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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment