Narendra Modi’s victory
Farmers’ Suicides
Female foeticide
Dalits, Tribals, and OBCs in an almost hopeless deprivation
India Inc as Bharat
The Idea of Christ was never more attractive than now
A Merry Christmas
John Dayal
The Christmas of 2007
New Delhi, India
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Monday, December 3, 2007
ISSUES BEFORE THE COMMUNITY
Dr. John Dayal’s speech at 2 December 2007 meeting of the CATHOLIC COUNCIL OF INDIA at Ranchi, Jharkhand
Puny they may seem in the face of the overwhelming and flagrant violation of Human right in India, but issues of Persecution, anti Conversion Laws and full Constitutional Rights for Dalit Christians remain critical for the Church and the Community as erosion of Constitutional Guarantees
A million human beings were reportedly butchered in the Partition riots of 1947, almost an equal number of Hindus and Muslims. No one kept a count. There was no effort at determining the truth, and feeble efforts at reconciliation. That was then. More accurate counts have been kept since then. Over 3,500 Sikhs were killed, most of them torched alive, in 2004. Over 1,000 Muslims died in Ahmedabad in the early seventies and over 2,000 more in Ahmedabad and the rest of Gujarat 2002. Mr. L K Advani’s Rath Yatra and it inevitable finale of Bari demolition, the Mumbai blasts which followed and the Mumbai riots thereafter in 1992-93 remain as known for their intensity as for the fact, like other acts of hate, the perpetrators remain unpunished. As they indeed also remain unpunished in cases of violence against Dalits, the situation only theoretically better than it must have been in the Dark ages.
The State, which should mean means the Government and Civil society, also remains culpable, by what it has done and what it has failed to do. We cannot even begin talking of recent revelations of the scale of suicide by farmers in Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Andhra Pradesh, every death that could have been avoided by State intervention in the processes of agricultural loans. There has never been a discussion of any strength in Parliament on matters of Military and Police impunity in the killings in Kashmir, the North East, and the Punjab. Fake encounters, mysterious disappearances of activists, custodial deaths.
I participated in a recent exercise to prepare the Civil Society document on India’s Human Rights situation to be presented to the United Nations Human Rights Council. The Council, which will report directly to the UN General Assembly, recently replaced the old and tooth-less UN Human Rights Commission. India is in the first batch of country’s whose records will be examined by fellow UN members in what is called a Universal Periodic Review to be held in April 2007. Indian will come up for review again in 2012.
The Civil Society report to the UPR meeting makes a depressing document. Gender, labour, Tribals, Religious minorities, displacement, Impunity – you name the issue and India has much of which it needs to be ashamed. Marginalised people have not been given the protection they deserve. The State and its brutal agencies have gone scot free, not just in Gujarat and Nandigram-SEZ, Kashmir and Nagaland, Punjab and Orissa.
India’s 10 per cent growth is not reflected on the ground. The growth of its middle class apparently has been at the cost of the hidden multitudes below the poverty line. The ideological inclinations of parties such as the Bharatiya Janata Party, the political label of the hyper nationalist Hindutva group Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, which ruled the nation for six years and continues to rule a third of the country’s states, in fact, have taken state impunity and hostility to new depths.
I leave it to the Church to introspect and realize if they have stood up to be counted in the struggle for human dignity and Constitutional rights, or if they have been satisfied with whatever development efforts they have contributed to in FCRA-assisted programmes. Articulation and empowerment remain matters on which the Church can be interrogated. This begins with the empowerment of the Catholic Laity in the three Catholic Churches, conscientising them to act as individuals and as a community.
We could begin with home, so to speak, in raising the bar to protest the denial of human rights on three issues that remain contemporary.
The first is the matter of Rights for Dalit Christians.
The second is the proliferation of the so called Freedom of Religion Bills in both BJP and Congress rules states.
The third is the matter of economic and development deprivation of Christians, especially rural landless, tribals without ST rights, and Dalits.
THE DALIT CHRISTIAN ISSUE:
The established Church and its hierarchy and institutions are not direct participants in the legal, or court, struggle of the Dalit Christians, though the Church is an active litigant in protecting Article 30 Minority rights of Schools and colleges, particularly in the management of the high-end sector. The Dalit Christian matter is in the Supreme Court because of the action of a Civil Society group, called the Public Interest Litigation Centre which was set up by the Janata party [1977-79] Government’s Union Law minister Shanti Bhushan and his son, Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan who have challenged the 1950 presidential order which reduced affirmative action programmes for the former untouchable castes to only those who wanted to remain in the Hindu faith. The PIL by the Bhushans has subsequently been supported by similar PILs by individuals and various groups. Not surprisingly, the RSS and its activists have also filed PILs in the court. The CBCI and its SC-ST-BC Commission has been in the forefront, however, of mobilizing mass support in collaboration with other Church groups. Small but persistent demonstrations have been held in New Delhi, larger ones in Tamil Nadu and Andhra, and petitions have been taken to the Prime Minister, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and various chief ministers. The delegations are often led by Bishops, I am happy to note. I must also put on record, here, the pioneering role of the All India Catholic Union in this struggle, a role AICU continues to play.
But Church unity on the Dalit Christian issue still remains a matter of doubt. It does seem often that Dalit Christians have been left to their own devices, and that it is a matter of concern only to a section of the Latin Church, specially in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and Punjab. Congregations of the so called Indian National Churches, and the leaders and congregations of the tribal groups from the North east and Central India, and the middle class groups along the East and West coasts seem not to relate to this matter As much as they would relate to an assault on their Article 30 rights.
For their own reasons, many of which relate to the conditions of their funding and some to their ideological or religious biases, the so called Secular Dalit movements have distanced themselves from the struggle of Dalit Christians. Dalit Christians were not allowed a voice even in the UN Conference in Durban in the beginning of this Century, and major Dalit movements, national and international, Hindu, Neo-Buddhist or even Church-led, do not focus as much on Freedom of Faith as a Dalit right and Dalit Christians as a part of the crisis on which they are focusing.
I am not saying that the lack of universal Christian unity on the Dalit issue is singularly responsible for the delay in persuading the Government to amend the law, as it did to benefit Sikh and Buddhist communities. But a more united Christian community and more concerted effort would have been useful. We need to answer a simple question – Even when the Archbishop of Delhi personally calls upon the clergy and congregation to come to a rally, only a handful do so, and very few of them are priests. In the Nineteen Nineties, the Church could bring a lakh of people to Delhi from Punjab and other areas. Even today, in Madurai or Trichi or Hyderabad, it is possible for Church to mobilise lakhs. Nowhere else -- for this cause, though lakhs can still collect for pious or other political and commercial matters. I deeply regret that controversies and dissensions, tension and an acrid environment created in the wake of the Rites issue in various parts of North India including Delhi, has not helped the Dalit Christian campaign.
[For the record, I must say that the rally organised by the CBCI and National Council of churches in New Delhi on 29th November 2007 did see about 10 Catholic Bishops and an equal number of protestant Hierarchy, about 200 priests and nuns and another 200 activists from Tamil Nadu and other states staged a three hour protest in New Delhi. As current president of the All India Catholic Union, which has always played an active role in the Dalit struggle, was not taken to a part of the organisation of the rally. If it is just to be church leaders, then the pitch will have to be higher, for Bishops cannot create large numbers. People in Parliament and government have often told me that if a single Dalit Christian Member of Parliament and some church leaders were to go on an indefinite hunger strike near the Gandhi statue in Parliament house, the matter would be settled in short order. It is not that Christian members of Parliament have not agitated in front of the rally. Women MPs have done so for gender rights. And several men MPs have been enthusiastic participants in sit-in protests for coconut and rubber prices. These are of course important and concern large number of plantation workers and workers, but so is the Dalit Christian issue, and it has no takers beyond lip service.]
The tortuous course of the Dalit Christian struggle has exposed political parties and Government even more. They support the cause when they are not in power. Even current chief ministers such as those of Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, who have supported the cause, do not say it with the same vigour as they do other local matters when negotiating with the Central Government which depends on them for its survival.
The Congress Government in New Delhi has failed to give any cheer to the disempowered community. The BJP could perhaps have been excused for not helping us. It says rights to Dalit Christians will lead to an exodus from Hinduism, and by supporting the existing rule, it is preventing mass conversions. That is the plea its leaders have taken in the Supreme Court. Prime Ministers HD Deve Gowda, even before his alliance with the BJP in Karnataka, and Inder Kumar Gujral, long before he sought BJP support in Punjab, perhaps did not have the ideological or political will to act.
But surely the Congress has the numbers and the stability. Its allies, the Marxists and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, have written their support in letters to the Prime Minister. Even Miss Mayawati has written such a letter. What then is the explanation or the hidden reason for this pathetic lack of political will? I understand that the Congress, despite its pretensions of inner party unity and ideological commitment, has not been able to prevent a large chuck of the Hindu leadership of the party, especially of the Dalit segment, from being swayed by the Hindutva argument. They have made it into a Hindu Dalit Versus Christian Dalit confrontation. These leaders argue that Christian Dalits, because their marginally better standards of education, will take away the benefits given to scheduled castes. They say their cake of jobs and vacancies in professional colleges is too small and they cannot share it with Dalit Christians.
They of course make the mistake, perhaps deliberately, of confusing Dalit rights with just Government jobs. Dalit rights are for dignity, for political empowerment, for self employment and for participation in Panchayati raj. Here the cake is very large. Everyone can share. The Congress party and the United Progressive Front Government which it heads has so far made mo effort ton educate its cadres and MPs etc. Instead, it has left advocacy with MPs to members of the Church. The Church, really speaking, is in no way outfitted or trained to lobby with politicians. If it could have done, it would have done right in 1950, and this crisis would not have happened in the front place. Nor, for that matter, would it have come into conflict with the Marxist Governments in Kerala, for instance. Politics is not Church business!
The Government continues in its refusal to act. When it comes to speaking in the Supreme Court, high Government lawyers waffle, and pass the buck. First the Government passed the buck to the National Commission under former Chief Justice Rangnath Mishra Commission which was looking at the development issues of religious and linguistic minorities.
The Mishra Commission long completed its report [though its surveys were loaded in favour of the Hindutva argument]. Its full report is not published, but it has published the recommendations in favour of giving Dalit Christians, and Dalit Muslims. The Commission has since then been wound up, and its full documentation, which we all contributed rare documents, is now lying in some Government godown.
Since the Union Government had been telling the Supreme Court that it was waiting for Justice Misra to submit his report, it should rightfully immediately given the court its decision – speaking out whether it was accepting the report, the best course, or rejecting it, the worst case scenario from the Christian point of view. It did neither. Using an obscure provision in the revised National Commission for Scheduled Castes [which is a statutory Commission] the Government said it was mandatory for it to refer the matter to the SC Commission now headed by former Union Home minister, and late Bihar governor, Dr Buta Singh. The Government has still not said it will respect the recommendations of its own Commissions. It merely refers the matter to them. It forgot that even when the pro-Hindutva PV Narasimha Rao was Prime Minister, and Mr. Sitaram Kesri the Welfare Minister, they introduced a Bill in the Lok Sabha to grant Dalit Christian their well deserved rights. The cabinet had agreed. That the Bill was not taken up because the Lok Sabah was dissolved, is another matter altogether.
The National Commission for Scheduled Castes has a terrible record. Under past Congress and BJP chairpersons and members, the Commission has taken a very Hindu attitude to most matters. It has not been true even to its charter relating to Dalits of the Hindu faith. The last few chairmen have been very hostile to the Christian cause and have publicly announced their rejection of the rights.
Dr Buta Singh is a Dalit himself, of course, but as a Dalit from Punjab, he has lived in close proximity with Christians, and even has a few Christians in his near and extended family. In my meetings with him, he has assured me he is very sympathetic to the Dalit Christian cause and his report will be very positive. But he has also made it clear that rights for Dalit Christians will be available only once the Government changes the rules and gives additional quotas for Muslims and Christians in the SC list. This reservation now stands at 15 per cent. Unless the Supreme Court Okays it and the Government shows the political will, there is no Constitutional method through which the additional 2 per cent or so reservation for Christians and maybe more then 7 per cent additional quota for Dalit Muslims can be created. This affectively means another stalling for many more years, and for us, a grim future of continued struggle.
The matter came up once again before the Supreme Court on 28 November 2007, and as predicted, Government once again sought two months time before it came up with the response. Senior counsel and former Law Minister, Mr. Ram Jethmalani, questioned the government as to what was stopping it from hurrying up with its report. And an annoyed Chief Justice of India, Mr. Justice Balakrishnan, told the government’s additional Solicitor General Mr. Gopal Subramaniam that he would have to hurry up and tell the court in four weeks time.
But even if the Government were to tell the Supreme Court that it has decided to give the quota, there are only two ways it can become a reality. The Government has to issue a Presidential proclamation by way of an Ordinance adding the word Christians in the law where it covers Hindus, Buddhist, and Sikhs. The second option is all but mandated. We will have to continue with proceedings in the Supreme Court. Senior advocates tell me that even if the Supreme Court admits the Writ Petitions, the actual hearings and legal calisthenics may take months, if not years. National and international advocacy will also have to continue, as also mass mobilisation in the national capital, state, and district headquarters and everywhere elsewhere possible.
The matter of course is also before God. Everything is possible when the Holy Spirit moves. Together with advocacy in Government and with political parties and their leaders, we also must continue united with prayers and supplications before God. Perhaps this will also unite the community for larger gains in the future.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM BILLS AND THE POLITICS OF HATE AND MAJORITY APPEASEMENT
The second issue, of the so called Freedom of Religion Bills, also speaks of political perfidy, lack of political will among those who rule us, and an assertion that though the Constitution may speak of a Secular state with equal distance from, and equal respect for, all religions, in actual fact Hinduism is the default religion of India, and the State and Government follow it with diligence and enthusiasm. I am not referring to the obvious heavy public exchequer financing of religious festivals, the media abuse in favour of one religion and so on. I speak of issues of Constitution.
As we all know, despite the caution of the first, and best, Prime Minister, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru, the then Madhya Pradesh Chief minister, Pandit Ravi Shankar set up the notorious Niyogi committee to investigate Christian work in his then undivided state. Ravi Shankar and Niyogi where both pathologically hostile to Christianity. Their target was the Catholic Church, working among tribals who they and their group had been exploiting for decades. The All India Catholic Union’s associations in the state, really active Catholic Associations gave extensive documentation. As did the Church. But the report was a forgone conclusion. Acting on it Madhya Pradesh passed the Religious Freedom Act affectively banning all conversions, and as effectively coercing the Tribals to espouse the Hindu faith, a practice the Sangh Parivar codified in its criminal Ghar Wapsi programme. Ravi Shankar was a Congressman. Later SVD and other Governments in various states followed suit. In short order, Orissa and Arunachal joined the fray; Arunachal after a violent suppression of whatever Christianity then existed in that remote state. Since then Gujarat, Rajasthan and Himachal have passed the law. Tamil Nadu passed the law, but the chief minister, Jayalalitha who had first bowed to her Hindutva allies, leant her lesson and quickly rescinded the ugly act.
The shenanigans in Himachal Pradesh are the ones I find the most obnoxious, and the most inexplicable.
When the Rajasthan State Legislative Assembly had become the latest State to pass such an Act, I was among those who approached the noted Constitutional lawyer Dr Rajeev Dhawan to study the Constitutional validity of such legislation. You would recall that many decades ago, Rev Fr Stanislaus had challenged these laws in the court, as also others who moved the courts on the Orissa laws. The Supreme Court in a strange decision, upheld both the Christian faith’s right to profess and propagate the faith, but said they did not have the right to convert. The absurdity inherent in, and the contradictions between, various court pronouncements on religious faith as a fundamental right has been subject of much debate, but no one has yet gone to court to challenge the Stanislaus judgement in its entirety and in a coherent holistic manner.
Dr Rajeev Dhawan, senior advocate Indira Jaisingh and even the Solicitor General of India, in his own legal opinion to a State Governor, have held that this law is ultra vires of the Constitution for a long list of reasons.
The then Governor of Rajasthan, and today President of India, Advocate Pratibha Patil, agreed with the logic of our protest, and withheld her consent to the Bill, sending it to the then President Dr Abul Kalam in New Delhi. He too withheld his signature. In Madhya Pradesh Governor Balram Jhakkar has also refused to sign certain amendments to the Act into law.
When this was taking place, I wrote to Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, the Congress party. President. She replied in a signed letter. She said she and her party were against any restrictions to freedom of expression and faith, a and they would stand against it both inside legislatures and outside, if required.
And yet, the Congress Chief Minister of Himachal, Vir Bhadra Singh, one of an anachronistic group of princelings, who is facing a serious Hindutva challenge in the State Legislative Assembly elections, brought such a law into being, and the State Governor promptly signed it into law. Singh told media he was trying to prevent threat to local religion and culture. No one asked him just how many Christians there were in the state – barely measurable in census operations – and how many fraudulent conversions – none in reality.
I went to the National Commission of Minorities, headed then by the scholar-diplomat, Mr. Ansari, now Vice President of the Indian republic. Mr. Ansari, former ambassador to West Asia and a former vice chancellor of the Aligarh Muslim University wrote to many states to find out how many fraudulent conversions to Christianity and taken place to merit such laws. The reply he got was startling to him, but not to me. Every state that responded had to admit there were no cases of forcible and fraudulent conversions to Christianity or Islam.
There have been large scale conversions to Buddhism, and people join the Sikh Panth in Punjab and Delhi almost on a daily basis. But the law never takes notice because for some peculiar reason never fully explained the official system agrees with the Sangh Parivar that these are not individual religions but parts of Hinduism. In effect, the Indian legal system, denies these religions, which they call Indic religions the right to an independent identity.
But I digress.
I, the All India Christian Council and the Christian Legal Association are challenging the Himachal law in the Shimla High Court. The preliminary work has been done. An application ahs also been filed under the Right to Information to force the Government to disclose just how many Christians exist in the state, and what provoked it to go in for such a barbaric law.
And the law is really barbaric. As we all know, these laws are directed only against Christianity, and to a lesser extent, against Islam. Even if the police do not arrest Priest and pastors, the existence of the law on the Statute books, encourages widespread and well organised hate campaigns, and criminalization of genuine religious activity. They also mislead even senior police officers to believe they can move against religious personnel of the Christian Church and even against the laity. The acts create a tinder box situation which leads eventually to widespread persecution of Christians on the one hand and a coercion of Dalits, Tribals and marginalised who are terrorized by provisions of the Freedom of Religion Act to remain silent in the face of great exploitation.
For the record, the salient parts of the Himachal Religious Freedom Act are:
1) A person intending to convert from one religion to another shall give prior notice of at least thirty days to the District Magistrate of the district concerned of his intention to do so and the District Magistrate shall get the matter enquired into all by such agency as he may deem fit: Provided that no notice shall be required if a person reverts back to his original religion.
(2) Any person who fails to give prior notice, as required under sub-section (1) shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees.
Section 5. Punishment for contravention of the provision of section 3 : Any person contravening the provisions contained in section 3 shall, without prejudice to any civil liability, be punishable with imprisonment of either description which may extend to two years or with fine may extend to twenty five thousand rupees or with both: Provided that in case the offence is committed in respect of a minor, a woman or a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes, the punishment of imprisonment may extend to three years and fine may extend to fifty thousand rupees.
Section 6. Offence to be cognizable: An offence under this Act shall be cognizable and shall not be investigated by an officer below the rank of an Inspector of Police.”
It is obvious that the district civil and police authorities are now arbiters of fundamental rights, including freedom of faith!!
Many in the Catholic Church believe that the law will not impact on them, and that radical Church groups have brought it upon themselves because their wild ways in evangelization. There maybe a problem of ultra evangelical groups failing to evolve an appropriate vocabulary to articulate the teachings of Christ, bur the law eventually is directed against social work and social action, the empowerment programme of the Church in which the Catholic Church is the ;leader. This patently calls for a wide spectrum unity among Church groups. People from Madhya Pradesh have told Open Court hearings organised by human rights groups that in the Jhabua region for instance, it has now become difficult for pastors, nuns and clergy to even move about after sunset, reducing the faith to a “Daylight” reality.
The last major issue that radically impacts on the everyday life and the very future of the Christians is the delay in economic empowerment of the large number of tribals, Dalits, and landless peasants who constitute the bulk of this minority community in most of the states. Most Tribals working outside the state of their birth do not get Scheduled status and therefore do not have any educational and employment privileges. For the same reason, they are also denied benefits under the area plans and the special component plans under the Five Year plan system. The Christians among them also lose out on traditional sharing of forest produce and cultivation. The vast landless peasantry and Dalits of Andhra ands Tamil Nadu seem to be entirely outside the development pail if they do not live in metropolitan cities and Stare capitals.
The Justice Mishra Commission, now dissolved, had to speak on this issue when it was also saddles with the matter of determining the legitimacy of the demand of Dalit Christians and Muslims to Scheduled status. No details have been made public of the main report of the Mishra Commission.
The Government has systematically refused many requests from representative organisations, including the Catholic Union that the economic and development matters of the community should also be enumerate so that Government aid is properly channeled to such micro communities instead of being focussed only on the numerically largest of the minorities.
When Prime Minister Manmohan Singh set up a high powered committee under former Delhi Chief Justice Rajinder Sachchar to define Muslim development parameters. I wrote to him and others that Christian could also fruitfully be studied for their needs by the same committee. The Government refused. It also ahs not bothered to set up a panel just for Christians.
The result is that after Sachchar committee gave its report, the Government has announced a slew of development measures and special emphasis on thud Muslim community. But these measures do not focus on Christians at all. Also, when it comes to discussions, the Government even denies there are marginalised sections in the Christian community, and farcically enough, cites the fact that there are no reports and studies to prove the Christian need for special development efforts. It does not see the viciousness of the argument – there is no study, therefore no data, on Christian deprivation, and since there is no data there can be no relief, and because the Christians are apparently not deprived, there is no need for a fact finding committee!
For the sake of every hotel waiter who can never dream to own a hotel, every mechanic who will never own even a small tin-shed garage, every ayah and tribal maid working as a hugely exploited domestic servant, and every starving landless peasant, it is time for all of us to unitedly raise our voice.
In face, new islands of underdevelopment are being created. A development wedge is being driven between Christians and the minorities which are either developed already, or will receive the bounty of the Government. Such a mutually suspicious minority conglomeration can hardly be expected to unitedly fight the force of majoritarianism in the country.
The threat, therefore, is the democratic state and the republican way of life in India.
It is time we acted.
The hierarchy and clergy of the established Church must join this struggle.
Before it is too late.
Puny they may seem in the face of the overwhelming and flagrant violation of Human right in India, but issues of Persecution, anti Conversion Laws and full Constitutional Rights for Dalit Christians remain critical for the Church and the Community as erosion of Constitutional Guarantees
A million human beings were reportedly butchered in the Partition riots of 1947, almost an equal number of Hindus and Muslims. No one kept a count. There was no effort at determining the truth, and feeble efforts at reconciliation. That was then. More accurate counts have been kept since then. Over 3,500 Sikhs were killed, most of them torched alive, in 2004. Over 1,000 Muslims died in Ahmedabad in the early seventies and over 2,000 more in Ahmedabad and the rest of Gujarat 2002. Mr. L K Advani’s Rath Yatra and it inevitable finale of Bari demolition, the Mumbai blasts which followed and the Mumbai riots thereafter in 1992-93 remain as known for their intensity as for the fact, like other acts of hate, the perpetrators remain unpunished. As they indeed also remain unpunished in cases of violence against Dalits, the situation only theoretically better than it must have been in the Dark ages.
The State, which should mean means the Government and Civil society, also remains culpable, by what it has done and what it has failed to do. We cannot even begin talking of recent revelations of the scale of suicide by farmers in Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Andhra Pradesh, every death that could have been avoided by State intervention in the processes of agricultural loans. There has never been a discussion of any strength in Parliament on matters of Military and Police impunity in the killings in Kashmir, the North East, and the Punjab. Fake encounters, mysterious disappearances of activists, custodial deaths.
I participated in a recent exercise to prepare the Civil Society document on India’s Human Rights situation to be presented to the United Nations Human Rights Council. The Council, which will report directly to the UN General Assembly, recently replaced the old and tooth-less UN Human Rights Commission. India is in the first batch of country’s whose records will be examined by fellow UN members in what is called a Universal Periodic Review to be held in April 2007. Indian will come up for review again in 2012.
The Civil Society report to the UPR meeting makes a depressing document. Gender, labour, Tribals, Religious minorities, displacement, Impunity – you name the issue and India has much of which it needs to be ashamed. Marginalised people have not been given the protection they deserve. The State and its brutal agencies have gone scot free, not just in Gujarat and Nandigram-SEZ, Kashmir and Nagaland, Punjab and Orissa.
India’s 10 per cent growth is not reflected on the ground. The growth of its middle class apparently has been at the cost of the hidden multitudes below the poverty line. The ideological inclinations of parties such as the Bharatiya Janata Party, the political label of the hyper nationalist Hindutva group Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, which ruled the nation for six years and continues to rule a third of the country’s states, in fact, have taken state impunity and hostility to new depths.
I leave it to the Church to introspect and realize if they have stood up to be counted in the struggle for human dignity and Constitutional rights, or if they have been satisfied with whatever development efforts they have contributed to in FCRA-assisted programmes. Articulation and empowerment remain matters on which the Church can be interrogated. This begins with the empowerment of the Catholic Laity in the three Catholic Churches, conscientising them to act as individuals and as a community.
We could begin with home, so to speak, in raising the bar to protest the denial of human rights on three issues that remain contemporary.
The first is the matter of Rights for Dalit Christians.
The second is the proliferation of the so called Freedom of Religion Bills in both BJP and Congress rules states.
The third is the matter of economic and development deprivation of Christians, especially rural landless, tribals without ST rights, and Dalits.
THE DALIT CHRISTIAN ISSUE:
The established Church and its hierarchy and institutions are not direct participants in the legal, or court, struggle of the Dalit Christians, though the Church is an active litigant in protecting Article 30 Minority rights of Schools and colleges, particularly in the management of the high-end sector. The Dalit Christian matter is in the Supreme Court because of the action of a Civil Society group, called the Public Interest Litigation Centre which was set up by the Janata party [1977-79] Government’s Union Law minister Shanti Bhushan and his son, Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan who have challenged the 1950 presidential order which reduced affirmative action programmes for the former untouchable castes to only those who wanted to remain in the Hindu faith. The PIL by the Bhushans has subsequently been supported by similar PILs by individuals and various groups. Not surprisingly, the RSS and its activists have also filed PILs in the court. The CBCI and its SC-ST-BC Commission has been in the forefront, however, of mobilizing mass support in collaboration with other Church groups. Small but persistent demonstrations have been held in New Delhi, larger ones in Tamil Nadu and Andhra, and petitions have been taken to the Prime Minister, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and various chief ministers. The delegations are often led by Bishops, I am happy to note. I must also put on record, here, the pioneering role of the All India Catholic Union in this struggle, a role AICU continues to play.
But Church unity on the Dalit Christian issue still remains a matter of doubt. It does seem often that Dalit Christians have been left to their own devices, and that it is a matter of concern only to a section of the Latin Church, specially in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and Punjab. Congregations of the so called Indian National Churches, and the leaders and congregations of the tribal groups from the North east and Central India, and the middle class groups along the East and West coasts seem not to relate to this matter As much as they would relate to an assault on their Article 30 rights.
For their own reasons, many of which relate to the conditions of their funding and some to their ideological or religious biases, the so called Secular Dalit movements have distanced themselves from the struggle of Dalit Christians. Dalit Christians were not allowed a voice even in the UN Conference in Durban in the beginning of this Century, and major Dalit movements, national and international, Hindu, Neo-Buddhist or even Church-led, do not focus as much on Freedom of Faith as a Dalit right and Dalit Christians as a part of the crisis on which they are focusing.
I am not saying that the lack of universal Christian unity on the Dalit issue is singularly responsible for the delay in persuading the Government to amend the law, as it did to benefit Sikh and Buddhist communities. But a more united Christian community and more concerted effort would have been useful. We need to answer a simple question – Even when the Archbishop of Delhi personally calls upon the clergy and congregation to come to a rally, only a handful do so, and very few of them are priests. In the Nineteen Nineties, the Church could bring a lakh of people to Delhi from Punjab and other areas. Even today, in Madurai or Trichi or Hyderabad, it is possible for Church to mobilise lakhs. Nowhere else -- for this cause, though lakhs can still collect for pious or other political and commercial matters. I deeply regret that controversies and dissensions, tension and an acrid environment created in the wake of the Rites issue in various parts of North India including Delhi, has not helped the Dalit Christian campaign.
[For the record, I must say that the rally organised by the CBCI and National Council of churches in New Delhi on 29th November 2007 did see about 10 Catholic Bishops and an equal number of protestant Hierarchy, about 200 priests and nuns and another 200 activists from Tamil Nadu and other states staged a three hour protest in New Delhi. As current president of the All India Catholic Union, which has always played an active role in the Dalit struggle, was not taken to a part of the organisation of the rally. If it is just to be church leaders, then the pitch will have to be higher, for Bishops cannot create large numbers. People in Parliament and government have often told me that if a single Dalit Christian Member of Parliament and some church leaders were to go on an indefinite hunger strike near the Gandhi statue in Parliament house, the matter would be settled in short order. It is not that Christian members of Parliament have not agitated in front of the rally. Women MPs have done so for gender rights. And several men MPs have been enthusiastic participants in sit-in protests for coconut and rubber prices. These are of course important and concern large number of plantation workers and workers, but so is the Dalit Christian issue, and it has no takers beyond lip service.]
The tortuous course of the Dalit Christian struggle has exposed political parties and Government even more. They support the cause when they are not in power. Even current chief ministers such as those of Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, who have supported the cause, do not say it with the same vigour as they do other local matters when negotiating with the Central Government which depends on them for its survival.
The Congress Government in New Delhi has failed to give any cheer to the disempowered community. The BJP could perhaps have been excused for not helping us. It says rights to Dalit Christians will lead to an exodus from Hinduism, and by supporting the existing rule, it is preventing mass conversions. That is the plea its leaders have taken in the Supreme Court. Prime Ministers HD Deve Gowda, even before his alliance with the BJP in Karnataka, and Inder Kumar Gujral, long before he sought BJP support in Punjab, perhaps did not have the ideological or political will to act.
But surely the Congress has the numbers and the stability. Its allies, the Marxists and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, have written their support in letters to the Prime Minister. Even Miss Mayawati has written such a letter. What then is the explanation or the hidden reason for this pathetic lack of political will? I understand that the Congress, despite its pretensions of inner party unity and ideological commitment, has not been able to prevent a large chuck of the Hindu leadership of the party, especially of the Dalit segment, from being swayed by the Hindutva argument. They have made it into a Hindu Dalit Versus Christian Dalit confrontation. These leaders argue that Christian Dalits, because their marginally better standards of education, will take away the benefits given to scheduled castes. They say their cake of jobs and vacancies in professional colleges is too small and they cannot share it with Dalit Christians.
They of course make the mistake, perhaps deliberately, of confusing Dalit rights with just Government jobs. Dalit rights are for dignity, for political empowerment, for self employment and for participation in Panchayati raj. Here the cake is very large. Everyone can share. The Congress party and the United Progressive Front Government which it heads has so far made mo effort ton educate its cadres and MPs etc. Instead, it has left advocacy with MPs to members of the Church. The Church, really speaking, is in no way outfitted or trained to lobby with politicians. If it could have done, it would have done right in 1950, and this crisis would not have happened in the front place. Nor, for that matter, would it have come into conflict with the Marxist Governments in Kerala, for instance. Politics is not Church business!
The Government continues in its refusal to act. When it comes to speaking in the Supreme Court, high Government lawyers waffle, and pass the buck. First the Government passed the buck to the National Commission under former Chief Justice Rangnath Mishra Commission which was looking at the development issues of religious and linguistic minorities.
The Mishra Commission long completed its report [though its surveys were loaded in favour of the Hindutva argument]. Its full report is not published, but it has published the recommendations in favour of giving Dalit Christians, and Dalit Muslims. The Commission has since then been wound up, and its full documentation, which we all contributed rare documents, is now lying in some Government godown.
Since the Union Government had been telling the Supreme Court that it was waiting for Justice Misra to submit his report, it should rightfully immediately given the court its decision – speaking out whether it was accepting the report, the best course, or rejecting it, the worst case scenario from the Christian point of view. It did neither. Using an obscure provision in the revised National Commission for Scheduled Castes [which is a statutory Commission] the Government said it was mandatory for it to refer the matter to the SC Commission now headed by former Union Home minister, and late Bihar governor, Dr Buta Singh. The Government has still not said it will respect the recommendations of its own Commissions. It merely refers the matter to them. It forgot that even when the pro-Hindutva PV Narasimha Rao was Prime Minister, and Mr. Sitaram Kesri the Welfare Minister, they introduced a Bill in the Lok Sabha to grant Dalit Christian their well deserved rights. The cabinet had agreed. That the Bill was not taken up because the Lok Sabah was dissolved, is another matter altogether.
The National Commission for Scheduled Castes has a terrible record. Under past Congress and BJP chairpersons and members, the Commission has taken a very Hindu attitude to most matters. It has not been true even to its charter relating to Dalits of the Hindu faith. The last few chairmen have been very hostile to the Christian cause and have publicly announced their rejection of the rights.
Dr Buta Singh is a Dalit himself, of course, but as a Dalit from Punjab, he has lived in close proximity with Christians, and even has a few Christians in his near and extended family. In my meetings with him, he has assured me he is very sympathetic to the Dalit Christian cause and his report will be very positive. But he has also made it clear that rights for Dalit Christians will be available only once the Government changes the rules and gives additional quotas for Muslims and Christians in the SC list. This reservation now stands at 15 per cent. Unless the Supreme Court Okays it and the Government shows the political will, there is no Constitutional method through which the additional 2 per cent or so reservation for Christians and maybe more then 7 per cent additional quota for Dalit Muslims can be created. This affectively means another stalling for many more years, and for us, a grim future of continued struggle.
The matter came up once again before the Supreme Court on 28 November 2007, and as predicted, Government once again sought two months time before it came up with the response. Senior counsel and former Law Minister, Mr. Ram Jethmalani, questioned the government as to what was stopping it from hurrying up with its report. And an annoyed Chief Justice of India, Mr. Justice Balakrishnan, told the government’s additional Solicitor General Mr. Gopal Subramaniam that he would have to hurry up and tell the court in four weeks time.
But even if the Government were to tell the Supreme Court that it has decided to give the quota, there are only two ways it can become a reality. The Government has to issue a Presidential proclamation by way of an Ordinance adding the word Christians in the law where it covers Hindus, Buddhist, and Sikhs. The second option is all but mandated. We will have to continue with proceedings in the Supreme Court. Senior advocates tell me that even if the Supreme Court admits the Writ Petitions, the actual hearings and legal calisthenics may take months, if not years. National and international advocacy will also have to continue, as also mass mobilisation in the national capital, state, and district headquarters and everywhere elsewhere possible.
The matter of course is also before God. Everything is possible when the Holy Spirit moves. Together with advocacy in Government and with political parties and their leaders, we also must continue united with prayers and supplications before God. Perhaps this will also unite the community for larger gains in the future.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM BILLS AND THE POLITICS OF HATE AND MAJORITY APPEASEMENT
The second issue, of the so called Freedom of Religion Bills, also speaks of political perfidy, lack of political will among those who rule us, and an assertion that though the Constitution may speak of a Secular state with equal distance from, and equal respect for, all religions, in actual fact Hinduism is the default religion of India, and the State and Government follow it with diligence and enthusiasm. I am not referring to the obvious heavy public exchequer financing of religious festivals, the media abuse in favour of one religion and so on. I speak of issues of Constitution.
As we all know, despite the caution of the first, and best, Prime Minister, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru, the then Madhya Pradesh Chief minister, Pandit Ravi Shankar set up the notorious Niyogi committee to investigate Christian work in his then undivided state. Ravi Shankar and Niyogi where both pathologically hostile to Christianity. Their target was the Catholic Church, working among tribals who they and their group had been exploiting for decades. The All India Catholic Union’s associations in the state, really active Catholic Associations gave extensive documentation. As did the Church. But the report was a forgone conclusion. Acting on it Madhya Pradesh passed the Religious Freedom Act affectively banning all conversions, and as effectively coercing the Tribals to espouse the Hindu faith, a practice the Sangh Parivar codified in its criminal Ghar Wapsi programme. Ravi Shankar was a Congressman. Later SVD and other Governments in various states followed suit. In short order, Orissa and Arunachal joined the fray; Arunachal after a violent suppression of whatever Christianity then existed in that remote state. Since then Gujarat, Rajasthan and Himachal have passed the law. Tamil Nadu passed the law, but the chief minister, Jayalalitha who had first bowed to her Hindutva allies, leant her lesson and quickly rescinded the ugly act.
The shenanigans in Himachal Pradesh are the ones I find the most obnoxious, and the most inexplicable.
When the Rajasthan State Legislative Assembly had become the latest State to pass such an Act, I was among those who approached the noted Constitutional lawyer Dr Rajeev Dhawan to study the Constitutional validity of such legislation. You would recall that many decades ago, Rev Fr Stanislaus had challenged these laws in the court, as also others who moved the courts on the Orissa laws. The Supreme Court in a strange decision, upheld both the Christian faith’s right to profess and propagate the faith, but said they did not have the right to convert. The absurdity inherent in, and the contradictions between, various court pronouncements on religious faith as a fundamental right has been subject of much debate, but no one has yet gone to court to challenge the Stanislaus judgement in its entirety and in a coherent holistic manner.
Dr Rajeev Dhawan, senior advocate Indira Jaisingh and even the Solicitor General of India, in his own legal opinion to a State Governor, have held that this law is ultra vires of the Constitution for a long list of reasons.
The then Governor of Rajasthan, and today President of India, Advocate Pratibha Patil, agreed with the logic of our protest, and withheld her consent to the Bill, sending it to the then President Dr Abul Kalam in New Delhi. He too withheld his signature. In Madhya Pradesh Governor Balram Jhakkar has also refused to sign certain amendments to the Act into law.
When this was taking place, I wrote to Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, the Congress party. President. She replied in a signed letter. She said she and her party were against any restrictions to freedom of expression and faith, a and they would stand against it both inside legislatures and outside, if required.
And yet, the Congress Chief Minister of Himachal, Vir Bhadra Singh, one of an anachronistic group of princelings, who is facing a serious Hindutva challenge in the State Legislative Assembly elections, brought such a law into being, and the State Governor promptly signed it into law. Singh told media he was trying to prevent threat to local religion and culture. No one asked him just how many Christians there were in the state – barely measurable in census operations – and how many fraudulent conversions – none in reality.
I went to the National Commission of Minorities, headed then by the scholar-diplomat, Mr. Ansari, now Vice President of the Indian republic. Mr. Ansari, former ambassador to West Asia and a former vice chancellor of the Aligarh Muslim University wrote to many states to find out how many fraudulent conversions to Christianity and taken place to merit such laws. The reply he got was startling to him, but not to me. Every state that responded had to admit there were no cases of forcible and fraudulent conversions to Christianity or Islam.
There have been large scale conversions to Buddhism, and people join the Sikh Panth in Punjab and Delhi almost on a daily basis. But the law never takes notice because for some peculiar reason never fully explained the official system agrees with the Sangh Parivar that these are not individual religions but parts of Hinduism. In effect, the Indian legal system, denies these religions, which they call Indic religions the right to an independent identity.
But I digress.
I, the All India Christian Council and the Christian Legal Association are challenging the Himachal law in the Shimla High Court. The preliminary work has been done. An application ahs also been filed under the Right to Information to force the Government to disclose just how many Christians exist in the state, and what provoked it to go in for such a barbaric law.
And the law is really barbaric. As we all know, these laws are directed only against Christianity, and to a lesser extent, against Islam. Even if the police do not arrest Priest and pastors, the existence of the law on the Statute books, encourages widespread and well organised hate campaigns, and criminalization of genuine religious activity. They also mislead even senior police officers to believe they can move against religious personnel of the Christian Church and even against the laity. The acts create a tinder box situation which leads eventually to widespread persecution of Christians on the one hand and a coercion of Dalits, Tribals and marginalised who are terrorized by provisions of the Freedom of Religion Act to remain silent in the face of great exploitation.
For the record, the salient parts of the Himachal Religious Freedom Act are:
1) A person intending to convert from one religion to another shall give prior notice of at least thirty days to the District Magistrate of the district concerned of his intention to do so and the District Magistrate shall get the matter enquired into all by such agency as he may deem fit: Provided that no notice shall be required if a person reverts back to his original religion.
(2) Any person who fails to give prior notice, as required under sub-section (1) shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees.
Section 5. Punishment for contravention of the provision of section 3 : Any person contravening the provisions contained in section 3 shall, without prejudice to any civil liability, be punishable with imprisonment of either description which may extend to two years or with fine may extend to twenty five thousand rupees or with both: Provided that in case the offence is committed in respect of a minor, a woman or a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes, the punishment of imprisonment may extend to three years and fine may extend to fifty thousand rupees.
Section 6. Offence to be cognizable: An offence under this Act shall be cognizable and shall not be investigated by an officer below the rank of an Inspector of Police.”
It is obvious that the district civil and police authorities are now arbiters of fundamental rights, including freedom of faith!!
Many in the Catholic Church believe that the law will not impact on them, and that radical Church groups have brought it upon themselves because their wild ways in evangelization. There maybe a problem of ultra evangelical groups failing to evolve an appropriate vocabulary to articulate the teachings of Christ, bur the law eventually is directed against social work and social action, the empowerment programme of the Church in which the Catholic Church is the ;leader. This patently calls for a wide spectrum unity among Church groups. People from Madhya Pradesh have told Open Court hearings organised by human rights groups that in the Jhabua region for instance, it has now become difficult for pastors, nuns and clergy to even move about after sunset, reducing the faith to a “Daylight” reality.
The last major issue that radically impacts on the everyday life and the very future of the Christians is the delay in economic empowerment of the large number of tribals, Dalits, and landless peasants who constitute the bulk of this minority community in most of the states. Most Tribals working outside the state of their birth do not get Scheduled status and therefore do not have any educational and employment privileges. For the same reason, they are also denied benefits under the area plans and the special component plans under the Five Year plan system. The Christians among them also lose out on traditional sharing of forest produce and cultivation. The vast landless peasantry and Dalits of Andhra ands Tamil Nadu seem to be entirely outside the development pail if they do not live in metropolitan cities and Stare capitals.
The Justice Mishra Commission, now dissolved, had to speak on this issue when it was also saddles with the matter of determining the legitimacy of the demand of Dalit Christians and Muslims to Scheduled status. No details have been made public of the main report of the Mishra Commission.
The Government has systematically refused many requests from representative organisations, including the Catholic Union that the economic and development matters of the community should also be enumerate so that Government aid is properly channeled to such micro communities instead of being focussed only on the numerically largest of the minorities.
When Prime Minister Manmohan Singh set up a high powered committee under former Delhi Chief Justice Rajinder Sachchar to define Muslim development parameters. I wrote to him and others that Christian could also fruitfully be studied for their needs by the same committee. The Government refused. It also ahs not bothered to set up a panel just for Christians.
The result is that after Sachchar committee gave its report, the Government has announced a slew of development measures and special emphasis on thud Muslim community. But these measures do not focus on Christians at all. Also, when it comes to discussions, the Government even denies there are marginalised sections in the Christian community, and farcically enough, cites the fact that there are no reports and studies to prove the Christian need for special development efforts. It does not see the viciousness of the argument – there is no study, therefore no data, on Christian deprivation, and since there is no data there can be no relief, and because the Christians are apparently not deprived, there is no need for a fact finding committee!
For the sake of every hotel waiter who can never dream to own a hotel, every mechanic who will never own even a small tin-shed garage, every ayah and tribal maid working as a hugely exploited domestic servant, and every starving landless peasant, it is time for all of us to unitedly raise our voice.
In face, new islands of underdevelopment are being created. A development wedge is being driven between Christians and the minorities which are either developed already, or will receive the bounty of the Government. Such a mutually suspicious minority conglomeration can hardly be expected to unitedly fight the force of majoritarianism in the country.
The threat, therefore, is the democratic state and the republican way of life in India.
It is time we acted.
The hierarchy and clergy of the established Church must join this struggle.
Before it is too late.
As 2007 ends, a brief report card of the nation
Fact sheet India human rights and development record
Ø Two lakh Delhi people earn more than Rs 1 lakh a month each, but
Ø 89,362 farmers committed suicide between 1997 and 2005. Since 2002, that has become one suicide every 30 minutes.
Ø India has slipped five ranks since last year to 105 on global education parameters; will miss millennium development goals for children
Ø Girls 66 per cent of out-of-the-school children
Ø India's gross enrollment ratio 95 per cent, but dropout rate is as high as 14.4 per cent for Class I. Among the dropouts, about 66 per cent are girls
Ø India will not be able to meet the target of Education for All by 2015.
Ø One-third of world's illiterates are in India.
Ø 21 out of 28 States have internal armed conflicts. Are heavily militarised and the use special laws such as the Armed Forces Special Powers Act of 1958 that provides the power to shoot to kill
Ø There were a total of 3, 32,112 prisoners against the total capacity of 2, and 38,855 prisoners in the 1315 jails of the country as on 31 December 2004. 70 % are under trials.
Ø As on 2 December 2006, as many as 237 SEZs approved primarily allotting prime agricultural lands.
Ø Despite 450,000 conflict-induced internally displaced persons in Chhattisgarh, Assam, Jammu and Kashmir, Mizoram and Tripura and Gujarat. India has no policy on IDPs and the Kashmiri Pandits are provided better facilities than the other conflict induced IDPs.
Ø 1 crime against women in every 3 minutes, 1 rape in every 29 minutes, 1 molestation in every 15 minutes, 1 dowry death case in every 77 minute in the country during 2005. NCRB recorded a total of 1,55,553 cases of Violence Against Women including 18,359 cases of rape involving 18,376 victims, 34,175 cases of molestation, 15750 cases of kidnapping, 6,787 cases of dowry deaths and 58,319 cases of torture in 2005.
Ø Dalits: 2005 NCRB reports 26,127 cases - 8,497 cases under the Protection of Civil Rights Act and 291 cases under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989 - against the Scheduled Castes. Conviction rate was only 29.8%. A total of 46,936 persons (82.4%) out of 57,804 persons arrested for crimes committed against Scheduled Castes were charge-sheeted but only 28.3% trials
Ø A crime against the tribals was committed in every 29 minutes. In 2005, a total of 5,713 cases against Scheduled Tribes were reported in the country as compared to 5,535 cases in 2004 showing an increase of 3.2% in 2005 from 2004. These included 1,283 cases reported under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989 and 162 cases under the Protection of Civil Rights Act. Average conviction rate was only 24.5%. A total of 8,273 persons (83.8%) out of 9,870 persons arrested for crimes committed against Scheduled Tribes were charge-sheeted but only 24.2% were convicted consisting of 1,934 persons out of 7,981 persons against whom trials were completed.
Ø Two lakh Delhi people earn more than Rs 1 lakh a month each, but
Ø 89,362 farmers committed suicide between 1997 and 2005. Since 2002, that has become one suicide every 30 minutes.
Ø India has slipped five ranks since last year to 105 on global education parameters; will miss millennium development goals for children
Ø Girls 66 per cent of out-of-the-school children
Ø India's gross enrollment ratio 95 per cent, but dropout rate is as high as 14.4 per cent for Class I. Among the dropouts, about 66 per cent are girls
Ø India will not be able to meet the target of Education for All by 2015.
Ø One-third of world's illiterates are in India.
Ø 21 out of 28 States have internal armed conflicts. Are heavily militarised and the use special laws such as the Armed Forces Special Powers Act of 1958 that provides the power to shoot to kill
Ø There were a total of 3, 32,112 prisoners against the total capacity of 2, and 38,855 prisoners in the 1315 jails of the country as on 31 December 2004. 70 % are under trials.
Ø As on 2 December 2006, as many as 237 SEZs approved primarily allotting prime agricultural lands.
Ø Despite 450,000 conflict-induced internally displaced persons in Chhattisgarh, Assam, Jammu and Kashmir, Mizoram and Tripura and Gujarat. India has no policy on IDPs and the Kashmiri Pandits are provided better facilities than the other conflict induced IDPs.
Ø 1 crime against women in every 3 minutes, 1 rape in every 29 minutes, 1 molestation in every 15 minutes, 1 dowry death case in every 77 minute in the country during 2005. NCRB recorded a total of 1,55,553 cases of Violence Against Women including 18,359 cases of rape involving 18,376 victims, 34,175 cases of molestation, 15750 cases of kidnapping, 6,787 cases of dowry deaths and 58,319 cases of torture in 2005.
Ø Dalits: 2005 NCRB reports 26,127 cases - 8,497 cases under the Protection of Civil Rights Act and 291 cases under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989 - against the Scheduled Castes. Conviction rate was only 29.8%. A total of 46,936 persons (82.4%) out of 57,804 persons arrested for crimes committed against Scheduled Castes were charge-sheeted but only 28.3% trials
Ø A crime against the tribals was committed in every 29 minutes. In 2005, a total of 5,713 cases against Scheduled Tribes were reported in the country as compared to 5,535 cases in 2004 showing an increase of 3.2% in 2005 from 2004. These included 1,283 cases reported under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989 and 162 cases under the Protection of Civil Rights Act. Average conviction rate was only 24.5%. A total of 8,273 persons (83.8%) out of 9,870 persons arrested for crimes committed against Scheduled Tribes were charge-sheeted but only 24.2% were convicted consisting of 1,934 persons out of 7,981 persons against whom trials were completed.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Faith in face of Celluloid
NEW FILM ON CHRIST
Text of the news report today in the DNA newspaper of Mumbai and the full text of my emailed response to their questions earlier in the week. The DNA ignored the pith of the response, as possibly it did of the other Chuirch spokesmen it quotes, possibly because it did not suit newspapers seeking controversy with no reference to facts or truth.
New film may spark crisis of faith
DNA Mumbai, Sunday, November 25, 2007 09:45 [IST]
Clergy says Hollywood will confuse the faithful about what to believe: Bible or movie By Anjali Thomas
If Jesus had a grave, he’d be turning in it. Even though he was believed to have been born somewhere between 6 and 4 BC, controversy still dogs his footsteps. Even as the dust from the attacks on Shekhar Kapur’s movie Elizabeth: The Golden Age begins to settle, a new controversy is rearing its head.
The party in question is Hollywood, and the bone of contention is a $20 million movie, Aquarian Gospel, which will portray Jesus as a wandering sage who visited India, lived in Buddhist monasteries, and fought the evils of the caste system. And no, this is not the work of an overactive Hollywood scriptwriter’s imagination, but based on a book The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, written in 1908 by Levi H Dowling. Dowling claimed to have based his research on early manuscripts like the Akashic Records, which document the life of Jesus Christ between the ages of 13 and 30 - something the Bible only touches upon.
“It’s easy to exploit religious history for media purposes, and I’m sure that this movie is a potential box office hit,” says Father Myron Pereira, director of the Xavier Institute of Communications.
“There is lots of literature on Jesus, like the gospel of Thomas and Philip that are not part of the official canon. In the ancient world, the fact that something did take place took second place to the meaning of what took place. It was only later that fact was sifted from fiction, and canonised. The Gospels place their emphasis on Jesus’s message, not on the personal details of his life. Writings which have not been validated by the Church are called Apocryphal scrolls, and are concerned with the sensational elements of Jesus’s life, often fictitious,” he adds.
The movie will be shot using actors and computer animation in the style of Beowulf and 300. Director Drew Heriot has been quoted as saying the film would “follow Christ’s journey to the East, where he encounters other traditions”.
Hollywood is glamourising a theory that has been around for centuries. In 1894, Nicholas Notovitch authored The Unknown Life of Christ, where he wrote about Jesus recuperating from a broken leg in a monastery near Ladakh. German author, Holger Kersten’s book, Jesus Lived In India examines the evidence of Christ’s life in India and the Middle East.
“Aquarian Gospel is another in a long line of controversial books and movies, many of which have stirred up a storm, but have died down without affecting the Christian faith,” says Rev Babu Joseph, spokesperson, Catholics Bishop Conference of India. He adds that serious Biblical scholars claim no hard evidence to suggest that Jesus came to India.
When it comes to entertainment, it’s a question of creative licence. In response to the criticism that Elizabeth was an “anti-papal travesty”, director Shekhar Kapur told DNA, “I am a filmmaker, and what is the use of making films that do not evoke any kind of reaction.”
There has always been a clash between freedom of expression, the media and the arts, and traditions and beliefs that people hold sacred. Dr John Dayal, president of the All India Catholic Union says, “Hollywood is not the most pious institution in the US.” He adds: “I have always maintained that the Censor Board and government institutions have to take suo motu action if they wish to. They should not pass the buck to the Church, nor should the Church allow itself to be caught in a ‘damned if we say yes, and damned if we say no’, situation. The Indian law is clear - no one can hurt a community’s feelings, nor should anyone do or depict anything that can provoke tension between communities.”
According to both Rev Joseph and Father Myron, the film will come as a shock to the average Christian not properly initiated in Biblical literature. “They will begin to doubt what is true and what is not, which is never a good thing,” says Rev Joseph.
------------------
DNA,. Mumbai, questions to and answers from Dr John Dayal
Member, National Integration Council, Govt of India and President, All India Catholic Union {Founded 1919, representing the 16 million Catholic Laity in India]
Question 1. This is the third or fourth movie which will in a way be 'attacking' or 'probing' into Christian beliefs. The others were Da Vinci Code, Last Temptation of Christ, and Elizabeth. What do you make of Hollywood's take on this? Do you think that Hollywood is taking too much of a creative license with the Bible?
Answer: Hollywood is not exactly the most pious institution in the US, and the American First Amendment on Freedom of Expression has nothing to do with it. Please remember that when Hollywood wants to, it can have its own policing and its own moral code. It was Hollywood that hounded Communists that once banned black men being shown in love with white women in support of prevailing codes against miscegenation and in support of the prevailing racist mood. Though it has made Old Testament films, it also has, as has Europe, made many films that apparently seem to portray Jesus in all too human a light, none of which can be supported by textual material from the New Testament.
Hollywood makes films which it hopes will make money. They range from the anti spiritual film called the Exorcist, on to many others. Films such as The Last Temptation of Christ have had some critical, but no financial success, though critics too, by the way, have been generous to such films as apparent expressions of the freedom of the media. Regarding Shekhar Kapoor and his film Elizabeth, the Christian community need hardly be bothered. When a few European churchmen speak of this matter, they do so in the backdrop of the Catholic Protestants schism of the past. The issues today are different – they relate to issues of combating racism, of gender justice, of relating to sexual preferences, and on getting rid of ghosts of the last two centuries or more. Queens and princesses, living or dead, are the stuff of entertainment now, not of strife.
By the way, there is a a long tradition in Hollywood for the Faith groups to have their own codes – not censorship – and their own rewards for films they approve so their followers are well guided. If you do not like the film, don’t go and see it, and certainly don’t buy a ticket to make the producer rich.
Question 2. How will the new movie, based on the Acquarian Gospel affect the church, and more importantly, the average Catholic? Will there be protests as we have seen in earlier movies?
Answer: As I said during the controversy on the Da Vinci Code, I have always maintained that the Censor Board and government institutions have to take Suo Moto action if they wish to. They made the rules, they have the powers. They should not pass the buck to the Church, nor should the Church allow itself to be painted into a corner in a “damned if we say yes, and damned if we say no” situation. The Indian law is very clear. No one can hurt people’s feelings, Christians, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, nor should anyone do or depict anything that can provoke enmity or tension between communities.
But there is no scope for anyone to do a private moral or theocratic policing. I am against any bigoted protests or moral policing, especially by the Church. And in our faith, of course, there is no place for violent protest at all.
I cannot – ands even if I could, I certainly would NOT -- issue a fatwa to anyone to have or not to have a protest, but I can all but guarantee that even if there is a protest somewhere, they will remain very peaceful.
Question 3. Is there any truth in the fact that Jesus came to India and used the knowledge that he got in his teachings?
Answer: There is nothing in the Bible about this. Or in any other book. There are no corroborative texts of that time to sustain any such thesis. Mahavira and Buddha were born five hundred years ago, stood against what we today call Brahmanism. Buddha’s influence must have spread along the Silk route and the road to Damascus and to Rome. Having travelled in those parts, I can tell you the curly locks of the Buddha and his flowing robes as depicted in a million statues are strikingly evidence of Hellenic influence on Buddha’s followers, at least the writers and artists of the time. The drapery came from the near West! Silk and thoughts traveled in both directions.
Unlike perhaps today when there has been such bigotry, those must have been times of great intellectual ferment and great intellectual democracy and communication. Aristotle, Plato, The giants of Egypt and Rome and China, and why not great men of India, breathing the same air, give or take a few centuries are part of the exchange of ideas and thoughts. If silk can travel across continents, why not thoughts. Paper certainly did.
But at the end of the day, one looks for tangible evidence -- and there is none.
By the way, may I also comment on other occasional stories in the media of the grave of Jesus in Kashmir. If there is indeed a grave remotely traceable to the first century AD, I hope it is empty. To me, Christ has risen to come again. The grave is empty, wherever it is.
My faith does not depend on such issues.
Hollywood of course specializes in fiction, and in fictionalizing truth. But if research proves an interaction between Christ and India in the years before his private ministry, the years that he spend wandering, it will only go to further strengthen my faith as it will be added evidence to prove the historicity of Jesus. Jesus is a historical figure. Of how many others can this be said?
Text of the news report today in the DNA newspaper of Mumbai and the full text of my emailed response to their questions earlier in the week. The DNA ignored the pith of the response, as possibly it did of the other Chuirch spokesmen it quotes, possibly because it did not suit newspapers seeking controversy with no reference to facts or truth.
New film may spark crisis of faith
DNA Mumbai, Sunday, November 25, 2007 09:45 [IST]
Clergy says Hollywood will confuse the faithful about what to believe: Bible or movie By Anjali Thomas
If Jesus had a grave, he’d be turning in it. Even though he was believed to have been born somewhere between 6 and 4 BC, controversy still dogs his footsteps. Even as the dust from the attacks on Shekhar Kapur’s movie Elizabeth: The Golden Age begins to settle, a new controversy is rearing its head.
The party in question is Hollywood, and the bone of contention is a $20 million movie, Aquarian Gospel, which will portray Jesus as a wandering sage who visited India, lived in Buddhist monasteries, and fought the evils of the caste system. And no, this is not the work of an overactive Hollywood scriptwriter’s imagination, but based on a book The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, written in 1908 by Levi H Dowling. Dowling claimed to have based his research on early manuscripts like the Akashic Records, which document the life of Jesus Christ between the ages of 13 and 30 - something the Bible only touches upon.
“It’s easy to exploit religious history for media purposes, and I’m sure that this movie is a potential box office hit,” says Father Myron Pereira, director of the Xavier Institute of Communications.
“There is lots of literature on Jesus, like the gospel of Thomas and Philip that are not part of the official canon. In the ancient world, the fact that something did take place took second place to the meaning of what took place. It was only later that fact was sifted from fiction, and canonised. The Gospels place their emphasis on Jesus’s message, not on the personal details of his life. Writings which have not been validated by the Church are called Apocryphal scrolls, and are concerned with the sensational elements of Jesus’s life, often fictitious,” he adds.
The movie will be shot using actors and computer animation in the style of Beowulf and 300. Director Drew Heriot has been quoted as saying the film would “follow Christ’s journey to the East, where he encounters other traditions”.
Hollywood is glamourising a theory that has been around for centuries. In 1894, Nicholas Notovitch authored The Unknown Life of Christ, where he wrote about Jesus recuperating from a broken leg in a monastery near Ladakh. German author, Holger Kersten’s book, Jesus Lived In India examines the evidence of Christ’s life in India and the Middle East.
“Aquarian Gospel is another in a long line of controversial books and movies, many of which have stirred up a storm, but have died down without affecting the Christian faith,” says Rev Babu Joseph, spokesperson, Catholics Bishop Conference of India. He adds that serious Biblical scholars claim no hard evidence to suggest that Jesus came to India.
When it comes to entertainment, it’s a question of creative licence. In response to the criticism that Elizabeth was an “anti-papal travesty”, director Shekhar Kapur told DNA, “I am a filmmaker, and what is the use of making films that do not evoke any kind of reaction.”
There has always been a clash between freedom of expression, the media and the arts, and traditions and beliefs that people hold sacred. Dr John Dayal, president of the All India Catholic Union says, “Hollywood is not the most pious institution in the US.” He adds: “I have always maintained that the Censor Board and government institutions have to take suo motu action if they wish to. They should not pass the buck to the Church, nor should the Church allow itself to be caught in a ‘damned if we say yes, and damned if we say no’, situation. The Indian law is clear - no one can hurt a community’s feelings, nor should anyone do or depict anything that can provoke tension between communities.”
According to both Rev Joseph and Father Myron, the film will come as a shock to the average Christian not properly initiated in Biblical literature. “They will begin to doubt what is true and what is not, which is never a good thing,” says Rev Joseph.
------------------
DNA,. Mumbai, questions to and answers from Dr John Dayal
Member, National Integration Council, Govt of India and President, All India Catholic Union {Founded 1919, representing the 16 million Catholic Laity in India]
Question 1. This is the third or fourth movie which will in a way be 'attacking' or 'probing' into Christian beliefs. The others were Da Vinci Code, Last Temptation of Christ, and Elizabeth. What do you make of Hollywood's take on this? Do you think that Hollywood is taking too much of a creative license with the Bible?
Answer: Hollywood is not exactly the most pious institution in the US, and the American First Amendment on Freedom of Expression has nothing to do with it. Please remember that when Hollywood wants to, it can have its own policing and its own moral code. It was Hollywood that hounded Communists that once banned black men being shown in love with white women in support of prevailing codes against miscegenation and in support of the prevailing racist mood. Though it has made Old Testament films, it also has, as has Europe, made many films that apparently seem to portray Jesus in all too human a light, none of which can be supported by textual material from the New Testament.
Hollywood makes films which it hopes will make money. They range from the anti spiritual film called the Exorcist, on to many others. Films such as The Last Temptation of Christ have had some critical, but no financial success, though critics too, by the way, have been generous to such films as apparent expressions of the freedom of the media. Regarding Shekhar Kapoor and his film Elizabeth, the Christian community need hardly be bothered. When a few European churchmen speak of this matter, they do so in the backdrop of the Catholic Protestants schism of the past. The issues today are different – they relate to issues of combating racism, of gender justice, of relating to sexual preferences, and on getting rid of ghosts of the last two centuries or more. Queens and princesses, living or dead, are the stuff of entertainment now, not of strife.
By the way, there is a a long tradition in Hollywood for the Faith groups to have their own codes – not censorship – and their own rewards for films they approve so their followers are well guided. If you do not like the film, don’t go and see it, and certainly don’t buy a ticket to make the producer rich.
Question 2. How will the new movie, based on the Acquarian Gospel affect the church, and more importantly, the average Catholic? Will there be protests as we have seen in earlier movies?
Answer: As I said during the controversy on the Da Vinci Code, I have always maintained that the Censor Board and government institutions have to take Suo Moto action if they wish to. They made the rules, they have the powers. They should not pass the buck to the Church, nor should the Church allow itself to be painted into a corner in a “damned if we say yes, and damned if we say no” situation. The Indian law is very clear. No one can hurt people’s feelings, Christians, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, nor should anyone do or depict anything that can provoke enmity or tension between communities.
But there is no scope for anyone to do a private moral or theocratic policing. I am against any bigoted protests or moral policing, especially by the Church. And in our faith, of course, there is no place for violent protest at all.
I cannot – ands even if I could, I certainly would NOT -- issue a fatwa to anyone to have or not to have a protest, but I can all but guarantee that even if there is a protest somewhere, they will remain very peaceful.
Question 3. Is there any truth in the fact that Jesus came to India and used the knowledge that he got in his teachings?
Answer: There is nothing in the Bible about this. Or in any other book. There are no corroborative texts of that time to sustain any such thesis. Mahavira and Buddha were born five hundred years ago, stood against what we today call Brahmanism. Buddha’s influence must have spread along the Silk route and the road to Damascus and to Rome. Having travelled in those parts, I can tell you the curly locks of the Buddha and his flowing robes as depicted in a million statues are strikingly evidence of Hellenic influence on Buddha’s followers, at least the writers and artists of the time. The drapery came from the near West! Silk and thoughts traveled in both directions.
Unlike perhaps today when there has been such bigotry, those must have been times of great intellectual ferment and great intellectual democracy and communication. Aristotle, Plato, The giants of Egypt and Rome and China, and why not great men of India, breathing the same air, give or take a few centuries are part of the exchange of ideas and thoughts. If silk can travel across continents, why not thoughts. Paper certainly did.
But at the end of the day, one looks for tangible evidence -- and there is none.
By the way, may I also comment on other occasional stories in the media of the grave of Jesus in Kashmir. If there is indeed a grave remotely traceable to the first century AD, I hope it is empty. To me, Christ has risen to come again. The grave is empty, wherever it is.
My faith does not depend on such issues.
Hollywood of course specializes in fiction, and in fictionalizing truth. But if research proves an interaction between Christ and India in the years before his private ministry, the years that he spend wandering, it will only go to further strengthen my faith as it will be added evidence to prove the historicity of Jesus. Jesus is a historical figure. Of how many others can this be said?
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
THE CHURCH AND THE PATH TO A COMMISSION FOR EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN INDIA
JOHN DAYAL
One of these days, the Indian Government will present the Indian Church with a surprise. It depends on the Christian community and its religious and secular leadership if it is to be a pleasant surprise. Or, at its worst, very unpleasant; like many other decisions in the past in Parliament or by the Union and State Governments which have often presented the 25 million strong Christian community in the country with a pungent fait accompli. There are myriad laws, institutions and structures in whose making the community has had no intervention and less say, and which, therefore, ignore, in cold blood or by default, issues and matters which are peculiar to Indian Christians because of the nature of their faith and religious practices, and their demographic dispersal.
I say this with some anguish in what I observe to be a singular Christian absence in three or four or five major discourses recently in the secular space in India.
These discourses have to do with the Civil Society opposition to the Communal Violence prevention Bill moved in Parliament by the Government earlier this year, the setting up of the Prime Minister’s High-powered Committee under former Delhi Chief Justice Rajinder Sachchar, the Plan process, and the drafting of the Civil Society response on Indian’s human rights record which has to be submitted to the newly set up United Nations Human Rights Council soon, and the moves that Government has initiated to set up an Equal Opportunities Commission in the country.
The Church remained silent when the Sachchar committee was set up to merely on the Muslim community instead of all religious minorities. Admittedly, Indian Muslims are highly discriminated against in the devolution of a just development process, and Justice Sachchar has been able to quantify that and prove it by quoting facts and figures.
But how do we know that Dalit Christians, a hefty 60 per cent of all Christians, and Tribal Christians, another 20 per cent or so, do not suffer from similar, or aggravated, development infirmities. There has been little effort even to assess, define and catalogue their crises since independence.
The Christian community has also not been served well by the several national commissions. The National Human Rights Commission correctly says its charter does not cover religious and linguistic minorities because there are separate commissions for them. It is of course not to be forgotten that one of its chairperson – and NHRC chairperson has to be a retired Chief Justice of India – had in his time on the Bench, upheld such a draconian law as POTA, the dreaded Prevention of Terrorism legislation in which scores of Muslims were arrested just because they were Muslims.
The National Commission for Scheduled Castes had, till Dr Buta Singh became its chairman, adopted a very hostile attitude towards Dalit Christians – whether the chair was a Congress person or a Bharatiya Janata Party ideologue and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh stalwart.
The National Commission for Minorities, barring the brief interlude when Dr James Massey, a Dalit, was the Christian member, has almost always had time servers or political appointees whose interests were anything but relating to the community. Some have been hostile to the community, some have been corrupt, and some have been retired politicians or bureaucrats whose ignorance has been exceeded only by their unconcern. One went to the extent of saying he saw no persecution, because he had never been persecuted. Another was keen to bring the community to its knees before the RSS in the guise of a dialogue.
Little wonder, therefore, that when the Union Cabinet devised the so called Communal Violence prevention Bill, it just did not cover the issues of Christians, and hate crimes and persecution of the micro minority. The Muslims, after their Gujarat pogrom experience, and Sikhs with the 2004 massacres, rightly rejected the CV Bill out of hand because it strengthened the hands of the police without helping the victims of communal violence. The CV prevention Bill did not even understand the persecution of Christians in various parts of India, or the massive hate campaign against the community carried out in tribal belts, villages and even in cities. Sad to say, in the many seminars organised by Civil Society and by Muslim groups and intellectuals, there were hardly any Christians present, and almost no formal representation by Catholic and Protestant hierarchies.
I hope this will not be repeated in the path to the formation, some time in the future, of the Equal Opportunities Commission on the pattern of a similar Commission which has been set up in the United Kingdom by merging all existing Human Rights organisations and commissions which had been set up since the race issues came to the fore in the wake of the massive immigration from India and the Caribbean in the Nineteen Hundred and Sixties.
The chief executive of the British Commission, Dr Kay Hampton, took a series of seminars recently educating Indian Civil Society on the entire gamut of factors and issues relating to this new organisation. Needless to say, while there were Muslim intellectuals and representatives of organisations, there were hardly any Christians in the audience at the seminars. Dr Kay Hampton, by the way, traces her origins to Tamil Nadu though she was born in South Africa and went to London less than two decades ago.
The matter is of some urgency, and of great import to all minorities. The Justice Rajinder Sachchar Committee which studied the socio-economic condition of Muslims had suggested in his report the need for setting up a commission on the lines of the British Equal Opportunities Commission as a watchdog which should be effective in overseeing the implementation of the recommendations.
The Government of India is reportedly keen on implementing the Sachchar Committee report and is understood to have set up a three man committee to study such commissions abroad and look for ways and means to ensure its full implementation. Though a recommendation of a committee which was only looking at the Muslim issue, the Equal Opportunities Commission, if and when it becomes a reality, will of course look at the denial of opportunities to all others discriminated against, presumably ranging from Dalit Christians, Kashmiri Pandits, OBCs, women, the physically and mentally challenged, children and the old.
As Kay Hampton explained at her seminars, the UK Equality Act 2006 gained Royal Assent on February 16th, allowing for the establishment of the new CEHR from October 2007, which will bring together the work of the Disability Rights Commission and Equal Opportunities Commission from October 2007; and that of the Commission for Racial equality by 2009, putting expertise on equality, diversity and human rights in one place. The Act and the commission banning discrimination in service-provision on grounds of race, religion and sexuality. The CEHR will take on all of the powers of the existing Commissions as well as new ones to enforce legislation more effectively and promote equality for all.
The CEHR is required to produce a regular ‘equality health check’ for Britain and to work with individuals, communities, businesses and public services to find new, more effective ways to give everyone in society the chance to achieve their full potential.
The Act introduces a new ‘gender duty’ which will require public bodies to take account of the different needs of men and women to ensure equality of opportunity when preparing policies or providing services. It outlaws discrimination on grounds of religion or belief in providing goods, facilities or services, education or rented accommodation.
The commission -- and I quote Dr Hampton -- will encourage and support the development of a society in which:
• People’s ability to achieve their potential is not limited by prejudice or discrimination
• There is respect for and protection of each individual’s human rights
• There is respect for the dignity and worth of each individual
• Each individual has an equal opportunity to participate in society, and
• There is mutual respect between groups based on understanding and valuing of diversity and on shared respect for equality and human rights (Clause 3)
… as an independent and influential champion the Commission will seek to
• promote and celebrate a diverse Britain where - there are good relations between communities, and people are not discriminated against because of their race, gender, disability, religion or belief, age or sexual orientation
The Commission will also use its powers and functions to work to achieve equality and human rights for all and promote and encourage good practice and an awareness of rights about equality, diversity and human rights and work to eliminate unlawful discrimination and harassment, promote an understanding of the importance of good relations between different groups (especially between different racial and religious groups) and between members of groups and others, monitor the effectiveness of the equality and human rights enactments, identify changes that have taken place in society and the results Britain should aim for in order to achieve the Commission’s vision (Clauses 8 –12) The Equality Act 2006.
To this, the Commission will advise employers and service providers on good practice and the promotion of equality and good relations, conduct inquiries and carry out investigations, provide advice and information on rights and equality laws. campaign on issues affecting the diverse groups in society that can suffer discrimination, make arrangements for conciliation to assist with disputes, assist individuals who believe they have been the victim of unlawful discrimination, provide grants. It will in time work with stakeholders and partners to become a single cohesive force acting for positive change on equality and diversity issues, human rights and good relations and able to influence policy and practice.
An interesting aspect of the British exercise is also to set up standards in appointing leadership and executive staff devoid of political patronage and in a fully accountable manner. Quite unlike the Indian practice.
The talent hunt works on what is called the Nolan principle, a set of guidelines on just what sort of a person is required to head such a unique organisation.
Bishops and other heads of institutions may be interested in the list of seven underpinning Principals of Governance formulated by the Nolan Committee which should apply to all in the public service. These are:
Selflessness: Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other benefits for themselves, their family or their friends.
Integrity: Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.
Objectivity: In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.
Accountability: Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
Openness: Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
Honesty: Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
Leadership: Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.
Responsibility also devolves on us all.
We must take the initiative.
We must let our views, and creative suggestions, made known to the Government even if those in power choose not to invite us for consultations. If for nothing else, then to ensure that the Government of India too follows these seven principals when appointing people to the existing and future commissions meant for our welfare.
To be affective, we will have to have effective strategies of advocacy and political mobilisation, and a thoughtful laity and leadership formation programme. Above all, we must have accurate socio-economic and development data about our community, the sort of data that the Sachchar committee and its brilliant economist member secretary Dr Al-saleh Sharrief have b4en able to garner.
The government cannot be trusted to help us collect and anaylse such data. At one level, it is reluctant to collect data which can prove its own bigotry against religious minorities, or expose 60 years of sustained neglect of entire peoples groups.
The census data is insufficient. The National Sample Surveys seldom touch the Christian horizons. Because of our political marginilisation – made the worse because without Scheduled caste rights, we are also effectively out of the Panchayati Raj system barring a few places in the North East, Kerala and Tamil Nadu – political groups make no effort to even find out the ground reality. It does not matter to them, and does not impact on their political strategies. This is one reason why the struggle of the Dalit Christians has taken such a long time to be resolved. We just do not have the deprivation data that will convince courts and Parliament at a cinch. In fact, it is the other way around. There is all too much ill-informed printed opinion from high church signatories claiming there is no poverty in the Christian community that no Christian suffers from caste prejudice in the wider Indian society.
So if the government will not set up the equivalent of a Sachchar committee to assess the Christian community’s developmental health, the Church and community will have to do it by itself. The Church – and I use the phrase holistically to include Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, Cardinals, Archbishops down to the itinerant Independent Pastors and the last sentient Lay person – will have to join forces and find energy and resources for carrying out this process. Such a SWOT analysis, Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats, has never been done in the past. It can wait no longer.
I would like to propose that the Church sets up its own commission. It has the brain power. Out together a group of social and political scientists, demographers, development economists. Use the vast network of parishes, parish priests and mission stations and institutions, to collect data. Crunch that data and publish the report. It will put the government to shame, expose the Planning Commission, Public Sector Banks, even the gerrymandering by Election offices.
It will be a small price to pay if in the process the hierarchy and the Church establishment is also shamed. The last Census, in the very few insights it offered into the innards of the community, showed us the scale of illiteracy amongst women in Tribal areas where the Church ahs been working for a century or more. This study may also show how, despite the large number of institutions it runs, most of them with a shamefully small body of Christian students, faculty and staff, we are not only rapidly becoming redundant in the national development process but, at the same time, are also not being able to raise the group standards of own community, Dalit, tribal, landless labour and the large urban service sector employees in metropolitan towns and state capitals. We remain the waiters, seldom the hotel owners. We are the motor mechanics, seldom the garage owners, and of the group working in the Gulf and other places, just how many of us are engineers and doctors and cyberspace bosses. We remain a service class, not an entrepreneur or leadership group. Honest sweat has its rewards, but our people must have the opportunity to do better.
It is this poverty and disempowerment of the poor, and the shrinking role of the institutional church in development processes [the private sector and Hindu religious organizations are investing far more in education and health, for instance in comparative as well as absolute terms] that makes the Christian community in India now so vulnerable to attacks from right wing religious fundamentalist groups and bigotry in the government and political systems.
We must be able to quantify it and articulate it as and when the Equal Opportunities Commission comes into being, and while waiting for that, we must raise it before existing forums. It is not a matter of mere foresight or due diligence. We are in duty bound to do this for our coming generations who should be able to enjoy their rights as citizens of a free and fair country.
John Dayal
New Delhi, November 19, 2007
One of these days, the Indian Government will present the Indian Church with a surprise. It depends on the Christian community and its religious and secular leadership if it is to be a pleasant surprise. Or, at its worst, very unpleasant; like many other decisions in the past in Parliament or by the Union and State Governments which have often presented the 25 million strong Christian community in the country with a pungent fait accompli. There are myriad laws, institutions and structures in whose making the community has had no intervention and less say, and which, therefore, ignore, in cold blood or by default, issues and matters which are peculiar to Indian Christians because of the nature of their faith and religious practices, and their demographic dispersal.
I say this with some anguish in what I observe to be a singular Christian absence in three or four or five major discourses recently in the secular space in India.
These discourses have to do with the Civil Society opposition to the Communal Violence prevention Bill moved in Parliament by the Government earlier this year, the setting up of the Prime Minister’s High-powered Committee under former Delhi Chief Justice Rajinder Sachchar, the Plan process, and the drafting of the Civil Society response on Indian’s human rights record which has to be submitted to the newly set up United Nations Human Rights Council soon, and the moves that Government has initiated to set up an Equal Opportunities Commission in the country.
The Church remained silent when the Sachchar committee was set up to merely on the Muslim community instead of all religious minorities. Admittedly, Indian Muslims are highly discriminated against in the devolution of a just development process, and Justice Sachchar has been able to quantify that and prove it by quoting facts and figures.
But how do we know that Dalit Christians, a hefty 60 per cent of all Christians, and Tribal Christians, another 20 per cent or so, do not suffer from similar, or aggravated, development infirmities. There has been little effort even to assess, define and catalogue their crises since independence.
The Christian community has also not been served well by the several national commissions. The National Human Rights Commission correctly says its charter does not cover religious and linguistic minorities because there are separate commissions for them. It is of course not to be forgotten that one of its chairperson – and NHRC chairperson has to be a retired Chief Justice of India – had in his time on the Bench, upheld such a draconian law as POTA, the dreaded Prevention of Terrorism legislation in which scores of Muslims were arrested just because they were Muslims.
The National Commission for Scheduled Castes had, till Dr Buta Singh became its chairman, adopted a very hostile attitude towards Dalit Christians – whether the chair was a Congress person or a Bharatiya Janata Party ideologue and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh stalwart.
The National Commission for Minorities, barring the brief interlude when Dr James Massey, a Dalit, was the Christian member, has almost always had time servers or political appointees whose interests were anything but relating to the community. Some have been hostile to the community, some have been corrupt, and some have been retired politicians or bureaucrats whose ignorance has been exceeded only by their unconcern. One went to the extent of saying he saw no persecution, because he had never been persecuted. Another was keen to bring the community to its knees before the RSS in the guise of a dialogue.
Little wonder, therefore, that when the Union Cabinet devised the so called Communal Violence prevention Bill, it just did not cover the issues of Christians, and hate crimes and persecution of the micro minority. The Muslims, after their Gujarat pogrom experience, and Sikhs with the 2004 massacres, rightly rejected the CV Bill out of hand because it strengthened the hands of the police without helping the victims of communal violence. The CV prevention Bill did not even understand the persecution of Christians in various parts of India, or the massive hate campaign against the community carried out in tribal belts, villages and even in cities. Sad to say, in the many seminars organised by Civil Society and by Muslim groups and intellectuals, there were hardly any Christians present, and almost no formal representation by Catholic and Protestant hierarchies.
I hope this will not be repeated in the path to the formation, some time in the future, of the Equal Opportunities Commission on the pattern of a similar Commission which has been set up in the United Kingdom by merging all existing Human Rights organisations and commissions which had been set up since the race issues came to the fore in the wake of the massive immigration from India and the Caribbean in the Nineteen Hundred and Sixties.
The chief executive of the British Commission, Dr Kay Hampton, took a series of seminars recently educating Indian Civil Society on the entire gamut of factors and issues relating to this new organisation. Needless to say, while there were Muslim intellectuals and representatives of organisations, there were hardly any Christians in the audience at the seminars. Dr Kay Hampton, by the way, traces her origins to Tamil Nadu though she was born in South Africa and went to London less than two decades ago.
The matter is of some urgency, and of great import to all minorities. The Justice Rajinder Sachchar Committee which studied the socio-economic condition of Muslims had suggested in his report the need for setting up a commission on the lines of the British Equal Opportunities Commission as a watchdog which should be effective in overseeing the implementation of the recommendations.
The Government of India is reportedly keen on implementing the Sachchar Committee report and is understood to have set up a three man committee to study such commissions abroad and look for ways and means to ensure its full implementation. Though a recommendation of a committee which was only looking at the Muslim issue, the Equal Opportunities Commission, if and when it becomes a reality, will of course look at the denial of opportunities to all others discriminated against, presumably ranging from Dalit Christians, Kashmiri Pandits, OBCs, women, the physically and mentally challenged, children and the old.
As Kay Hampton explained at her seminars, the UK Equality Act 2006 gained Royal Assent on February 16th, allowing for the establishment of the new CEHR from October 2007, which will bring together the work of the Disability Rights Commission and Equal Opportunities Commission from October 2007; and that of the Commission for Racial equality by 2009, putting expertise on equality, diversity and human rights in one place. The Act and the commission banning discrimination in service-provision on grounds of race, religion and sexuality. The CEHR will take on all of the powers of the existing Commissions as well as new ones to enforce legislation more effectively and promote equality for all.
The CEHR is required to produce a regular ‘equality health check’ for Britain and to work with individuals, communities, businesses and public services to find new, more effective ways to give everyone in society the chance to achieve their full potential.
The Act introduces a new ‘gender duty’ which will require public bodies to take account of the different needs of men and women to ensure equality of opportunity when preparing policies or providing services. It outlaws discrimination on grounds of religion or belief in providing goods, facilities or services, education or rented accommodation.
The commission -- and I quote Dr Hampton -- will encourage and support the development of a society in which:
• People’s ability to achieve their potential is not limited by prejudice or discrimination
• There is respect for and protection of each individual’s human rights
• There is respect for the dignity and worth of each individual
• Each individual has an equal opportunity to participate in society, and
• There is mutual respect between groups based on understanding and valuing of diversity and on shared respect for equality and human rights (Clause 3)
… as an independent and influential champion the Commission will seek to
• promote and celebrate a diverse Britain where - there are good relations between communities, and people are not discriminated against because of their race, gender, disability, religion or belief, age or sexual orientation
The Commission will also use its powers and functions to work to achieve equality and human rights for all and promote and encourage good practice and an awareness of rights about equality, diversity and human rights and work to eliminate unlawful discrimination and harassment, promote an understanding of the importance of good relations between different groups (especially between different racial and religious groups) and between members of groups and others, monitor the effectiveness of the equality and human rights enactments, identify changes that have taken place in society and the results Britain should aim for in order to achieve the Commission’s vision (Clauses 8 –12) The Equality Act 2006.
To this, the Commission will advise employers and service providers on good practice and the promotion of equality and good relations, conduct inquiries and carry out investigations, provide advice and information on rights and equality laws. campaign on issues affecting the diverse groups in society that can suffer discrimination, make arrangements for conciliation to assist with disputes, assist individuals who believe they have been the victim of unlawful discrimination, provide grants. It will in time work with stakeholders and partners to become a single cohesive force acting for positive change on equality and diversity issues, human rights and good relations and able to influence policy and practice.
An interesting aspect of the British exercise is also to set up standards in appointing leadership and executive staff devoid of political patronage and in a fully accountable manner. Quite unlike the Indian practice.
The talent hunt works on what is called the Nolan principle, a set of guidelines on just what sort of a person is required to head such a unique organisation.
