Indian Budget 2013

Indian Budget offers little to Christian community

JOHN DAYAL

The government of India’s annual budget for the financial year 2013-2014, a year that may possibly see a general election, has been panned by both the political right and the Left, but it is the religious minority that feels totally disappointed. The Christian community is particularly impacted as even the few government benefits are designed such as to benefit largely the Muslims, a major political segment assiduously wooed by the government.

The Union Budget presented to Parliament by Finance Minister Mr. P Chidambaram on 28^th February has fallen far short of expectations of the Christian community. In the preparation of the 12^th Five Year Plan, which becomes operational this year, they had forcefully sought specific mechanisms to ensure that funds meant for them actually devolved to the needy persons and areas in a transparent manner.

The Budget also conclusively shows that till religious minorities get a special component plan on the pattern of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, there will be little actual devolution of funds for their development. While presenting the annual general budget, finance minister P Chidambaram allocated welfare sub plans  -- Rs. 41,561 crore to the scheduled castes and Rs. 24,598 crore to the Tribals – which cannot be diverted and must be spent for the designated purpose.

In contrast, Government data shows that a large component of budget allocations for religious minorities in the past have remained unspent. There is little indication in the budget how the government intends to ensure that the moneys are spent on the target communities and specially to the Christian community, which has not got its fair share of these funds.  The community must be assured that it will get its share of funding on a pro rata basis, specially in area development schemes and scholarships.

The finance minister has allocated Rs. 3,511 crore to the Ministry of Minority Affairs, a notional increase of 12% over the budget estimates of last which  merely compensates for the rate of inflation. Year. The government has also allocated Rs 160 crores to the Rs 750 crore corpus of the Maulana Azad Education Foundation, the main vehicle to implement education schemes and channelised funds to non-government organisations for the minorities, but this alone does not increase direct support to disadvantaged children desirous of education.

In actual terms, only the pre-matric scholarship sees a real increase from Rs 540 crores to Rs 810 crores. The post matric scholarship sees only a small increase from Rs 405 to Rs 450 crore. Both schemes need much more resources, apart from funding to make them known to small towns and village populations.

The Christian community is the least benefited by the Multi Sectorial Development Programme in selected minority Districts, a scheme that benefits only one minority group, the Muslims who are euphemistically called a “vote bank”. And even here has been reduced sharply from the Rs 1,077.60 crore in 2012 budget to Rs 887 crore in the 2013-2014 crores. This scheme will benefit the Christian community only when it is sharply focused on the population figure for minorities at the block level. As it stands now, this scheme once again basically benefits Muslims who are concentrated in a 100 of the 600 districts in the country. If the focus shifts to blocks Christians, including fishermen in coastal areas and marginalised farmers, will benefit in states such as Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Punjab, apart from areas in other States.

Possibly the only segment of Mr. Chidambaram’s gender budget that can be welcomed wholeheartedly is the funding of Rs. 97,134 crore for women and a child budget of Rs. 77,236. Women belonging to most vulnerable groups, including single women and widows, will be to some extent helped in living a life of self-esteem and dignity. It is good that the ministry of women and child development had been asked to design schemes to gender discrimination especially at the work place. Our own experience which the situation of women and children in states such as Orissa and Madhya Pradesh show the plight of women and children in all aspects of life.

Enemies and Friends -- sometimes hard to tell them apart

Political myopia, fascist bigotry and lunacy
Or, How Christians can be hurt as much by shortsighted friends as by daft enemies
JOHN DAYAL
An absolutely hate-filled and lunatic analysis of terrorism by Janata Dal leader and lawyer Subramanian Swamy, and a well meaning but myopic policy paper by the redoubtable former IAS officer and National Advisory Council member Harsh Mander show how minorities in general, and micro minorities in particular, can face political and developmental disenfranchisement at the hands of foes and friends.
Writing a column on Terrorism in the Mumbai edition of the DNA daily newspaper, Swami says Hindus cannot accept to be killed in a “halal fashion”, continuously bleeding every day till the nation finally collapses. Painting a scary scenario to hold readers’ attention, he says, “There will be no doubt about Islamic terror after 2012” when he expects a Taliban takeover in Pakistan and the Americans to flee Afghanistan. “Then, Islam will confront Hinduism to complete unfinished business.
The lawyer, who has so far made the Congress and Sonia Gandhi his main targets, says the Hindu leadership has not united the people against the victimisation of Hindus in Kashmir, Mau, Melvisharam and Malappuram. “If half the Hindus voted together, rising above caste and language, a genuine Hindu party would have a two-thirds majority in Parliament and the assemblies. Muslims of India, he says, are being programmed by a” slow reactive process to become radical and thus slide into suicide against Hindus.”
“Hindus must collectively respond as Hindus against the terrorist and not feel individually isolated. If one Hindu dies merely because he or she was a Hindu, then a bit of every Hindu also dies. This is an essential mental attitude, a necessary part of a virat committed Hindu”, he says. Swamy forgets that in Kashmir, Mumbai and Gujarat, a very large number of people killed in terror actions have been Muslims, as also the occasional Sikhs and Christians.
For Swamy, what is required is a “collective mindset as Hindus.”If any Muslim acknowledges his or her Hindu legacy, then we Hindus can accept him or her as a part of the Brihad Hindu Samaj (greater Hindu society) which is Hindustan. Hindustan is a nation of Hindus and others whose ancestors were Hindus. Others, who refuse to acknowledge this, or those foreigners who become Indian citizens by registration, can remain in India but should not have voting rights (which means they cannot be elected representatives).”
Swamy’s arguments take the discourse back to Guru Golwalkar, Savarkar and the other founders of the RSS and thier theology of a Brihat Bharat in which there would be no place for followers of the so-called non-Indic religions, unless they agreed to a second class, vote-less position. Living in the dream world of a Larger India, Swami says “however small the terrorist incident, the nation must retaliate massively.”
His other remedies are ones repeated by the RSS every week in the Organiser and the Panchjanya, their official organs: “remove article 370 on Kashmir,”, “clear the mosques adjacent to Kashi Vishwanath temple and the 300 masjids at other temple sites, device a Uniform Civil Code, rename India as a Hindu Rashtra in which non-Hindus can vote only if they proudly acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus, name the land as Hindustan, stop attempts to “change India’s demography by illegal immigration, conversion, and refusal to adopt family planning,” and of course, “enact a national law prohibiting conversion from Hinduism to any other religion , re-conversion will not be banned.”. [ http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/comment_analysis-how-to-wipe-out-islamic-terror_1566203-all]
Swamy’s last sentence gives away his game again. It is not just Islamic terrorism and fundamentalism he is against. Many a Muslim, and most Indian Muslim organisations, has denounced terrorism and fundamtnlaism. Swamy is against all non-Hindu minorities. He is against Churches and pastors preaching there, he confesses, as much as he opposes the Constitutional freedom to convert to another religion. All conversions, he stresses more than once, can only be to Hinduism. Those who do not know Swamy’s mindset may feel surprised at the outburst of the former Union Commerce Minister, because he is married to a Parsi lawyer, and one of his daughters is married to a Muslim.
Unlike Swamy, Harsh Mander positively loves the religious minorities. The Indian Administrative Service officer was working for Action Aid on a sabbatical when he resigned from government service denouncing the massacre of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002. Since then, he has done wonderful work to ensure justice for the victims, himself rising to be made a member of the National Advisory Council headed by United Progressive Alliance chairperson Mrs Sonia Gandhi. In the NAC, Mander is in charge of issues concerning religious minorities, specially the Communal and Targetted Violence Prevention Bill, which is now nearing completion, and the Food Guarantee Bill, which has been completed. A major input in the Communal Violence prevention bill is the recognition that it is not just Muslims who are victims of such actions, but also Christians, and therefore the Bill has provisions to help Christian victims.
It is therefore frightening, no less, to read a long report written by Mander on why government’s affirmative action must be openly targetted only at Muslims. Christians would be right in presuming that Mander does not want the grants diluted by being passed on to the Christians or the Buddhists.
As reported in the Times of India of 21 July 2011, Mender’s Centre for Equity Studies prepared report dubs the Centre's minority welfare schemes and the Prime Minister’s 15-point programme as non-starters, blaming government's timidity in declaring the schemes as Muslim-oriented for fear of opposition campaign of minority appeasement. “The diffidence on the Muslim-word led to schemes being dubbed as "minority" or "area based", thereby diluting targeted community approach. “
He asks the government to openly resolve to improve the lot of Muslims by making a dedicated 14 per cent budgetary allocation for the Muslim community on the lines of sub-plans for SCs and STs. With the findings raising an alarm, NAC has sought a "detailed response" from the minority affairs ministry on the study.
Mander’s r report questions the efficacy of schemes launched with fanfare for amelioration of minorities — in education, self-employment and infrastructure among others. He dismisses UPA's minority outreach as tokenism. The Ministry for Minority Affairs is the target. Mander says it lacks institutional and political authority to ensure compliance of its objectives from other arms of government. He says the anxiety over appeasement charge led to Multi-Sector Development Programme for Muslims morph into one for "minorities" and ultimately to an "area-scheme" — aiming to improve infrastructure in 90 districts with over 25% Muslims.
Mander’s Centre for Equity Studies, which publishes his report, terms the allocations for minorities as small — 19 per cent of population got 5 per cent budgetary allocation, with per capita allocation of a mere Rs 797. It recommended that the PM’s 15-point programme implemented by various ministries be turned into an independent minority sub-plan having earmarked funds in each ministry and monitors to check their use.
While Subramanian Swamy’s rantings are easily dismissed as the delusional outpourings of a demented Hindutva fundamentalist, Mander’s report seems to hit at the very basis of constitutional guarantees to “all” religious minorities, and may aggravate and empower the Hindutva forces.
Not many know that the very formation of the Ministry of Minority affairs by the UPA in 2006 two years after it came to power after the rule of the BJP-dominated NDA has been challenged by anti-minority forces.
There have been several court cases against the ministry, challenging its very existence. One argument, facile as it may be, is of course that why are separate ministries, Plan and budget components and other affirmative action required at all when the Constitution guarantees every citizen equal rights and equal protection. Why then, it is argued, should we have special provisions for Scheduled Castes and Tribes, for instance, or for women in terms of reservations, and certainly whey for religious minorities when the nation is secular and the movement holds all religions in equal respect. This argument flies in the face of the fact that three thousand years of a religion-sponsored hierarchy has created situations which have kept Dalits and Tribals, even women, and certainly several religious groups outside the pail of development, denying them equity in national progress.
It, perhaps, is not widely known that that Ministry has been made party in Writ Petition no. SCANO No. 2245/2008 of Vijay Harish Chandra Patel in the High Court of Gujarat, Writ Petition (PIL) 84 of 2008 of S. G. Punalekar in the High Court of Bombay and Writ Petition no. (298/08 and WPC No. 9569 of 207) in Delhi High Court.
One Vijay Harish Chandra Patel challenged the Prime Minister’s New 15 Point Programme and filed a public interest litigation challenging the steps taken by the Union of India and the Planning Commission to utilize the national resources in favour of a particular minority community, which according to the petitioner is discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of various constitutional provisions.
Chief Justice K. S. Radhakrishnan ruled that “funds used to minimize inequalities among minority Communities by adopting various social and welfare activities like public safety, health, slum development, improving the deficiencies in civic amenities, economic opportunities, improving standard of education, skills and entrepreneurship development, employment opportunities, eradication of poverty etc., would no way violate the constitutional principles of equality or affect any of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the members of other communities.”
S. G. Punalekar in the High Court of Bombay also challenged the scholarship schemes of the Ministry of Minority Affairs including PM’s New 15 Point Programme for the welfare of minorities in the public interest as violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. The High court recently dismissed this PIL.
In Delhi, the petitioners said that Muslims of India could not be treated as minority community that the treatment of Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, Parsis and Muslims as a “minority” is irrational from a constitutional point of view. The High court is yet to pass a judgment on this PIL.
Sources in the Union government say the Ministry of Minority Affairs has been able to win some cases and sustain their argument because of the approach adopted of not focusing on any particular minority but on all the identified minorities and that the disadvantaged and economically deprived amongst them.
Harsh Mander’s report denies this well settled and sound government policy.
The All India Christian Council and the All India Catholic Union have been struggling with the Union government to set up a Justice Sachchar Commission to assess the economic and development infirmity in the Christian community, especially among the Tribals and the Dalits, the boatmen, fishermen, landless labour and other deprived communities. This campaign started when the government first set up the Justice Sachchar committee after decades of campaigning and advocacy by Muslims groups. The data in the Sachhar committee report has greatly strengthened the Muslim cause and has given a tool to NGOs and community leaderships to strengthen the struggle for their rights in the development pie.
Unfortunately, the government has not given heed to the Christian demand, partly because the Church leadership has not been as vocal in its interaction with the government, remaining satisfied with minor crumbs.
If the government were to listen to the Mander report, it would entirely undo whatever little headway has been made towards the empowerment of the poor in the Christian community through the advocacy in the Working Group on Minorities of the Planning Commission now involved with the 12th Five Year Plan Document. A minority sub plan, which Mander suggests, will be feasible only if it covers all minorities and is not confined just to the Muslim community. Our argument in the working committee has been that the major budgetary and plan allocations for minorities have not percolated to the Christian community, whatever be the reason, and whether the fault lies with the government or with the church leadership.
Another danger if the government were to accept the Mander recommendations is the threat to secular unity, and giving additional ammunition to people like Subramaniam Swamy. At present, the dialogue between Christians and other minorities is very little. The formal dialogue is limited to casual and occasional contact by the Catholic Bishops Conference of India and its equivalent federations in the protestant churches meeting once or twice a year with sundry Maulanas and Granthis, RK Mission, the Bahais and the Brahmkumaris for some lip service to common issues of peace and brotherly love. There never has been a serious political dialogue between minorities on issues of development and demands to the Union and State governmetns.
The result has been that Christians have had to chalk their own destiny or accept whatever little may come out of, on a pro rata basis, from government’s plans for the major minority community, the Muslims. Christians have therefore felt discriminated and isolated, feeling that Muslims have taken away all the development booty earmarked in the Budgets. This in a way creates a distance between Muslims and Christians and shatters whatever element o unity could be created.
The government would do extreme damage to micro minorities such as Christians if it goes by the Mander thesis, without making adequate provisions on a pro rata basis for the uplift of the Christian community. The government must acknowledged that islands of gross underdevelopment occur in all religious minorities, and specially in Christianity where the Dalit Christians and other groups are not even officially acknowledged, and millions of believers are not even counted in the Census as Christians. Their needs have to be addressed. Therefore an “inclusive” thesis, which will ultimately save the government from the charge of “appeasement” or “vote bank politics”

