table.

· India should do its best to help the moderates of Pakistan gain voice, and should use its external intelligence agency (i.e., Research and Analysis Wing) constructively. Silencing extremists in Pakistan may be a good strategy, but encouraging moderate voices is surely a promising one. Covertly, India should also explore opportunities to strengthen secular, moderate and progressive democratic parties. I would like to call this “positive” use of external intelligence. This is very vital considering the present scenario in Pakistan. There will be nothing more fruitful for India than to have a stable democratic Pakistan, which practices secular values.

· Lastly, the people of South Asia are over-emotional. Indians and Pakistanis either fight or love each other. They talk about either war or reunification and wiping the border off. Let’s not have bipolar relations. Reunification is very quixotic idea. International relations are based on country’s interests and not on emotions. Let’s have warm relationships, great people to people contact & trade relations. Let’s invest heavily in “comprehensive security” of our people, instead of buying arms & ammunition. More importantly, let’s realize our fates are directly linked to one another.

Excerpt from Anand Patwardhan's documentary "War & Peace" (courtesy: Anand Patwardhan):

I welcome your comments....

Critical analysis of the Idea of Pakistan and India

Idea of Pakistan: Hindus and Muslims of South Asia have completely separate history. Their heroes are different, their rituals are different, their behaviour patterns (tehzeeb) are different and they value different things. It would have been absolutely impossible for the Muslims to live and to secure basic socio-economic rights under a Hindu ruling country with over 70% of Hindu population. Thus, creation of Pakistan was inevitable for the wellbeing of the Muslims of South Asia and to escape from much likely Hindu domination. This ideology is also referred as a two-nation theory.

Idea of India: Since ancient time, people of various religion and race have come to the land of India. Not only Hindus and Muslims, but the people of all religion can live together because we share more commonalities than differences. India is for everyone. The people of South Asia share rich history, which dates back more than 5000 years. Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism have evolved from here. In addition, throughout history, India has warmly welcomed other religions, mainly, Judaism, Zoroastrianism (Parsi), Islam, and Christianity. The root of this pluralist ideology seems to be the idea of Vasudhaiv kutumbkam (whole world is a single family) that originates in ancient Indian texts called the Upanishads and is considered an integral part of the Hindu Philosophy.

Both these ideas (of India & Pakistan) are incompatible with each other. If Hindus and Muslims are doing well together, the idea of India prevails but the idea of Pakistan becomes fallacious. And in the events of communal disharmony, the idea of India would be severely disturbed, while the idea of Pakistan would find concrete justification. Quite naturally, these ideas drive both countries to zero sum games. One’s triumph is the defeat for the other.

On a closer look, the idea of India seems more promising keeping a long-term perspective in mind. The pluralist nature of a country facilitates positive relationship with all kinds of nations. For example, India has warm ties with Palestine as well as Israel; however, Pakistan is unable to have relations with Israel. In addition, pluralist nature helps a nation strengthen internal social stability as every section of society owns the country on equal basis. And this could be the reason why Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, wanted Pakistan to be a modern secular democratic state, where the people of all religion would have equal rights (as per his speech on 11^th August, 1947). For years, he was demanding a separate country on religious bases and when the time had come, he was talking about creating a secular state. This message was indigestible for the masses as the people were romanticizing the idea of a new Muslim country. Sadly, he did not live long enough to implement his idea of plural Pakistan, which would have been more or less just another India, but with a Muslim majority. Today, Pakistan desperately needs a visionary leadership that builds a tolerant, secular and progressive welfare-state that their Quaid-E-Azam, Jinnah, had envisioned. Such a state would have all of the ingredients of becoming the best partner India can ever have.

On the other hand, India faces quite unique challenges. A section of its population, mainly Hindu, supports Pakistan’s two nation theory (i.e., Hindus and Muslims cannot live together). These people believe that the Muslims should not be allowed to live in India as they are already given a separate land to live on. These people regret the fact that India became a secular state and not a Hindu (theocratic) state. They romanticize the idea of a Hindu nation just as many Islamists did for Pakistan prior to the partition. Another challenge - a section of Muslim community keeps identifying itself with the Arabs or the Persians rather than the rest of the non-Muslim Indians. These elements must open their eyes and own up the Indian history instead of beginning stories from the 7th centrury Arabia. The recent genetic research unanimously suggests that the South Asian Muslims are genetically same as Hindus (mostly no observable difference between the genes of Hindus & Muslims of South Asia), not the Arabs, the central Asians or the Muslims of any other region of the world. All of these people, irrespective of their religion, ought to realize that they are strengthening the idea of Pakistan and hurting the idea of India. By doing so, they are disregarding their primary duty, which is to safe-guard and to nurture the idea of India.

The two nation theory is weak because it has generated from fear and bigotry, whereas the Vasudhaiv Kutumbkam theory is strong, very strong, because it expresses hope for a harmonized world. The true triumph of the idea of India will be evident when the individuals across the whole world would consider themselves as members of a global family. And the best place to begin this campaign is the neighbour on our left.

I welcome your comments....