Bishops and other heads of institutions may be interested in the list of seven underpinning Principals of Governance formulated by the Nolan Committee which should apply to all in the public service. These are:
Selflessness: Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other benefits for themselves, their family or their friends.
Integrity: Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.
Objectivity: In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.
Accountability: Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
Openness: Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
Honesty: Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
Leadership: Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.
Responsibility also devolves on us all.
We must take the initiative.
We must let our views, and creative suggestions, made known to the Government even if those in power choose not to invite us for consultations. If for nothing else, then to ensure that the Government of India too follows these seven principals when appointing people to the existing and future commissions meant for our welfare.
To be affective, we will have to have effective strategies of advocacy and political mobilisation, and a thoughtful laity and leadership formation programme. Above all, we must have accurate socio-economic and development data about our community, the sort of data that the Sachchar committee and its brilliant economist member secretary Dr Al-saleh Sharrief have b4en able to garner.
The government cannot be trusted to help us collect and anaylse such data. At one level, it is reluctant to collect data which can prove its own bigotry against religious minorities, or expose 60 years of sustained neglect of entire peoples groups.
The census data is insufficient. The National Sample Surveys seldom touch the Christian horizons. Because of our political marginilisation – made the worse because without Scheduled caste rights, we are also effectively out of the Panchayati Raj system barring a few places in the North East, Kerala and Tamil Nadu – political groups make no effort to even find out the ground reality. It does not matter to them, and does not impact on their political strategies. This is one reason why the struggle of the Dalit Christians has taken such a long time to be resolved. We just do not have the deprivation data that will convince courts and Parliament at a cinch. In fact, it is the other way around. There is all too much ill-informed printed opinion from high church signatories claiming there is no poverty in the Christian community that no Christian suffers from caste prejudice in the wider Indian society.
So if the government will not set up the equivalent of a Sachchar committee to assess the Christian community’s developmental health, the Church and community will have to do it by itself. The Church – and I use the phrase holistically to include Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, Cardinals, Archbishops down to the itinerant Independent Pastors and the last sentient Lay person – will have to join forces and find energy and resources for carrying out this process. Such a SWOT analysis, Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats, has never been done in the past. It can wait no longer.
I would like to propose that the Church sets up its own commission. It has the brain power. Out together a group of social and political scientists, demographers, development economists. Use the vast network of parishes, parish priests and mission stations and institutions, to collect data. Crunch that data and publish the report. It will put the government to shame, expose the Planning Commission, Public Sector Banks, even the gerrymandering by Election offices.
It will be a small price to pay if in the process the hierarchy and the Church establishment is also shamed. The last Census, in the very few insights it offered into the innards of the community, showed us the scale of illiteracy amongst women in Tribal areas where the Church ahs been working for a century or more. This study may also show how, despite the large number of institutions it runs, most of them with a shamefully small body of Christian students, faculty and staff, we are not only rapidly becoming redundant in the national development process but, at the same time, are also not being able to raise the group standards of own community, Dalit, tribal, landless labour and the large urban service sector employees in metropolitan towns and state capitals. We remain the waiters, seldom the hotel owners. We are the motor mechanics, seldom the garage owners, and of the group working in the Gulf and other places, just how many of us are engineers and doctors and cyberspace bosses. We remain a service class, not an entrepreneur or leadership group. Honest sweat has its rewards, but our people must have the opportunity to do better.
It is this poverty and disempowerment of the poor, and the shrinking role of the institutional church in development processes [the private sector and Hindu religious organizations are investing far more in education and health, for instance in comparative as well as absolute terms] that makes the Christian community in India now so vulnerable to attacks from right wing religious fundamentalist groups and bigotry in the government and political systems.
We must be able to quantify it and articulate it as and when the Equal Opportunities Commission comes into being, and while waiting for that, we must raise it before existing forums. It is not a matter of mere foresight or due diligence. We are in duty bound to do this for our coming generations who should be able to enjoy their rights as citizens of a free and fair country.
John Dayal
New Delhi, November 19, 2007
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Rise in Anti Christian Violence in India
PRESS STATEMENT
November 17 2007
Four cases of Christian persecution a week in 2007, and counting
Cases of Persecution of Christians in India recorded in 2007 (from 1st January to November 16th 2007) -- 190
Persecution Cases recorded in 2006 - 178
Persecution Cases Recorded in 2005 - 165
The victims include members of almost every Church denomination in the country, Catholics, Protestants, and Evangelicals. They include Catholic Fathers, catholic Nuns, Priests, independent Pastors, wives of Pastors, believers, Seminarians and Bible School students, and ordinary folks. Violence includes attempted murder, armed assault, sexual molestation, illegal confinement and grievous injury.
These figures do not include cases that have not come to the notice of the All India Christian Council, the All India Catholic Union, the GCIC, the Evangelical Fellowship of India and the Christian Legal Association. There are other cases which have come to my notice, but where the Church groups involved or the pastors have chosen not to file cases with the police, or have sought anonymity for fear of violence against the families of innocent people, particularly in Madhya Pradesh and Orissa.
This, of course, does not include widespread incidents which we do not want to include as “violence” but which certainly are indices of religious intolerance, bigotry, social discrimination and ostracisation -- as in many parts of the states in the lower Himalayan ranges [Himachal, Uttarakhand, part of Jammu and Kashmir, Sikkim], Orissa and other tribal areas. These cases include refusal to give share of the community profits in forest produced to those who have converted to Christianity, denial of civic and social benefits to Christians, particularly Dalits, in many parts of the country, denial of official permission to hold community meetings, official and informal ban on Bible sale and tract distribution in places where religious tracts and books of other majority faiths are freely distributed.
This list also does not include anti Christian Hate crimes. Nor does it include violence in which Christians are the victim together with others, such as the police actions in Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and other places, the displacement of Tribals because of government action, the suicides of farmers in Andhra and Maharashtra because of crop failures and the debt trap.
The Christian community acknowledges a debt of gratitude to the secular people of India, their brothers and sisters. Those in authority, including leaders of political parties, perhaps are not as concerned with a micro community that hardly figures on their political radar because it does not matter electorally in most states, barring perhaps Tamil Nadu and Kerala and the micro states of Goa, Nagaland, Meghalaya and Mizoram where it impacts on a handful of Lok Sabha and Assembly seats.
In fact, leaders of the Bharatiya Janata party and its mother organisation, the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh, continue an almost daily harangue against the Church while militant frontal organisations such as the Bajrang Dal, the Akhil Bharatiya Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram and others peak the hate campaign at a feverish pitch.
The Evangelical Fellowship of India has called for a National Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church on Sunday, November 18, 2007
[I acknowledge the significant help of CLA and the All India Christian Council and AICU leaders in various states in documenting and investigation of cases of persecution]
Dr. John Dayal
Member: National Integration Council
Government of India
National President: All India Catholic Union (Founded 1919)
Secretary General: All India Christian Council (Founded 1999)
President: United Christian Action, Delhi (Founded 1992)
505 Link, 18 IP Extension, Delhi 110092 India
Email: johndayal@vsnl.com
http://groups.google.com/group/JohnDayal
Phone: 91-11-22722262 Mobile 09811021072
November 17 2007
Four cases of Christian persecution a week in 2007, and counting
Cases of Persecution of Christians in India recorded in 2007 (from 1st January to November 16th 2007) -- 190
Persecution Cases recorded in 2006 - 178
Persecution Cases Recorded in 2005 - 165
The victims include members of almost every Church denomination in the country, Catholics, Protestants, and Evangelicals. They include Catholic Fathers, catholic Nuns, Priests, independent Pastors, wives of Pastors, believers, Seminarians and Bible School students, and ordinary folks. Violence includes attempted murder, armed assault, sexual molestation, illegal confinement and grievous injury.
These figures do not include cases that have not come to the notice of the All India Christian Council, the All India Catholic Union, the GCIC, the Evangelical Fellowship of India and the Christian Legal Association. There are other cases which have come to my notice, but where the Church groups involved or the pastors have chosen not to file cases with the police, or have sought anonymity for fear of violence against the families of innocent people, particularly in Madhya Pradesh and Orissa.
This, of course, does not include widespread incidents which we do not want to include as “violence” but which certainly are indices of religious intolerance, bigotry, social discrimination and ostracisation -- as in many parts of the states in the lower Himalayan ranges [Himachal, Uttarakhand, part of Jammu and Kashmir, Sikkim], Orissa and other tribal areas. These cases include refusal to give share of the community profits in forest produced to those who have converted to Christianity, denial of civic and social benefits to Christians, particularly Dalits, in many parts of the country, denial of official permission to hold community meetings, official and informal ban on Bible sale and tract distribution in places where religious tracts and books of other majority faiths are freely distributed.
This list also does not include anti Christian Hate crimes. Nor does it include violence in which Christians are the victim together with others, such as the police actions in Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and other places, the displacement of Tribals because of government action, the suicides of farmers in Andhra and Maharashtra because of crop failures and the debt trap.
The Christian community acknowledges a debt of gratitude to the secular people of India, their brothers and sisters. Those in authority, including leaders of political parties, perhaps are not as concerned with a micro community that hardly figures on their political radar because it does not matter electorally in most states, barring perhaps Tamil Nadu and Kerala and the micro states of Goa, Nagaland, Meghalaya and Mizoram where it impacts on a handful of Lok Sabha and Assembly seats.
In fact, leaders of the Bharatiya Janata party and its mother organisation, the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh, continue an almost daily harangue against the Church while militant frontal organisations such as the Bajrang Dal, the Akhil Bharatiya Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram and others peak the hate campaign at a feverish pitch.
The Evangelical Fellowship of India has called for a National Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church on Sunday, November 18, 2007
[I acknowledge the significant help of CLA and the All India Christian Council and AICU leaders in various states in documenting and investigation of cases of persecution]
Dr. John Dayal
Member: National Integration Council
Government of India
National President: All India Catholic Union (Founded 1919)
Secretary General: All India Christian Council (Founded 1999)
President: United Christian Action, Delhi (Founded 1992)
505 Link, 18 IP Extension, Delhi 110092 India
Email: johndayal@vsnl.com
http://groups.google.com/group/JohnDayal
Phone: 91-11-22722262 Mobile 09811021072
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Concern at coercion and threats in the Resolution adopted by the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh against full rights for Dalit Christians, Muslims
PRESS STATEMENT
15 NOVEMBER 2007
In democratic India, even the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the bigoted, xenophobic and hyper nationalist founder of the Bharatiya Janata Party, has the right to take a political position on various issues, but the Supreme Court of India, the Union Government and the Election commission must take note of the threatening tone of resolutions recently adopted by its executive committee in their annual meeting.
These resolutions not only challenge Constitutional guarantees to the minorities, but are specially targeted at Christians and Muslims to instill fear and terror in the two communities.
The resolution also seeks to blackmail and coerce the Government of India by saying there will be “serious consequences” if the rights of the Dalit Christians and Muslims, taken away the nefarious Presidential Order of 1950, are restored.
The RSS also threads on thin legal ice when it charges the minorities with “brazenness” in moving the Supreme Court of India for the restoration of their rights, a demand which have been supported by the National Commission for Religious and Linguistics Minorities headed by former Chief justice of India Rangnath Misra. The Supreme Court is hearing a bunch of writ petitions by Dalit groups on the issue. The next hearing is scheduled for later in November.
Every law abiding citizen and organisation, including the Government, must condemn this arrogant attack on the right of aggrieved people to seek redress in the highest court in the land.
Not content with its vitriolic against the minority communities and their leadership, the RSS goes further in creating a confrontation between Dalits espousing various faith.
The BJP is contesting elections in Gujarat and Himachal and its resolutions go against the letter and spirit of the Code imposed by the Election Commission.
I hope the Chief Election Commissioner and other Commissioners will take Suo Moto cognisance of the RSS resolutions.
The following is the text of the RSS resolution against rights for Dalit Christians]
The Akhil Bharatiya Karyakari Mandal takes strong exception to the recommendation of the National Commission for Religious and Linguistic Minorities (NCRLM) popularly known as Justice Rangnath Mishra Commission that the Scheduled Caste status must be “completely delinked from religion” and “all those groups and classes among the Muslims and Christians should also be covered by the Scheduled Castes net”. What is more intriguing is the Commission’s effort to project its recommendations as consistent with the “letter and spirit of the constitutional provisions”.
The ABKM is of the view that, in reality, these recommendations are against the basic spirit of the Constitution and in negation of all the efforts of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar who struggled relentlessly in his personal and public life to reform the Hindu society. Besides, these recommendations are also an aggression on the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and a major impediment to their uplift.
The ABKM feels that the Commission has failed to take note of the fact that the framers of our Constitution, after prolonged deliberations, concluded that caste system is a part only of Hindu society and hence the reservations offered to the Scheduled Castes must be confined to Hindus only. The ABKM also wants to remind that the Church leadership, with an eye to increasing their numbers, has been vigorously campaigning for the inclusion of the converts into the Scheduled Castes purview which was steadfastly resisted by all the right-thinking leaders during the making of the Constitution as well as in the last six decades.
The ABKM decries the brazenness of the petitioners, who have gone to the Supreme Court with the demand of inclusion of the Christian converts in the Scheduled Castes category, with the contention that “the Dalits remain Dalits even after converting to Christianity”. Christianity claims that there is no caste system in it. It is a matter of shame that the Church leaders, in their greed for harvesting a few more souls, have no qualms in endorsing the petitioners’ contention which is against the proclaimed basic tenets of Christianity.
The ABKM reiterates that the demand for the converts to be treated on par with the Scheduled Castes is against the provisions of the Constitution since only castes, races or tribes can be deemed to be Scheduled Castes under Article 341 of the Constitution.
The ABKM cautions the government that any effort to implement the recommendations of the NCRLM, which are against the Constitution, is fraught with serious consequences. It calls upon the government not to succumb to the pressure tactics of the Church lobby in politics and outside and to stand steadfast on the path carved out by the leaders of the country in the last several decades by rejecting outright the demand for inclusion of such converts into the Scheduled Castes category.
The ABKM is of the considered opinion that the Church leadership is indulging in this duplicitous contention with the conspiracy to encourage mass conversions from the Scheduled Castes. It is clear that the reservations, if extended to the converts, would be considerably eaten up by the converts thus pushing the already backward Scheduled Castes into further backwardness.
The ABKM appeals to the countrymen in general and the Scheduled Caste brethren in particular to resist any move by the vote-hungry politicians in that direction which is going to be detrimental to the welfare of the Scheduled Castes. The ABKM calls upon all the swayamsevaks to work shoulder-to-shoulder with our Scheduled Caste brethren in their efforts to safeguard the interests of the community.
Dr. John Dayal
Member: National Integration Council
Government of India
National President: All India Catholic Union (Founded 1919)
Secretary General: All India Christian Council (Founded 1999)
President: United Christian Action, Delhi (Founded 1992)
505 Link, 18 IP Extension, Delhi 110092 India
Email: johndayal@vsnl.com
http://groups.google.com/group/JohnDayal
Phone: 91-11-22722262 Mobile 09811021072
15 NOVEMBER 2007
In democratic India, even the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the bigoted, xenophobic and hyper nationalist founder of the Bharatiya Janata Party, has the right to take a political position on various issues, but the Supreme Court of India, the Union Government and the Election commission must take note of the threatening tone of resolutions recently adopted by its executive committee in their annual meeting.
These resolutions not only challenge Constitutional guarantees to the minorities, but are specially targeted at Christians and Muslims to instill fear and terror in the two communities.
The resolution also seeks to blackmail and coerce the Government of India by saying there will be “serious consequences” if the rights of the Dalit Christians and Muslims, taken away the nefarious Presidential Order of 1950, are restored.
The RSS also threads on thin legal ice when it charges the minorities with “brazenness” in moving the Supreme Court of India for the restoration of their rights, a demand which have been supported by the National Commission for Religious and Linguistics Minorities headed by former Chief justice of India Rangnath Misra. The Supreme Court is hearing a bunch of writ petitions by Dalit groups on the issue. The next hearing is scheduled for later in November.
Every law abiding citizen and organisation, including the Government, must condemn this arrogant attack on the right of aggrieved people to seek redress in the highest court in the land.
Not content with its vitriolic against the minority communities and their leadership, the RSS goes further in creating a confrontation between Dalits espousing various faith.
The BJP is contesting elections in Gujarat and Himachal and its resolutions go against the letter and spirit of the Code imposed by the Election Commission.
I hope the Chief Election Commissioner and other Commissioners will take Suo Moto cognisance of the RSS resolutions.
The following is the text of the RSS resolution against rights for Dalit Christians]
The Akhil Bharatiya Karyakari Mandal takes strong exception to the recommendation of the National Commission for Religious and Linguistic Minorities (NCRLM) popularly known as Justice Rangnath Mishra Commission that the Scheduled Caste status must be “completely delinked from religion” and “all those groups and classes among the Muslims and Christians should also be covered by the Scheduled Castes net”. What is more intriguing is the Commission’s effort to project its recommendations as consistent with the “letter and spirit of the constitutional provisions”.
The ABKM is of the view that, in reality, these recommendations are against the basic spirit of the Constitution and in negation of all the efforts of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar who struggled relentlessly in his personal and public life to reform the Hindu society. Besides, these recommendations are also an aggression on the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and a major impediment to their uplift.
The ABKM feels that the Commission has failed to take note of the fact that the framers of our Constitution, after prolonged deliberations, concluded that caste system is a part only of Hindu society and hence the reservations offered to the Scheduled Castes must be confined to Hindus only. The ABKM also wants to remind that the Church leadership, with an eye to increasing their numbers, has been vigorously campaigning for the inclusion of the converts into the Scheduled Castes purview which was steadfastly resisted by all the right-thinking leaders during the making of the Constitution as well as in the last six decades.
The ABKM decries the brazenness of the petitioners, who have gone to the Supreme Court with the demand of inclusion of the Christian converts in the Scheduled Castes category, with the contention that “the Dalits remain Dalits even after converting to Christianity”. Christianity claims that there is no caste system in it. It is a matter of shame that the Church leaders, in their greed for harvesting a few more souls, have no qualms in endorsing the petitioners’ contention which is against the proclaimed basic tenets of Christianity.
The ABKM reiterates that the demand for the converts to be treated on par with the Scheduled Castes is against the provisions of the Constitution since only castes, races or tribes can be deemed to be Scheduled Castes under Article 341 of the Constitution.
The ABKM cautions the government that any effort to implement the recommendations of the NCRLM, which are against the Constitution, is fraught with serious consequences. It calls upon the government not to succumb to the pressure tactics of the Church lobby in politics and outside and to stand steadfast on the path carved out by the leaders of the country in the last several decades by rejecting outright the demand for inclusion of such converts into the Scheduled Castes category.
The ABKM is of the considered opinion that the Church leadership is indulging in this duplicitous contention with the conspiracy to encourage mass conversions from the Scheduled Castes. It is clear that the reservations, if extended to the converts, would be considerably eaten up by the converts thus pushing the already backward Scheduled Castes into further backwardness.
The ABKM appeals to the countrymen in general and the Scheduled Caste brethren in particular to resist any move by the vote-hungry politicians in that direction which is going to be detrimental to the welfare of the Scheduled Castes. The ABKM calls upon all the swayamsevaks to work shoulder-to-shoulder with our Scheduled Caste brethren in their efforts to safeguard the interests of the community.
Dr. John Dayal
Member: National Integration Council
Government of India
National President: All India Catholic Union (Founded 1919)
Secretary General: All India Christian Council (Founded 1999)
President: United Christian Action, Delhi (Founded 1992)
505 Link, 18 IP Extension, Delhi 110092 India
Email: johndayal@vsnl.com
http://groups.google.com/group/JohnDayal
Phone: 91-11-22722262 Mobile 09811021072
Thursday, November 8, 2007
The real truth
The Asian Age, New Delhi, India
08 November 2007
Opinion
The Great Truth
By Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer
[Former Judge, Supreme Court of India]
The unity, integrity and fraternity of Indian society are fundamental to the structure of our secular democratic republic. To sustain the security and stability of the polity it is important to enlighten the people about India’s creative and cultural pluralism, and the unifying quality of Swaraj. This is no idle intellectual exercise that narrates the multi-religious story of Bharat, but a dynamic drive which fuels the diverse faiths and agnostic movements.
In this setting, I want to present my thoughts objectively on the higher temporal and spiritual values which illuminate our profound culture. This is best spelt out in Jawaharlal Nehru’s great Autobiography, where he wrote, "…many souls who are or who believe they are free from all religious belief … in reality live immersed in a state of super-rational consciousness, which they term Socialism, Communism, Humanitarianism, Nationalism and even Rationalism. It is the quality of thought and not its object which determines its source and allows us to decide whether or not it emanates from religion. If it turns fearlessly towards the search for truth at all costs with single-minded sincerity prepared for any sacrifice, I should call it religious; for it presupposes faith in an end to human effort higher than the life of existing society, and even higher than the life of humanity as a whole. Scepticism itself, when it proceeds from vigorous natures true to the core, when it is an expression of strength and not of weakness, joins in the march of the Grand Army of the religious Soul.
"I cannot presume to fulfil the conditions laid down by Romain Rolland, but on these terms I am prepared to be a humble camp-follower of the Grand Army."
In this sense I too am a happy camp-follower.