Christian Council suggests major overhaul of bill against communal violence

The following is the text of the letter

Dr. Manmohan Singh

The Prime Minister of India

Your Excellency Dr. Manmohan Singh:

Greetings from the All India Christian Council.

We applaud your government for its desire to protect the idea of India – a secular government with equality for all. We welcome the intention to pass a Bill on

communal violence which will add to India’s strong body of laws.

However, the Christian community has deep concerns about the Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill, 2009, from the drafts we’ve

read. We humbly request a serious re-write of this legislation. Our main concerns:

1. The Bill doesn’t adequately address the question of hate campaigns and the “communalisation process” (i.e. hate speech published in local language media) that

precede communal violence. This well-studied phenomenon of activities, some already illegal but not often prosecuted, is a root issue.

2. The Bill doesn’t take into account the demography and pattern of living of various communities. Specifically, anti-Christian violence is normally dismissed by

public officials as “sporadic” (although there may be a serious incident daily in some areas). Because other minorities live in concentrated or contiguous areas, those

“communally disturbed areas” are more easily identified. In Orissa, Kandhamal would likely not fit the Bill’s definition but we know what happened there in 2007-2008.

3. The Bill doesn’t give States guidelines on reparations and compensation. We need a uniform national policy as well standards on the assessment of damages after

riots in order to prevent ghettoisation.

4. The Bill doesn’t fully address police and administrative impunity properly or adequately. The “good faith” clause, which exempts police and public servants from

prosecution unless there is permission from the executive branch, is a major concern.

We share concerns, especially voiced by Muslim groups, that the Bill doesn’t fully acknowledge the individual victim, treats communal violence as spontaneous rioters

versus rioters (instead of acknowledging the possibility of premeditated or state-sponsored violence), and gives much power to state

governments which, historically, have occasionally acted in a biased manner. We need to see stronger checks and balances.

Also, we acknowledge that some shortcomings are systemic legal issues better addressed by your government in separate legislation or orders. The most important, in our

humble opinion, include:

• Establishing witness protection programs and guidelines

• Strengthening of National Commission for Minorities and state minority commissions

• Action against police who refuse to register FIRs

• Permanently debarring government officials guilty of involvement in communal violence – or any crime – from government jobs and from contesting any office

• The rights of “internally displaced persons” in relief camps should mirror UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement e.g. including immediate education

for displaced children

Many provisions of the current version of the Bill are acceptable. But we request you to consider the input above so that a weak Bill is not passed which requires the

almost impossible process of securing future amendments.

Our community has learned from recent waves of communal attacks in Orissa and Karnataka as well as ongoing onslaught on house churches, individual pastors/priests and

nuns, and the terrible hate campaigns in newspapers which are officially sponsored by several state governments. Our suggestions are rooted in the reality of rural

India where the vast majority of our members – thousands of Protestant, Catholic, and independent Christian organisations – live and work to improve our beloved

society.