Gautam Buddha, the enlightened one, gave the human race the rare value of compassion for all living creatures. Lord Krishna, the avatar of the Bhagavad Gita, battled for human rights and upheld the divinity and dignity of the deprived. He bargained for social and political justice through diplomacy, and followed it up with war to gain a victory for righteousness. Prophet Muhammad, the founder of Islam, was inspired by a spiritual revelation and transformed a delinquent society to a revolutionary and progressive one that stood for equality, generosity, universal brotherhood and peace. Mahatma Gandhi launched a do-or-die struggle for the liberation of millions of people from the thraldom of the British empire. His also struggled to liberate them from a caste-bound, feudal and communal society. He lived and died as a symbol of non-violence, secularism, simplicity and truth.
The legendary names who have glorified our cultural heritage deserve to be cherished and followed as a fundamental duty (Article 51A b of the Constitution).
Jesus Christ was a cosmic human marvel who taught the world values like compassion, fraternity, equality and love. He combined in him the highest principles of the noble Upanishads, the selfless teachings of Lord Buddha, the moving message of Lord Mahavir, the spectacular fight for dharma launched by Lord Krishna, the astonishing transformation achieved by Prophet Muhammad and the anti-imperialist commitments of Mahatma Gandhi. Jesus resisted injustice, untruth and obscurantism which prevailed under the authority of the Roman Empire. He resisted the sanctimonious religiosity propagated by the high priests of the Jewish faith. Jesus belonged to a lowly family but rose to influence the mind and spirit of the human race. He deliberately broke the Sabbath and said that the Sabbath was for man and not the other way round. He challenged superstitions and propounded a culture of humanism and egalitarianism. Through his message, he was able to change human thought and faith. Indeed, this noblest son of God never desired to be adored or worshipped as "Christ" or "Messiah." The following sentence is most inspirational: "then he charged his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ" (Matthew XVI).
He saw universal brotherhood as the divine bond that bound people everywhere. That his philosophy was real is evident from a reply he gave to a person who told him that, "Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him: who is my mother, and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand towards his disciple and said, behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God which is in Heaven the same is my brother and…"
God’s universal fatherhood and the brotherhood of all mankind were a reality for him. He denounced private wealth. He told the world that the wealthy had no more chance of going to heaven than a camel trying to pass through the eye of the needle. When Pontius Pilate asked about Jesus’ God in Heaven (above the Roman Emperor) he asserted that He was the truth. This anti-imperial statement was a daring assertion against the emperor.
The greatest of all men of his time, Jesus was found not guilty by the imperial judge, but was awarded the death sentence. He was crucified by a terrible process of torture, while Barabbas, the robber, was set free. Similarly, today robbers roam around freely, plundering as they please. This is because a materialist rule of law punishes the just and acquits the anti-social criminals.
It is true that our system of justice is not able to suppress crime and discover the innocence of those who stand by truth. God is Truth and Truth is God said Gandhiji. Jesus proved by his extraordinary passion the need for a finer revolution of our moral order and authoritarian system of justice. Jesus’ admonition is of burning relevance to those in public power who are the trustees of the people: "Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted?"
US President George W. Bush said that God told him to attack Iraq. Napoleon Bonaparte said something that has kept society mesmerised even today: "There is only one thing in this world, and that is to keep acquiring money and more money, power and more power. All the rest is meaningless."
Contrast this with the Gandhian concept of development that rejected the idea that life’s aim was primarily the creation of material wealth.
Comrade Jesus, the martyr who redeemed humanism, belongs to mankind. He is not the monopoly of any particular community. Jesus championed proletarian values and gender justice as opposed to privilege and exploitation. So did Lord Krishna who battled for eternal dharma in the Mahabharata. So too did Lord Buddha who renounced royalty and made compassion his cosmic creed. And Prophet Muhammad, the finest humanist of his age in the Arab world, upheld the noble ideals of universal brotherhood and sharing as opposed to the greedy and promiscuous pleasures of a vicious society.
In our time, Mahatma Gandhi abdicated every form of affluence and political privilege, identified truth and non-violence as absolute creeds, and abolition of human privation as integral to Swaraj. Karl Marx raged against capitalist exploitation and made liberation his life’s mission. He lived and died in poverty.
The Great Truth is more than dialectical materialism. It is a spiritual vision and manifests universal love.
Jesus Christ, whose passion and crucifixion were too sublime to find a parallel, was the noblest revolutionary of history. He was an avatar of truth, justice and spiritual redemption. Today, imperial terrorism, ubiquitous corruption, crazy greed and quasi-colonial culture comprise the rule of law. Capitalist economists and phoney political philosophers have interpreted the wealth and development of nations in various ways. Our task is to transform society to guarantee that everyone has the right to live in dignity.
08 November 2007
Opinion
The Great Truth
By Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer
[Former Judge, Supreme Court of India]
The unity, integrity and fraternity of Indian society are fundamental to the structure of our secular democratic republic. To sustain the security and stability of the polity it is important to enlighten the people about India’s creative and cultural pluralism, and the unifying quality of Swaraj. This is no idle intellectual exercise that narrates the multi-religious story of Bharat, but a dynamic drive which fuels the diverse faiths and agnostic movements.
In this setting, I want to present my thoughts objectively on the higher temporal and spiritual values which illuminate our profound culture. This is best spelt out in Jawaharlal Nehru’s great Autobiography, where he wrote, "…many souls who are or who believe they are free from all religious belief … in reality live immersed in a state of super-rational consciousness, which they term Socialism, Communism, Humanitarianism, Nationalism and even Rationalism. It is the quality of thought and not its object which determines its source and allows us to decide whether or not it emanates from religion. If it turns fearlessly towards the search for truth at all costs with single-minded sincerity prepared for any sacrifice, I should call it religious; for it presupposes faith in an end to human effort higher than the life of existing society, and even higher than the life of humanity as a whole. Scepticism itself, when it proceeds from vigorous natures true to the core, when it is an expression of strength and not of weakness, joins in the march of the Grand Army of the religious Soul.
"I cannot presume to fulfil the conditions laid down by Romain Rolland, but on these terms I am prepared to be a humble camp-follower of the Grand Army."
In this sense I too am a happy camp-follower.
Gautam Buddha, the enlightened one, gave the human race the rare value of compassion for all living creatures. Lord Krishna, the avatar of the Bhagavad Gita, battled for human rights and upheld the divinity and dignity of the deprived. He bargained for social and political justice through diplomacy, and followed it up with war to gain a victory for righteousness. Prophet Muhammad, the founder of Islam, was inspired by a spiritual revelation and transformed a delinquent society to a revolutionary and progressive one that stood for equality, generosity, universal brotherhood and peace. Mahatma Gandhi launched a do-or-die struggle for the liberation of millions of people from the thraldom of the British empire. His also struggled to liberate them from a caste-bound, feudal and communal society. He lived and died as a symbol of non-violence, secularism, simplicity and truth.
The legendary names who have glorified our cultural heritage deserve to be cherished and followed as a fundamental duty (Article 51A b of the Constitution).
Jesus Christ was a cosmic human marvel who taught the world values like compassion, fraternity, equality and love. He combined in him the highest principles of the noble Upanishads, the selfless teachings of Lord Buddha, the moving message of Lord Mahavir, the spectacular fight for dharma launched by Lord Krishna, the astonishing transformation achieved by Prophet Muhammad and the anti-imperialist commitments of Mahatma Gandhi. Jesus resisted injustice, untruth and obscurantism which prevailed under the authority of the Roman Empire. He resisted the sanctimonious religiosity propagated by the high priests of the Jewish faith. Jesus belonged to a lowly family but rose to influence the mind and spirit of the human race. He deliberately broke the Sabbath and said that the Sabbath was for man and not the other way round. He challenged superstitions and propounded a culture of humanism and egalitarianism. Through his message, he was able to change human thought and faith. Indeed, this noblest son of God never desired to be adored or worshipped as "Christ" or "Messiah." The following sentence is most inspirational: "then he charged his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ" (Matthew XVI).
He saw universal brotherhood as the divine bond that bound people everywhere. That his philosophy was real is evident from a reply he gave to a person who told him that, "Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him: who is my mother, and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand towards his disciple and said, behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God which is in Heaven the same is my brother and…"
God’s universal fatherhood and the brotherhood of all mankind were a reality for him. He denounced private wealth. He told the world that the wealthy had no more chance of going to heaven than a camel trying to pass through the eye of the needle. When Pontius Pilate asked about Jesus’ God in Heaven (above the Roman Emperor) he asserted that He was the truth. This anti-imperial statement was a daring assertion against the emperor.
The greatest of all men of his time, Jesus was found not guilty by the imperial judge, but was awarded the death sentence. He was crucified by a terrible process of torture, while Barabbas, the robber, was set free. Similarly, today robbers roam around freely, plundering as they please. This is because a materialist rule of law punishes the just and acquits the anti-social criminals.
It is true that our system of justice is not able to suppress crime and discover the innocence of those who stand by truth. God is Truth and Truth is God said Gandhiji. Jesus proved by his extraordinary passion the need for a finer revolution of our moral order and authoritarian system of justice. Jesus’ admonition is of burning relevance to those in public power who are the trustees of the people: "Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted?"
US President George W. Bush said that God told him to attack Iraq. Napoleon Bonaparte said something that has kept society mesmerised even today: "There is only one thing in this world, and that is to keep acquiring money and more money, power and more power. All the rest is meaningless."
Contrast this with the Gandhian concept of development that rejected the idea that life’s aim was primarily the creation of material wealth.
Comrade Jesus, the martyr who redeemed humanism, belongs to mankind. He is not the monopoly of any particular community. Jesus championed proletarian values and gender justice as opposed to privilege and exploitation. So did Lord Krishna who battled for eternal dharma in the Mahabharata. So too did Lord Buddha who renounced royalty and made compassion his cosmic creed. And Prophet Muhammad, the finest humanist of his age in the Arab world, upheld the noble ideals of universal brotherhood and sharing as opposed to the greedy and promiscuous pleasures of a vicious society.
In our time, Mahatma Gandhi abdicated every form of affluence and political privilege, identified truth and non-violence as absolute creeds, and abolition of human privation as integral to Swaraj. Karl Marx raged against capitalist exploitation and made liberation his life’s mission. He lived and died in poverty.
The Great Truth is more than dialectical materialism. It is a spiritual vision and manifests universal love.
Jesus Christ, whose passion and crucifixion were too sublime to find a parallel, was the noblest revolutionary of history. He was an avatar of truth, justice and spiritual redemption. Today, imperial terrorism, ubiquitous corruption, crazy greed and quasi-colonial culture comprise the rule of law. Capitalist economists and phoney political philosophers have interpreted the wealth and development of nations in various ways. Our task is to transform society to guarantee that everyone has the right to live in dignity.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Are Senior Advocates as powewrful in Supreme Court of India?
New Study Suggests Veteran Advocates Sway United States Supreme Court
By Tony Mauro
Legal Times
10-22-2007
For the elite of the Supreme Court Bar, this is the Gilded Age. Or call it the Age of the Guild.
The Court's docket continues to shrink. Yet dramatic new research by Georgetown University Law Center professor Richard Lazarus shows that more and more of the Court's cases are brought and argued by the seasoned veterans who have honed Supreme Court practice into a fine, and exclusive, art form. Last term, fully 44 percent of the nongovernment petitions that were granted review by the Court were filed by such veteran advocates. In 1980, that number was less than 6 percent.
The justices and their law clerks, it seems clear, pay special attention to the briefs and arguments of these virtuosos of the bar. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., after all, was once one of them, arguing 39 cases to the Court in his days as an appellate lawyer in the private and public sector. And Lazarus cites a 2004 survey published in the Journal of Law & Politics indicating that 88 percent of law clerks openly acknowledged giving extra consideration to briefs filed by what one called the "inner circle" of the Supreme Court Bar. The clerks, who play a crucial role in screening incoming cases for their justices, often then go to work for these same firms, garnering hiring bonuses that this year have reached $250,000.
But this is not just a "rich get richer" tale about lawyers. Lazarus, founder of the university's Supreme Court Institute, goes a step further to make the claim that the increasing dominance of the veteran Supreme Court Bar is beginning to have an impact on the Court's doctrine.
The study, set for publication soon in the Georgetown University Law Journal, draws a direct and controversial connection between the growth of the Supreme Court Bar and the Court's widely noted new pro-business tilt.
Clients willing to plunk down $100,000 or more for a veteran advocate to petition the Court are elbowing aside the civil rights, civil liberties and labor groups that once helped set the Court's agenda, the study suggests. Recent breakthrough victories for business in tort, antitrust and other areas of the law can't be explained totally by the Court's overall conservative majority, Lazarus says. The elite Supreme Court Bar has played a pivotal role, he asserts.
"The re-emergence of a Supreme Court Bar of elite attorneys ... is quietly transforming the Court and the nation's laws," says Lazarus, recalling the early 1800s, when Daniel Webster, Francis Scott Key and a handful of other lawyers dominated arguments at the Court in landmark cases. Increasingly, Lazarus says, the modern-day Court is ruling in favor of "monied interests more able to pay for such expertise."
Lazarus calls on the Supreme Court Bar -- and the Court itself -- to take steps to reduce the imbalance in advocacy between the well-paid pro-business veterans and those representing other parties, such as criminal defendants and employment discrimination, tort and environmental plaintiffs. "The advocacy gap in the Court between those who can pay and those who cannot," says Lazarus, is "bad for the legal profession, the Court, and its rulings."
LEVELING THE FIELD
But some of the very lawyers Lazarus pinpoints say the problem, if there is one, is already being addressed by increased pro bono work by the veterans and by the recent proliferation of law school Supreme Court clinics that spread their expertise more broadly among parties that need help. Increased competition for fewer cases also means that virtually every private party has multiple offers of help from Supreme Court specialists.
Success Rate for Expert Counsel in Obtaining Supreme Court Review October Term Number of
Petitions Granted Successful Petitions Filed by Expert Counsel Percentage of Successful Petitions Filed by Expert Counsel
1980 102 6 6%
2000 68 17 25%
2005 67 24 36%
2006 64 28 44%
Source: Richard Lazarus, Georgetown University Law Center
Note: Expert counsel is defined as a lawyer who has argued five or more Supreme Court cases, or is affiliated with a firm or organization with at least 10 prior arguments before the Court.
The veterans also dispute the notion that the bar is steering the Court in any direction, pro-business or otherwise. "Effective advocacy can impact the Court, but the heightened success of business has been in the works for 25 years," says Latham & Watkins' Maureen Mahoney, who argued four cases last term. "And you've got seven Republican appointees on this Court who have a high interest in these cases."
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld's Thomas Goldstein makes a similar point. "We advocates tend to think it's all about the lawyering. But the most important trend by far is the increasing conservatism and pro-business orientation of the justices themselves."
All the highly polished pro-business petitions in the world, he adds, "wouldn't get anywhere on a Court with nine Bill Brennans," a reference to the late liberal lion, Justice William Brennan Jr.
Adds O'Melveny & Myers' Walter Dellinger, "The Supreme Court has such capacity to do its own work. It's increasingly sensitive to the economic consequences of litigation and regulation. I don't think I'd attribute that to the bar."
Robert Long of Covington & Burling also points out, "We all file a lot of cases that are denied." But he agrees with Lazarus that these are salad days for the Supreme Court Bar, in part because of "the reflected luster" of having one of its own, Roberts, occupying the Court's center chair.
In response, Lazarus acknowledges that "the bar alone does not determine the docket." But he asserts the modern Supreme Court Bar is having dramatically more impact than in the past. "If we had essentially the same Court but not this kind of bar, we would not have the same number of business cases."
As for leveling the playing field, Dellinger's own portfolio of cases this term indicates that the high priests of the high court bar can mix business with pro bono clients. Dellinger represents ExxonMobil in its challenge to the multibillion-dollar damage verdict in the Exxon Valdez oil spill case. But his name is also on a petition filed for Humberto Cuellar, a drug smuggler who is challenging the federal money-laundering statute. The Court granted review in the case Oct. 15. Dellinger won't argue the case himself, deferring to a federal defender in Texas, but he says it represents an effort by his firm -- and the Harvard Law School clinic he helps run -- to assist first-time advocates even before the Court grants review.
Lazarus acknowledges the role of the clinics and law firms such as O'Melveny, Sidley Austin, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Mayer Brown, among others, which have worked for years -- mostly unheralded -- to improve advocacy before the high court for criminal defendants and death row inmates. But more needs to be done, he says, including the Court itself granting argument time to established groups such as the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers when a defendant's advocate is a first-timer or needs help.
Lazarus' concern has been growing in recent years. Last term, his institute ran moot courts for more than 90 percent of the cases argued before the high court. And in his own field of environmental law, Lazarus has researched the record of near-total defeat for environmental plaintiffs challenging government action or inaction.
From both experiences, Lazarus concludes, "Good advocacy really matters." To a degree that surprised him, Lazarus found that the quality of the briefing and of the oral advocacy -- the way that cases are framed, the arguments that are stressed, and the ones that are omitted -- have a powerful impact on the justices, as independent as they may be.
As an example, Lazarus charts the history of the business community's efforts to convince the Supreme Court that there is a constitutional limit to punitive damages in tort cases. By placing seven of the eight cases in the hands of veterans such as Mayer Brown's Andrew Frey, Theodore Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, and Sidley Austin's Carter Phillips, business groups were able to make slow but steady progress -- culminating in last term's Philip Morris v. Williams. In some ways, Lazarus says, the long march toward a favorable outcome on punitive damages mirrored the late Thurgood Marshall's strategic litigation campaign before he became a justice, leading to a civil rights victory in Brown v. Board of Education.
Percentage of Expert Advocates Arguing Before Supreme Court
October Term Percentage of first-time advocates arguing before Court Percentage of advocates with 10 or more prior arguments
1980 76% 3%
2000 62% 9%
2006 52% 26%
Source: Richard Lazarus, Georgetown University Law Center
Note: Chart excludes lawyers from Solicitor General's Office.
The Court's renewed interest in antitrust issues also illustrates the elite bar's power to achieve success, says Lazarus, "not simply by discerning the priorities and interests of the justices but by changing them." The Court heard only two antitrust cases between 1992 and 2002, but since then it has decided 10. All 10 were brought by antitrust defendants appealing unfavorable decisions below, and all 10 were represented by seasoned veterans.
But the dominance of the Supreme Court Bar begins at the petition stage. The Court accepts fewer than 100 of the nearly 10,000 petitions it receives yearly. Yet the veterans, who know how to make a petition attractive to the justices and their clerks, sometimes achieve a 20 percent success rate or higher, Lazarus says -- something that would have been unheard of 20 years ago. In its first year of existence, for example, Goldstein's Stanford Law School clinic worked on four petitions -- and all four were granted.
Given the Court's shrunken docket, the veteran advocates are also busy writing amicus briefs, which, Lazarus documents, have grown in importance at both the petition stage and the merits stage. The number of amicus briefs supporting a petition for review have increased 40 percent in the last 25 years, and petitions that are accompanied by these briefs have a significantly higher chance of being accepted. Once the case is granted, Lazarus calculates, an average of nine amicus briefs are filed in advance of oral argument, triple the number 20 years earlier.
TAKING NO PRISONERS
The apex of amicus brief influence came in the arguments in Grutter v. Bollinger, the landmark 2003 affirmative action case. Justices posed 19 questions about the brief filed by retired military officials supporting affirmative action. Several referred to it as the "Carter Phillips brief," even though the counsel of record was his Sidley Austin partner Virginia Seitz, herself a veteran of the Supreme Court Bar.
The dominance of the specialists is especially visible at oral argument, Lazarus' study indicates. Last term, 26 percent of the advocates who argued before the Court were veterans -- defined as having argued five cases themselves or coming from an organization that has argued 10 cases.
But it is also at oral argument where the veterans say they earn their fees. The intense barrage of high-level questions from justices is not for the faint of heart, Dellinger says. "You can't evade answering their questions," he says. "If you do, they will hunt you down. They take no prisoners."
David Frederick of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel says, "The specialization has arisen at least in part in response to the Court's uniquely vigorous questioning style, which makes a Supreme Court argument quite unlike an argument in any other court."
Lazarus' article recalls oral arguments on April 25, when Frederick and five other advocates stood before the Court to argue in three cases. Two of the lawyers had argued more than 45 cases each before the justices, and all but one had argued more than 20. The "rookie" had five under his belt. Frederick, arguing his 21st case, had also appeared the week before. Lazarus writes of that day, "The modern Supreme Court Bar had arrived."
By Tony Mauro
Legal Times
10-22-2007
For the elite of the Supreme Court Bar, this is the Gilded Age. Or call it the Age of the Guild.
The Court's docket continues to shrink. Yet dramatic new research by Georgetown University Law Center professor Richard Lazarus shows that more and more of the Court's cases are brought and argued by the seasoned veterans who have honed Supreme Court practice into a fine, and exclusive, art form. Last term, fully 44 percent of the nongovernment petitions that were granted review by the Court were filed by such veteran advocates. In 1980, that number was less than 6 percent.
The justices and their law clerks, it seems clear, pay special attention to the briefs and arguments of these virtuosos of the bar. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., after all, was once one of them, arguing 39 cases to the Court in his days as an appellate lawyer in the private and public sector. And Lazarus cites a 2004 survey published in the Journal of Law & Politics indicating that 88 percent of law clerks openly acknowledged giving extra consideration to briefs filed by what one called the "inner circle" of the Supreme Court Bar. The clerks, who play a crucial role in screening incoming cases for their justices, often then go to work for these same firms, garnering hiring bonuses that this year have reached $250,000.
But this is not just a "rich get richer" tale about lawyers. Lazarus, founder of the university's Supreme Court Institute, goes a step further to make the claim that the increasing dominance of the veteran Supreme Court Bar is beginning to have an impact on the Court's doctrine.
The study, set for publication soon in the Georgetown University Law Journal, draws a direct and controversial connection between the growth of the Supreme Court Bar and the Court's widely noted new pro-business tilt.
Clients willing to plunk down $100,000 or more for a veteran advocate to petition the Court are elbowing aside the civil rights, civil liberties and labor groups that once helped set the Court's agenda, the study suggests. Recent breakthrough victories for business in tort, antitrust and other areas of the law can't be explained totally by the Court's overall conservative majority, Lazarus says. The elite Supreme Court Bar has played a pivotal role, he asserts.
"The re-emergence of a Supreme Court Bar of elite attorneys ... is quietly transforming the Court and the nation's laws," says Lazarus, recalling the early 1800s, when Daniel Webster, Francis Scott Key and a handful of other lawyers dominated arguments at the Court in landmark cases. Increasingly, Lazarus says, the modern-day Court is ruling in favor of "monied interests more able to pay for such expertise."
Lazarus calls on the Supreme Court Bar -- and the Court itself -- to take steps to reduce the imbalance in advocacy between the well-paid pro-business veterans and those representing other parties, such as criminal defendants and employment discrimination, tort and environmental plaintiffs. "The advocacy gap in the Court between those who can pay and those who cannot," says Lazarus, is "bad for the legal profession, the Court, and its rulings."
LEVELING THE FIELD
But some of the very lawyers Lazarus pinpoints say the problem, if there is one, is already being addressed by increased pro bono work by the veterans and by the recent proliferation of law school Supreme Court clinics that spread their expertise more broadly among parties that need help. Increased competition for fewer cases also means that virtually every private party has multiple offers of help from Supreme Court specialists.
Success Rate for Expert Counsel in Obtaining Supreme Court Review October Term Number of
Petitions Granted Successful Petitions Filed by Expert Counsel Percentage of Successful Petitions Filed by Expert Counsel
1980 102 6 6%
2000 68 17 25%
2005 67 24 36%
2006 64 28 44%
Source: Richard Lazarus, Georgetown University Law Center
Note: Expert counsel is defined as a lawyer who has argued five or more Supreme Court cases, or is affiliated with a firm or organization with at least 10 prior arguments before the Court.
The veterans also dispute the notion that the bar is steering the Court in any direction, pro-business or otherwise. "Effective advocacy can impact the Court, but the heightened success of business has been in the works for 25 years," says Latham & Watkins' Maureen Mahoney, who argued four cases last term. "And you've got seven Republican appointees on this Court who have a high interest in these cases."
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld's Thomas Goldstein makes a similar point. "We advocates tend to think it's all about the lawyering. But the most important trend by far is the increasing conservatism and pro-business orientation of the justices themselves."
All the highly polished pro-business petitions in the world, he adds, "wouldn't get anywhere on a Court with nine Bill Brennans," a reference to the late liberal lion, Justice William Brennan Jr.
Adds O'Melveny & Myers' Walter Dellinger, "The Supreme Court has such capacity to do its own work. It's increasingly sensitive to the economic consequences of litigation and regulation. I don't think I'd attribute that to the bar."
Robert Long of Covington & Burling also points out, "We all file a lot of cases that are denied." But he agrees with Lazarus that these are salad days for the Supreme Court Bar, in part because of "the reflected luster" of having one of its own, Roberts, occupying the Court's center chair.
In response, Lazarus acknowledges that "the bar alone does not determine the docket." But he asserts the modern Supreme Court Bar is having dramatically more impact than in the past. "If we had essentially the same Court but not this kind of bar, we would not have the same number of business cases."
As for leveling the playing field, Dellinger's own portfolio of cases this term indicates that the high priests of the high court bar can mix business with pro bono clients. Dellinger represents ExxonMobil in its challenge to the multibillion-dollar damage verdict in the Exxon Valdez oil spill case. But his name is also on a petition filed for Humberto Cuellar, a drug smuggler who is challenging the federal money-laundering statute. The Court granted review in the case Oct. 15. Dellinger won't argue the case himself, deferring to a federal defender in Texas, but he says it represents an effort by his firm -- and the Harvard Law School clinic he helps run -- to assist first-time advocates even before the Court grants review.
Lazarus acknowledges the role of the clinics and law firms such as O'Melveny, Sidley Austin, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Mayer Brown, among others, which have worked for years -- mostly unheralded -- to improve advocacy before the high court for criminal defendants and death row inmates. But more needs to be done, he says, including the Court itself granting argument time to established groups such as the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers when a defendant's advocate is a first-timer or needs help.
Lazarus' concern has been growing in recent years. Last term, his institute ran moot courts for more than 90 percent of the cases argued before the high court. And in his own field of environmental law, Lazarus has researched the record of near-total defeat for environmental plaintiffs challenging government action or inaction.
From both experiences, Lazarus concludes, "Good advocacy really matters." To a degree that surprised him, Lazarus found that the quality of the briefing and of the oral advocacy -- the way that cases are framed, the arguments that are stressed, and the ones that are omitted -- have a powerful impact on the justices, as independent as they may be.
As an example, Lazarus charts the history of the business community's efforts to convince the Supreme Court that there is a constitutional limit to punitive damages in tort cases. By placing seven of the eight cases in the hands of veterans such as Mayer Brown's Andrew Frey, Theodore Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, and Sidley Austin's Carter Phillips, business groups were able to make slow but steady progress -- culminating in last term's Philip Morris v. Williams. In some ways, Lazarus says, the long march toward a favorable outcome on punitive damages mirrored the late Thurgood Marshall's strategic litigation campaign before he became a justice, leading to a civil rights victory in Brown v. Board of Education.
Percentage of Expert Advocates Arguing Before Supreme Court
October Term Percentage of first-time advocates arguing before Court Percentage of advocates with 10 or more prior arguments
1980 76% 3%
2000 62% 9%
2006 52% 26%
Source: Richard Lazarus, Georgetown University Law Center
Note: Chart excludes lawyers from Solicitor General's Office.
The Court's renewed interest in antitrust issues also illustrates the elite bar's power to achieve success, says Lazarus, "not simply by discerning the priorities and interests of the justices but by changing them." The Court heard only two antitrust cases between 1992 and 2002, but since then it has decided 10. All 10 were brought by antitrust defendants appealing unfavorable decisions below, and all 10 were represented by seasoned veterans.
But the dominance of the Supreme Court Bar begins at the petition stage. The Court accepts fewer than 100 of the nearly 10,000 petitions it receives yearly. Yet the veterans, who know how to make a petition attractive to the justices and their clerks, sometimes achieve a 20 percent success rate or higher, Lazarus says -- something that would have been unheard of 20 years ago. In its first year of existence, for example, Goldstein's Stanford Law School clinic worked on four petitions -- and all four were granted.
Given the Court's shrunken docket, the veteran advocates are also busy writing amicus briefs, which, Lazarus documents, have grown in importance at both the petition stage and the merits stage. The number of amicus briefs supporting a petition for review have increased 40 percent in the last 25 years, and petitions that are accompanied by these briefs have a significantly higher chance of being accepted. Once the case is granted, Lazarus calculates, an average of nine amicus briefs are filed in advance of oral argument, triple the number 20 years earlier.
TAKING NO PRISONERS
The apex of amicus brief influence came in the arguments in Grutter v. Bollinger, the landmark 2003 affirmative action case. Justices posed 19 questions about the brief filed by retired military officials supporting affirmative action. Several referred to it as the "Carter Phillips brief," even though the counsel of record was his Sidley Austin partner Virginia Seitz, herself a veteran of the Supreme Court Bar.
The dominance of the specialists is especially visible at oral argument, Lazarus' study indicates. Last term, 26 percent of the advocates who argued before the Court were veterans -- defined as having argued five cases themselves or coming from an organization that has argued 10 cases.
But it is also at oral argument where the veterans say they earn their fees. The intense barrage of high-level questions from justices is not for the faint of heart, Dellinger says. "You can't evade answering their questions," he says. "If you do, they will hunt you down. They take no prisoners."
David Frederick of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel says, "The specialization has arisen at least in part in response to the Court's uniquely vigorous questioning style, which makes a Supreme Court argument quite unlike an argument in any other court."
Lazarus' article recalls oral arguments on April 25, when Frederick and five other advocates stood before the Court to argue in three cases. Two of the lawyers had argued more than 45 cases each before the justices, and all but one had argued more than 20. The "rookie" had five under his belt. Frederick, arguing his 21st case, had also appeared the week before. Lazarus writes of that day, "The modern Supreme Court Bar had arrived."
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Nibbling away Freedom of Faith in India
Religious freedom in India 'shrinking' says Christian author
Feature ENI-07-0800
By Anto Akkara
Bangalore, India, 17 October (ENI)--Despite India remaining the world's most populous and vibrant democracy, freedom of religion is steadily on the decline, says John Dayal, a journalist-turned-Christian activist, who is now national president of the 1919-founded All India Catholic Union and secretary general of the All India Christian Council .
"Many of the rights have been systematically diluted over the years by governments, courts and fundamentalist forces," Dayal told Ecumenical News International in an interview on 13 October about his soon-to-be-released book on religious freedom in India.
"A Matter of Equity: Freedom of Faith in Secular India" is a critique of religious freedom in the country. Dayal says that this freedom, or lack of it, ranges from the steady dilution of constitutional guarantees to harsh treatment meted out to Christians and minorities in every corner of the country.
The book is a collection of articles Dayal wrote both as a journalist, and after he became outspoken on issues concerning India's Christian community.
In his writings, Dayal describes a steady upsurge in anti-Christian violence from the late 1990s, when the Hindu nationalist BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) emerged as a strong political force.
"Even before the BJP came up, religious freedom had been facing curbs both by the government and the judiciary," says Dayal, who lists several documents in his book to support his claim.
He points out that the first anti-conversion bill, which restricts people converting to Christianity was introduced by the avowedly secular Congress party in the 1960s. The BJP, This, Dayal asserts, now emulates this legislation.
He adds that Christians enjoyed "better religious freedom three decades ago
than now," and notes that often lower courts in several areas have been "hostile to Christian grievances where they get little relief".
While India stopped allowing missionaries to enter the country decades ago, Dayal notes that, "Christian missionaries who have done exemplary service to the nation have been unceremoniously packed off by the government denying them visa extensions on one pretext or other."
Apart from that, the author says that the State machinery has been used to harass Christians and their institutions, even by secular governments.
"In this context, one will wonder what is the meaning of the religious freedom spelt out under fundamental freedom in our constitution," Dayal adds.
"But, what we (Christians) have faced from 1990s has capped it all," argues Dayal, who has visited almost every troubled spot in the country following attacks on Christians.
"A Matter of Equity" cites systematic and orchestrated attacks on Christian targets by Hindu fundamentalist forces that the author laments as being rooted in a "belief in violence".
Dayal says that during recent times India has recorded hundreds of incidents of deliberate violence against Christians, including the murders of priests, rapes of nuns, and brutal assaults on missionaries, besides attacks on Christian gatherings and buildings.
On the other hand, following the steady rise in atrocities, Dayal says, churches have also begun to speak up and come out on to the streets.
However, Dayal says that church leaders have failed to provide strong leadership for the 26 million Christians in India, or "to demand from the government what has been taken away over the decades".
:: A Matter of Equity: Freedom of Faith in Secular India, by John Dayal, is published by New Delhi-based Anamika Publishers and Distributors Pvt Ltd,500 pages, 800 Indian rupees. [565 words]
The book is available from catholicunion@gmail.com, postage free
Ecumenical News International
PO Box 2100 CH - 1211 Geneva 2 Switzerland
Feature ENI-07-0800
By Anto Akkara
Bangalore, India, 17 October (ENI)--Despite India remaining the world's most populous and vibrant democracy, freedom of religion is steadily on the decline, says John Dayal, a journalist-turned-Christian activist, who is now national president of the 1919-founded All India Catholic Union and secretary general of the All India Christian Council .
"Many of the rights have been systematically diluted over the years by governments, courts and fundamentalist forces," Dayal told Ecumenical News International in an interview on 13 October about his soon-to-be-released book on religious freedom in India.
"A Matter of Equity: Freedom of Faith in Secular India" is a critique of religious freedom in the country. Dayal says that this freedom, or lack of it, ranges from the steady dilution of constitutional guarantees to harsh treatment meted out to Christians and minorities in every corner of the country.
The book is a collection of articles Dayal wrote both as a journalist, and after he became outspoken on issues concerning India's Christian community.
In his writings, Dayal describes a steady upsurge in anti-Christian violence from the late 1990s, when the Hindu nationalist BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) emerged as a strong political force.
"Even before the BJP came up, religious freedom had been facing curbs both by the government and the judiciary," says Dayal, who lists several documents in his book to support his claim.
He points out that the first anti-conversion bill, which restricts people converting to Christianity was introduced by the avowedly secular Congress party in the 1960s. The BJP, This, Dayal asserts, now emulates this legislation.
He adds that Christians enjoyed "better religious freedom three decades ago
than now," and notes that often lower courts in several areas have been "hostile to Christian grievances where they get little relief".
While India stopped allowing missionaries to enter the country decades ago, Dayal notes that, "Christian missionaries who have done exemplary service to the nation have been unceremoniously packed off by the government denying them visa extensions on one pretext or other."
Apart from that, the author says that the State machinery has been used to harass Christians and their institutions, even by secular governments.
"In this context, one will wonder what is the meaning of the religious freedom spelt out under fundamental freedom in our constitution," Dayal adds.
"But, what we (Christians) have faced from 1990s has capped it all," argues Dayal, who has visited almost every troubled spot in the country following attacks on Christians.
"A Matter of Equity" cites systematic and orchestrated attacks on Christian targets by Hindu fundamentalist forces that the author laments as being rooted in a "belief in violence".
Dayal says that during recent times India has recorded hundreds of incidents of deliberate violence against Christians, including the murders of priests, rapes of nuns, and brutal assaults on missionaries, besides attacks on Christian gatherings and buildings.
On the other hand, following the steady rise in atrocities, Dayal says, churches have also begun to speak up and come out on to the streets.
However, Dayal says that church leaders have failed to provide strong leadership for the 26 million Christians in India, or "to demand from the government what has been taken away over the decades".
:: A Matter of Equity: Freedom of Faith in Secular India, by John Dayal, is published by New Delhi-based Anamika Publishers and Distributors Pvt Ltd,500 pages, 800 Indian rupees. [565 words]
The book is available from catholicunion@gmail.com, postage free
Ecumenical News International
PO Box 2100 CH - 1211 Geneva 2 Switzerland
Saturday, October 6, 2007
It is time to challenge Himachal Government in High court
Chhattisgarh Governor holds back anti conversion bill and seeks top legal advice, but Himachal makes it law
Christians decide it is time to challenge Himachal Government in High court
[JOHN DAYAL’S NOTE: NEW DELHI 6TH October 2007: This has been a momentous, if negative, week in the history of Freedom of Faith in India. In the dock are both the Bharatiya Janata party, ideologically aggressively opposed the presence of Christianity and Islam on the soil of India, and the Congress party, sworn to a secular political thesis but easy prey to competitive Hindu fundamentalist arguments as it seeks to retain its century-old political supremacy in India. The Congress government in Himachal Pradesh, the Himalayan State, has at last formulated the bureaucratic rules which will allow Police and Civil officers to monitor conversions to Christianity, and other faiths, in the province, and punish pastors with prison terms and massive fines. I have been waiting for these rules to be formulated ever since the laws were passed by the legislature and then affirmed by the State Governor many months ago, Though the Governor had given his assent, we could not move the Himachal High court as it would have been premature. In Gujarat in similar circumstances, we failed to get a response from the High Court which reminded us Legislative Acts could be challenged only after appropriate rules were put on the Statutes. Our first step now is to move under the Right ton Information to ask the State government the number of actual cases of fraudulent and forcible conversion to Christianity it has recorded in past years to justify its claim that such harsh laws had become necessary in a State where minority communities are barely visible in census figures. In Chhattisgarh, carved out of Madhya Pradesh [both are currently ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party], the Congress-appointed Governor however has resisted the administration’s efforts to sharpen an existing similar law. The Governor has sought the opinion of Union law officers in New Delhi on the constitutionality of the law. The present Vice President of India, Mr Hamid Ansari, had in his earlier appointment as Chairman of the National Minorities Commission pilloried such laws as injuring Freedom of Faith and going against the national Constitution. The current President of India, Mrs Pratibha Patil, too had refused to sign a similar Bill when she was Governor of Rajasthan, another state ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party. Ironically, she will now have to give her decision on the same Bill. Union law officers, including the Solicitor General of India, have made it clear that in their opinion such laws are an anathema to the secular credentials of the Constitution of India. It remains to be seen how the Himachal High Court will rule. We are seeking the assistance of the best legal brains in this cause. I give below reportage and texts of the latest move in Himachal Pradesh and the advice of the Solicitor General of India. Goolam E Vahanvati to the Madhya Pradesh government’s so called Freedom of Religion Bill which adds to the original Act passed some decades ago.]
In Raipur, Chhattisgarh governor E S L Narasimhan has referred the BJP state government's anti-conversion Bill to attorney-general of India Milon Banerjee for legal opinion. Official sources said the governor has sought clarifications from Banerjee on certain provisions of the Bill. Legislative affairs minister Ajay Chandrakar confirmed that the Chhattisgarh Religious Freedom (Amendment) Bill, which was passed by the state Assembly in mid-2006, is yet to receive the governor's assent. "However, I won't be able to specify the nature of clarification sought by the governor," he said. When contacted for an explanation about the governor's action, secretary to the governor PC Dalai neither confirmed nor denied the development. The Bill has a provision of "penalising those who change their faith without informing concerned authorities".
The clarification sought by the governor relates to the provision that would make reconversion simple. According to the draft Bill, a person born to parents who had changed their faith could convert to their original faith or that of his or her forefathers without any hindrance. It would not be considered conversion. The governor's decision assumes significance as Chhattisgarh is preparing for polls in 2008. "The delay in getting gubernatorial assent has put the BJP government in a spot," a source said. The Bill has been pending for more than a year as even Narasimhan's predecessor K M Seth had denied assent.
According to the Bill, people wishing to change religion must inform the district magistrate a month in advance. The penalty for those violating the law, including those who convert people forcibly, could be between Rs 50,000 and a Rs 1 lakh with imprisonment of up to five years.
Former Rajasthan governor Pratibha Patil, too, had referred the Bill to then president APJ Abdul Kalam.
In the Case of Madhya Pradesh, the Solicitor General of India faulted the state’s Freedom of Religion Bill.
The following is the text of the Solicitor General’s note:
OFFICE OF SHRI G E VAHANVATI SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA, SUPREME COURT, NEW DELHI 110 001
Dy. No. 1166/07 dated 3/5/07, Deptt. of Legal Affairs
I have gone through the letter of His Excellency, the Governor dated 16 April 2007. Before dealing with questions which have been raised, it is necessary to note the relevant provisions.
Section 5 of the M.P. Dharma Swatamtraya Adhiniyam 1968 before its amendment read as follows:
“5. Information to be given to District Magistrate with respect to conversion:- (1) Whoever converts any person from one religion faith to another either by performing himself the ceremony necessary for such conversion as a religious priest or by taking’ part directly or indirectly in such ceremony as may be prescribed, send an intimation to the District Magistrate of the district in which the ceremony has taken place of the fact of such conversion in such form as may be prescribed.
(2) If any person fails with sufficient cause to comply with the provision contained in sub-section (1), he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both,”
By virtue of the proposed amendment to Section 5, the original section 5 is proposed to be substituted by a new Section 5 which reads as follows:
“5(1) Any person intending to convert his religion, shall give a declaration before the District Magistrate or before ,an Executive Magistrate specially authorized by the District Magistrate of the concerned District, prior to such conversion to the effect that he intends to convert his religion on his own will.
(2) The concerned religious priest, who intends to convert any person from one religious faith to another, either by performing himself the ceremony necessary for such conversion or by taking part directly or indirectly in such ceremony, shall intimate the date, time and place of the ceremony in which conversion shall be made along with the name and address of the person to be converted, to the concerned District Magistrate one month prior to the date of said ceremony, and the intimation shall be in such form and shall be delivered or caused to be delivered by the priest to the concerned District Magistrate in such manner as may be prescribed.
(3) On receiving the intimation under sub-section (1) and,(2) the District Magistrate shall inform the details of proposed conversion to the concerned Superintendent of Police, who shall ascertain through the office-in-charge of the concerned police station regarding the objection, in any, to the proposed conversion by local inquiry and intimate the same to the District Magistrate.
(4) Whoever fails to comply with the provision contained in sub-section (1) shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees.
Whoever fails to comply with the provision of sub-section (2) shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or both.”