Yours Sincerely and Most Respectfully,

Dr. Joseph D’souza, President, aicc, Hyderabad, dsouza@aiccindia.org

John Dayal, Secretary General, aicc, New Delhi, john.dayal@gmail.com

C.C.:

Shri M. Veerappa Moily, Union Cabinet Minister for Law & Justice

Shri P. Chidambaram, Union Minister of Home Affairs

Shri Salman Khurshid, Union Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Minority Affairs

Smt. Sonia Gandhi, Chairperson, Indian National Congress Party

-------------------

Hindustan Times report today:

Amended law to let Centre take charge in riot-hit states

Aloke Tikku, Hindustan Time

r

New Delhi, March 17, 2010

The government’s final version of the communal violence law empowers the Centre to take charge of an area where riots have broken out once it sends in central forces,

if it finds the state government concerned reluctant to act against the rioters.

The new law still does not allow the Centre to send armed forces on its own to a riot-hit spot. But once a state has asked for central forces to quell violence, the

Centre will have the right — under certain circumstances — of setting up a unified command, comprising these forces and the local police.

The amendment was cleared by the Cabinet last December and is expected to come for parliamentary approval next month.

The Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill, however, says the Centre can declare an area “communally disturbed” and take direct

charge only if the state concerned refuses to act against the violence being perpetrated to such an extent that the secular fabric of the country, or internal

security, is endangered.

To guard against political misuse, the law stipulates that the Centre must

draw the attention of the state government to the deteriorating state of affairs, and set a deadline for it to take necessary steps to suppress the violence.

Until now, central forces deployed in a state worked under the control of the local district administration. But henceforth, in special circumstances, it will work

under the unified command, which will report to the Centre.

The amendment was conceived of in the backdrop of the 2002 Gujarat riots, when it was widely believed the state government had done little to discourage the rioters.

Even so, it is bound to anger state governments who will see it as an encroachment on their powers. Eight of 12 states that responded to a survey by a parliamentary

panel had even opposed an earlier, milder version.

Dalit Christians demonstrate as Sangh launches counter offensive

From John Dayal, New Delhi

18 November 2009

As about a thousand Dalit Christians and Muslims, led by Bishops and several Members of Parliament, demonstrated at Jantar Mantar on Parliament Street today, the Bharatiya Janata party launched a counter offensive to stop converts from the former untouchable castes of Hinduism getting the Constitutional rights so far given to Hindus, and also to those who converted to Buddhist and Sikhs to escape the caste stigma.

The BJP ideology holds Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs to be part of Hinduism, a position rejected by believers of those faiths. The Scheduled Caste affirmative action includes reservations in government jobs and educational institutions, as also representation in Parliament, State legislatures and local self government institutions. There are other legal safeguards to prevent atrocities against Dalits.

The Christian and Muslim Dalit Protest, with people mostly from the Southern States and Punjab softly cautioned the Congress and its allies that the community would look for other political options if their rights were not restored to the January 1950 pristine position – affirmative action without reference to religion. The rally was inaugurated by Delhi Archbishop Vincent Concessao and Catholic Bishops Conference general secretary Abp Stanislaus of Gandhinagar.

Earlier this month, several thousand Muslims had gathered in Patna to make a similar demand, under the leadership of OBC leader Laloo Prasad Yadav and Dalit leader Ram Vilas Paswan, both former Union ministers. The meeting accused the Congress of not being honest in its commitments made over the years to Christians and Muslims of Dalit Origin.

The meeting in New Delhi today saw the Archbishop of Chennai, and even some Congress MPs say they would sharpen the struggle till the rights to Scheduled caste status were restored.

These rights were taken away by a Presidential Order in 1950 which affectively limited political and economic reservations to those Dalits who chose to remain in the Hindu fold. Later, under political pressure, the rights were restored to Dalits an Neo Buddhists, Muslims and Christian continue to be denied rights under upper caste fear of large scale conversions to these “non Indian” religions, and a fear among Hindu Dalits that newcomers to the Scheduled Caste list would eat into their share of the privileges, both arguments affectively denied by the agitators.

On the eve of the Delhi rally, the BJP accused the Congress conspiring to usurp the rights for quota enjoyed by scheduled castes in the Constitution by sticking to its stand on including converted Dalit Christians and Muslims in SC fold."The Congress-led UPA government is adamant to cover the converted minorities and Christians within the quota fixed for scheduled castes under the Constitution," BJP general secretary T C Gehlot told reporters in Patna.