The following changes may be highlighted:
Under the existing provisions the obligation to furnish an intimation is cast on the person performing the conversion ceremony. Now, it would be on both- the person who wants to convert and the person performing the ceremony.
Sub section (2) casts an obligation on the person performing the ceremony to defer it by a month since prior intimation of one month is required to be given. This is not there in the existing provisions.
Under Sub section (3), the District Magistrate has to inform the details of the proposed conversion to the SP who is required to ascertain, through the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station “regarding the objections, if any, to the proposed conversion.”
No provision is made for the consequences of an adverse report.
Sub section 3 creates a serious problem. On receiving the intimation under sub-section(1)&(2), the District Magistrate is required to inform the details of the proposed conversion to the concerned Superintendent of Police, who is to ascertain through the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station regarding objections, if any to the proposed conversion by local enquiry. Sub section 3 is not happily worded at all. The enquiry is supposed to be with regard to objections if any to the proposed conversion, but it is not even required to enquire whether the conversion is forcible or not. If somebody merely objects to the proposed conversion, does that make it forcible?
The second problem is that if anybody objects to the conversion, it could result in an adverse report. A mere objection leads to an adverse report irrespective of whether it is forcible or mot. A conversion may be purely voluntary but any objection can lead to an adverse report.
I do not agree with the view that a Superintendent of Police may report that the conversion is “forcible or note of its own free will.” This is not what the proposed Sub section 5(3) requires to report. The superintendent of police is required to report any objections to the proposed conversion. Such a provision is not only vague but also unreasonable since it does not focus on the real issue, namely whether the conversion is forcible or not.
Looked at from another point of view, the assumption is that if a Superintendent of Police were to give a favourable report, then there is no problem. But if the Superintendent of police records that there are objections then what happens? Do the persons go ahead? The proposed Section 5 does not provide for this contingency at all. If the proposed Section 5 had clearly stated that notwithstanding the adverse report of the Superintendent of police, the conversion can still take place, then the effect of that would be that the person converting could do so and face prosecution under Section 4. The failure to clearly provide for the consequences of any adverse report and the failure to clarify that this would not stand in the way of a conversion would have the inevitable effect of deterring the concerned person from going ahead with the conversion, which will in turn violate article 25 of the Constitution.
I also do not agree with the view that the person would have to challenge the report by way of Writ Proceedings under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. Does this mean that till the report (merely based on a solitary objection) is set aside and quashed, the conversion cannot take place? If so, it is unreasonable as this would have nothing to do with “public order.”
In my opinion, lack of clarity and uncertainty in the proposed legislation is bound to lead to confusion which can have the effect of curtailing the right under article 25 in an unreasonable manner.
In my opinion, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment was concerned with the unamended Act. The Hon’ble Court had upheld the validity of the Act on the ground of public order. In paragraph 23 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Court observed:
“The Acts therefore clearly provide for the maintenance of public order for it forcible conversion had not been prohibited, that would have created public disorder.”
The Hon’ble Court in the Stanislaus case was not concerned with an “adverse report” and the effects there of on the fundamental right under Article 25. In the instant case, Section 5(3) would act as an unreasonable fetter to the fundamental right under Article 25. The proposed Section 5(3) is open ended. The said sub-section talks of objections if any an adverse report could be made on the basis of objections which are unrelated to prohibition of forced conversion which is the objective of the Act. In my opinion, the said Sub section 3 cannot be said to be a valid restriction on the ground of public order.
In the premises, I will answer the queries as under.
Q. (i) Whether proposed amendment in Section 5(1) to 5(5) of the M.P. Dharm Swatantraya Adhiniyam 1968 are ultra- vires to Article 24(1), 26 and 2(3) of the Constitution of India?
Ans. Yes, for the carious reasons mentioned above, pointing out lack of clarity and patent obscurity in Section 5(2) and 5(3) of the proposed amendment.
Q.(ii) If the person intending to convert his religion declares before the District Magistrate and if the report of Superintendent of Police is negative, then what legal remedy will be available to the person against whom the District Magistrate may take action? The Bill is silent on the aspect.
&
Q.(iii) If the Religious priest intimates about the conversion before one month to the District Magistrate and if the report of Superintendent of Police is negative, then what legal remedy will be available to the person (Priest) against whom the District Magistrate may take action? The Bill is silent on this aspect.
Ans. In my opinion, it is highly unreasonable to expect a person against whom a report is negative to be required to challenge the report. The implication of such an approach is that until the report is set aside by a competent court, the conversion cannot take place. That by itself amounts to unreasonable restriction under article 25.
Q.(iv) There is an ambiguity in sub section (3) of Section 5 of the Bill. It is not clear as to what order or action will be made or taken by the District Magistrate on receiving an intimation or report from the Superintendent of Police, if a flaw is found in the alleged process of conversion. This also needs to be scrutinized.
Ans. There is clear ambiguity in the proposed sub section 5(3). I have indicated the implications hereinabove. It is unreasonable to bring about a nebulous situation leading to deterring a person from going through and exercising his right to convert on the basis of a negative report based on extraneous factors such as “ objections” to the conversion. The failure to provide clearly as to what is to happen in the case of an adverse report renders the proposed clause unreasonable. The wording of Sub section 3 which refers to objections ( and not to forcible conversion) is contrary to the spirit of the Act. It would be quite strange that if somebody objects to a conversion then that would be treated as the conversion being forcible.
Goolam E Vahanvati, Solicitor General of India
III. Vice President Hamid Ansari while he was chairman of the National Minorities Commission had also Congress party chief minister Virbhadra Singh's anti-conversion law in Himachal Pradesh.
The freedom of Religion Act, 2006 enacted by the Legislative Assembly of Himachal Pradesh, received the assent of the Governor on February 18, 2007.
The National Commission for Minorities has examined the provisions of the Act and the Statement of Objects and Reasons. The latter refers to "rise in conversions based on allurement generally" and to " a persistent demand from across the different strata of the society, urging the State Government to curb it" as, otherwise, it may "erode the confidence and mutual trust between the different religious and ethnic groups in the State".
According to the 2001 Census, religious minorities constitute 4.53 percent of the total population of Himachal Pradesh. Of these, Muslims account for 1.97%, Sikhs 1.19%, Buddhists 1.25% , and Christians 0.13%. Media reports relating to the adoption of the Act suggest conversions by "force" to Christianity as the prime motivation for the new law. No specific data on such conversions, however, has been cited officially or in media reports.
The commission has noted with concern the terminology used in the Act and the methodology prescribed for implementing it. The definition of "force" includes "threat of divine displeasure" and " Social excommunication"; neither of these is considered an offence in the Indian legal system.
The Act prescribes that a person intending to convert from one religion to another must give a notice of at least thirty days to the District Magistrate who then "shall get the matter enquired into by such agency as he may deem fit". No time limit is prescribed for the conduct of such an enquiry nor have its modalities been defined. The failure to give such a notice, on the part of the person intending to convert, would be punishable by a fine. No such notice however is required if a person reverts back to his "original religion".
Since provisions of existing law already cover cases in which fraud or force are involved, the specific rationale cited for the enactment is not understood. On the contrary, the provision of notice and enquiry, and that too selectively, is tantamount to a gross interference with the individual liberties of citizens and would allow state functionaries to interfere in matter of personal life and religious beliefs. More seriously, it would impinge on the freedom of conscience, and free profession, practice and propagation of religion guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution.
In view of these considerations, the National Commission for Minorities expresses its profound concern over the attempt in this Act, and reportedly by similar pieces of legislation contemplated in some others States, to interfere with the basic right of freedom of religion that is the birth right of every Indian. It appeals to the Central and State Governments, civil society groups and individual citizens to recognize the existence of such trends and take timely steps to reverse them.
Christians decide it is time to challenge Himachal Government in High court
[JOHN DAYAL’S NOTE: NEW DELHI 6TH October 2007: This has been a momentous, if negative, week in the history of Freedom of Faith in India. In the dock are both the Bharatiya Janata party, ideologically aggressively opposed the presence of Christianity and Islam on the soil of India, and the Congress party, sworn to a secular political thesis but easy prey to competitive Hindu fundamentalist arguments as it seeks to retain its century-old political supremacy in India. The Congress government in Himachal Pradesh, the Himalayan State, has at last formulated the bureaucratic rules which will allow Police and Civil officers to monitor conversions to Christianity, and other faiths, in the province, and punish pastors with prison terms and massive fines. I have been waiting for these rules to be formulated ever since the laws were passed by the legislature and then affirmed by the State Governor many months ago, Though the Governor had given his assent, we could not move the Himachal High court as it would have been premature. In Gujarat in similar circumstances, we failed to get a response from the High Court which reminded us Legislative Acts could be challenged only after appropriate rules were put on the Statutes. Our first step now is to move under the Right ton Information to ask the State government the number of actual cases of fraudulent and forcible conversion to Christianity it has recorded in past years to justify its claim that such harsh laws had become necessary in a State where minority communities are barely visible in census figures. In Chhattisgarh, carved out of Madhya Pradesh [both are currently ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party], the Congress-appointed Governor however has resisted the administration’s efforts to sharpen an existing similar law. The Governor has sought the opinion of Union law officers in New Delhi on the constitutionality of the law. The present Vice President of India, Mr Hamid Ansari, had in his earlier appointment as Chairman of the National Minorities Commission pilloried such laws as injuring Freedom of Faith and going against the national Constitution. The current President of India, Mrs Pratibha Patil, too had refused to sign a similar Bill when she was Governor of Rajasthan, another state ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party. Ironically, she will now have to give her decision on the same Bill. Union law officers, including the Solicitor General of India, have made it clear that in their opinion such laws are an anathema to the secular credentials of the Constitution of India. It remains to be seen how the Himachal High Court will rule. We are seeking the assistance of the best legal brains in this cause. I give below reportage and texts of the latest move in Himachal Pradesh and the advice of the Solicitor General of India. Goolam E Vahanvati to the Madhya Pradesh government’s so called Freedom of Religion Bill which adds to the original Act passed some decades ago.]
In Raipur, Chhattisgarh governor E S L Narasimhan has referred the BJP state government's anti-conversion Bill to attorney-general of India Milon Banerjee for legal opinion. Official sources said the governor has sought clarifications from Banerjee on certain provisions of the Bill. Legislative affairs minister Ajay Chandrakar confirmed that the Chhattisgarh Religious Freedom (Amendment) Bill, which was passed by the state Assembly in mid-2006, is yet to receive the governor's assent. "However, I won't be able to specify the nature of clarification sought by the governor," he said. When contacted for an explanation about the governor's action, secretary to the governor PC Dalai neither confirmed nor denied the development. The Bill has a provision of "penalising those who change their faith without informing concerned authorities".
The clarification sought by the governor relates to the provision that would make reconversion simple. According to the draft Bill, a person born to parents who had changed their faith could convert to their original faith or that of his or her forefathers without any hindrance. It would not be considered conversion. The governor's decision assumes significance as Chhattisgarh is preparing for polls in 2008. "The delay in getting gubernatorial assent has put the BJP government in a spot," a source said. The Bill has been pending for more than a year as even Narasimhan's predecessor K M Seth had denied assent.
According to the Bill, people wishing to change religion must inform the district magistrate a month in advance. The penalty for those violating the law, including those who convert people forcibly, could be between Rs 50,000 and a Rs 1 lakh with imprisonment of up to five years.
Former Rajasthan governor Pratibha Patil, too, had referred the Bill to then president APJ Abdul Kalam.
In the Case of Madhya Pradesh, the Solicitor General of India faulted the state’s Freedom of Religion Bill.
The following is the text of the Solicitor General’s note:
OFFICE OF SHRI G E VAHANVATI SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA, SUPREME COURT, NEW DELHI 110 001
Dy. No. 1166/07 dated 3/5/07, Deptt. of Legal Affairs
I have gone through the letter of His Excellency, the Governor dated 16 April 2007. Before dealing with questions which have been raised, it is necessary to note the relevant provisions.
Section 5 of the M.P. Dharma Swatamtraya Adhiniyam 1968 before its amendment read as follows:
“5. Information to be given to District Magistrate with respect to conversion:- (1) Whoever converts any person from one religion faith to another either by performing himself the ceremony necessary for such conversion as a religious priest or by taking’ part directly or indirectly in such ceremony as may be prescribed, send an intimation to the District Magistrate of the district in which the ceremony has taken place of the fact of such conversion in such form as may be prescribed.
(2) If any person fails with sufficient cause to comply with the provision contained in sub-section (1), he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both,”
By virtue of the proposed amendment to Section 5, the original section 5 is proposed to be substituted by a new Section 5 which reads as follows:
“5(1) Any person intending to convert his religion, shall give a declaration before the District Magistrate or before ,an Executive Magistrate specially authorized by the District Magistrate of the concerned District, prior to such conversion to the effect that he intends to convert his religion on his own will.
(2) The concerned religious priest, who intends to convert any person from one religious faith to another, either by performing himself the ceremony necessary for such conversion or by taking part directly or indirectly in such ceremony, shall intimate the date, time and place of the ceremony in which conversion shall be made along with the name and address of the person to be converted, to the concerned District Magistrate one month prior to the date of said ceremony, and the intimation shall be in such form and shall be delivered or caused to be delivered by the priest to the concerned District Magistrate in such manner as may be prescribed.
(3) On receiving the intimation under sub-section (1) and,(2) the District Magistrate shall inform the details of proposed conversion to the concerned Superintendent of Police, who shall ascertain through the office-in-charge of the concerned police station regarding the objection, in any, to the proposed conversion by local inquiry and intimate the same to the District Magistrate.
(4) Whoever fails to comply with the provision contained in sub-section (1) shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees.
Whoever fails to comply with the provision of sub-section (2) shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or both.”
The following changes may be highlighted:
Under the existing provisions the obligation to furnish an intimation is cast on the person performing the conversion ceremony. Now, it would be on both- the person who wants to convert and the person performing the ceremony.
Sub section (2) casts an obligation on the person performing the ceremony to defer it by a month since prior intimation of one month is required to be given. This is not there in the existing provisions.
Under Sub section (3), the District Magistrate has to inform the details of the proposed conversion to the SP who is required to ascertain, through the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station “regarding the objections, if any, to the proposed conversion.”
No provision is made for the consequences of an adverse report.
Sub section 3 creates a serious problem. On receiving the intimation under sub-section(1)&(2), the District Magistrate is required to inform the details of the proposed conversion to the concerned Superintendent of Police, who is to ascertain through the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station regarding objections, if any to the proposed conversion by local enquiry. Sub section 3 is not happily worded at all. The enquiry is supposed to be with regard to objections if any to the proposed conversion, but it is not even required to enquire whether the conversion is forcible or not. If somebody merely objects to the proposed conversion, does that make it forcible?
The second problem is that if anybody objects to the conversion, it could result in an adverse report. A mere objection leads to an adverse report irrespective of whether it is forcible or mot. A conversion may be purely voluntary but any objection can lead to an adverse report.
I do not agree with the view that a Superintendent of Police may report that the conversion is “forcible or note of its own free will.” This is not what the proposed Sub section 5(3) requires to report. The superintendent of police is required to report any objections to the proposed conversion. Such a provision is not only vague but also unreasonable since it does not focus on the real issue, namely whether the conversion is forcible or not.
Looked at from another point of view, the assumption is that if a Superintendent of Police were to give a favourable report, then there is no problem. But if the Superintendent of police records that there are objections then what happens? Do the persons go ahead? The proposed Section 5 does not provide for this contingency at all. If the proposed Section 5 had clearly stated that notwithstanding the adverse report of the Superintendent of police, the conversion can still take place, then the effect of that would be that the person converting could do so and face prosecution under Section 4. The failure to clearly provide for the consequences of any adverse report and the failure to clarify that this would not stand in the way of a conversion would have the inevitable effect of deterring the concerned person from going ahead with the conversion, which will in turn violate article 25 of the Constitution.
I also do not agree with the view that the person would have to challenge the report by way of Writ Proceedings under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. Does this mean that till the report (merely based on a solitary objection) is set aside and quashed, the conversion cannot take place? If so, it is unreasonable as this would have nothing to do with “public order.”
In my opinion, lack of clarity and uncertainty in the proposed legislation is bound to lead to confusion which can have the effect of curtailing the right under article 25 in an unreasonable manner.
In my opinion, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment was concerned with the unamended Act. The Hon’ble Court had upheld the validity of the Act on the ground of public order. In paragraph 23 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Court observed:
“The Acts therefore clearly provide for the maintenance of public order for it forcible conversion had not been prohibited, that would have created public disorder.”
The Hon’ble Court in the Stanislaus case was not concerned with an “adverse report” and the effects there of on the fundamental right under Article 25. In the instant case, Section 5(3) would act as an unreasonable fetter to the fundamental right under Article 25. The proposed Section 5(3) is open ended. The said sub-section talks of objections if any an adverse report could be made on the basis of objections which are unrelated to prohibition of forced conversion which is the objective of the Act. In my opinion, the said Sub section 3 cannot be said to be a valid restriction on the ground of public order.
In the premises, I will answer the queries as under.
Q. (i) Whether proposed amendment in Section 5(1) to 5(5) of the M.P. Dharm Swatantraya Adhiniyam 1968 are ultra- vires to Article 24(1), 26 and 2(3) of the Constitution of India?
Ans. Yes, for the carious reasons mentioned above, pointing out lack of clarity and patent obscurity in Section 5(2) and 5(3) of the proposed amendment.
Q.(ii) If the person intending to convert his religion declares before the District Magistrate and if the report of Superintendent of Police is negative, then what legal remedy will be available to the person against whom the District Magistrate may take action? The Bill is silent on the aspect.
&
Q.(iii) If the Religious priest intimates about the conversion before one month to the District Magistrate and if the report of Superintendent of Police is negative, then what legal remedy will be available to the person (Priest) against whom the District Magistrate may take action? The Bill is silent on this aspect.
Ans. In my opinion, it is highly unreasonable to expect a person against whom a report is negative to be required to challenge the report. The implication of such an approach is that until the report is set aside by a competent court, the conversion cannot take place. That by itself amounts to unreasonable restriction under article 25.
Q.(iv) There is an ambiguity in sub section (3) of Section 5 of the Bill. It is not clear as to what order or action will be made or taken by the District Magistrate on receiving an intimation or report from the Superintendent of Police, if a flaw is found in the alleged process of conversion. This also needs to be scrutinized.
Ans. There is clear ambiguity in the proposed sub section 5(3). I have indicated the implications hereinabove. It is unreasonable to bring about a nebulous situation leading to deterring a person from going through and exercising his right to convert on the basis of a negative report based on extraneous factors such as “ objections” to the conversion. The failure to provide clearly as to what is to happen in the case of an adverse report renders the proposed clause unreasonable. The wording of Sub section 3 which refers to objections ( and not to forcible conversion) is contrary to the spirit of the Act. It would be quite strange that if somebody objects to a conversion then that would be treated as the conversion being forcible.
Goolam E Vahanvati, Solicitor General of India
III. Vice President Hamid Ansari while he was chairman of the National Minorities Commission had also Congress party chief minister Virbhadra Singh's anti-conversion law in Himachal Pradesh.
The freedom of Religion Act, 2006 enacted by the Legislative Assembly of Himachal Pradesh, received the assent of the Governor on February 18, 2007.
The National Commission for Minorities has examined the provisions of the Act and the Statement of Objects and Reasons. The latter refers to "rise in conversions based on allurement generally" and to " a persistent demand from across the different strata of the society, urging the State Government to curb it" as, otherwise, it may "erode the confidence and mutual trust between the different religious and ethnic groups in the State".
According to the 2001 Census, religious minorities constitute 4.53 percent of the total population of Himachal Pradesh. Of these, Muslims account for 1.97%, Sikhs 1.19%, Buddhists 1.25% , and Christians 0.13%. Media reports relating to the adoption of the Act suggest conversions by "force" to Christianity as the prime motivation for the new law. No specific data on such conversions, however, has been cited officially or in media reports.
The commission has noted with concern the terminology used in the Act and the methodology prescribed for implementing it. The definition of "force" includes "threat of divine displeasure" and " Social excommunication"; neither of these is considered an offence in the Indian legal system.
The Act prescribes that a person intending to convert from one religion to another must give a notice of at least thirty days to the District Magistrate who then "shall get the matter enquired into by such agency as he may deem fit". No time limit is prescribed for the conduct of such an enquiry nor have its modalities been defined. The failure to give such a notice, on the part of the person intending to convert, would be punishable by a fine. No such notice however is required if a person reverts back to his "original religion".
Since provisions of existing law already cover cases in which fraud or force are involved, the specific rationale cited for the enactment is not understood. On the contrary, the provision of notice and enquiry, and that too selectively, is tantamount to a gross interference with the individual liberties of citizens and would allow state functionaries to interfere in matter of personal life and religious beliefs. More seriously, it would impinge on the freedom of conscience, and free profession, practice and propagation of religion guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution.
In view of these considerations, the National Commission for Minorities expresses its profound concern over the attempt in this Act, and reportedly by similar pieces of legislation contemplated in some others States, to interfere with the basic right of freedom of religion that is the birth right of every Indian. It appeals to the Central and State Governments, civil society groups and individual citizens to recognize the existence of such trends and take timely steps to reverse them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)