The Press Trust of India quoted Gehlot, also a member of the SC Reservation Rights protection Manch, said the organisation would conduct 'Honour Constitution' functions in every district in the state between November 26, 2009 and January 26, 2010 against the Dalit Christian and Muslim demands.

INDIA’S RELIGIOUS MINORITIES AND THE UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW OF INDIA’S HUMAN RIGHTS RECORD BY THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEM

INDIA’S RELIGIOUS MINORITIES AND THE UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW OF INDIA’S HUMAN RIGHTS RECORD BY THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEM

Urgent communiqué from Dr John Dayal, All India Catholic Union, All India Christian Council and the United Christian Forum, New Delhi

January 28, 2008-01-29
Dear Friends

I am sending you a crucial segment of the note that the Indian National Human Rights Commission is reportedly preparing for the Universal Periodic Review of India – and some other countries -- by the United Nations Human Rights Council in April this year.

As far as religious minorities and Dalits go, the record of the NHRC is arguably at par with that of the various National Commissions for Minorities, Scheduled castes and Tribes [the last two were once a single entity and are now split into two]. These organisations have seldom been able to function other than as loyal entities of the Government of the day and its political agenda when it comes to Muslims and Christians, though their record on more general – and larger -- issues such as Police reforms, Torture, Hunger and Poverty is better. This was seen at its most raw when the Bharatiya Janata Party was ruling in the garb of the National Democratic Alliance, and which is still so very visible in State governments ruled by the BJP or its allies, and occasionally even by those where the Congress and others are in power. Without disparaging Indian civilisation traditions, the same passiveness or comparative unconcern, of course, could also be said of the justice delivery system, the criminal investigation system and of police and civil governance in general.

I am sending this material, which I understand is still in a draft form, so that concerned activists, who would otherwise not have access to the NHRC position, can mobilise themselves to persuade the Commission to take stock of issues of religious persecution, official and political bigotry and connivance, government harassment in cases of visas, FCRA, Hindutva violence and probity of the bureaucracy and political administration, as well as matters of impunity. Our experience in Orissa in December 2007-January 2008, and in other states earlier, shows us just how wide the gap is between ground reality and public positioning.

I hope you will be able to express your views on the actual grass roots non-implementation of enacted legislation and rules, as well as the perversion of other official regulations, to the NHRC as well as to the National Commissions for Minorities, Tribals and Scheduled Castes.. I need hardly point out that the Government and the Commissions have sent Muslim and Christian Dalits first into a merry go round of hope and then into a blind alley sealed by a Supreme Court ceiling of 50 per cent on all reservations in government employment and education systems. Most of us cannot fathom just why everyone believes this arbitrary ceiling is sacrosanct, and the deprivation of minority groups is not. Even between minorities, issues of the Christian community, including economic and political disempowerment, find little or no space.

I also understand that the voices of organisations on Freedom of faith and of those challenging persecution do not really find a commensurate place in this discourse towards the Universal Public Review of India’s record.

God bless

John Dayal

Quotation from the NHRC paper for UPR

“Persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Tribals:

Persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have suffered historical injustices, and are hurting because of discrimination and inequality. They continue to face alleged acts of discrimination, untouchability, violence against the human person, atrocities of various kinds, and high-handedness by public servants and others. Caste-based discrimination constitutes an unacceptable assault on the dignity and worth of the human person and an egregious violation of human rights.

It was in recognition of this - and to end such injustice - that Part III of the Constitution of our Republic dealing with Fundamental Rights, contained powerful provisions to combat all forms of discrimination, notably those forms which were based on caste. These provisions of the Constitution, which are justiciable, include inter alia, equality before the law or the equal protection of laws, non discrimination against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward class of citizens as well as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, affirmative action through the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services of the State and abolition of “Untouchability”.

To give clear expression to Constitutional provisions, an impressive range of legislative measures have been enacted to end discrimination against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. These inter alia include the Protection of Civil Rights (Anti-Untouchability) Act, 1955, the Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and various land reform acts. In accordance with Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, the Nodal Officers and Special Cells for Protection of Civil Rights have been appointed in many States/Union Territories. Political representation was guaranteed for Scheduled Castes and Tribes through the proportionate reservation of seats in elected legislative bodies, from Parliament to village councils. To overcome the cumulative results of past discrimination, the government instituted a program of “compensatory discrimination” that reserved 22.5 percent of all central government jobs for members of Scheduled Castes and Tribes. Comparable reservations were provided for state-level employment, and reservations were extended to college and university admissions.

Besides establishing a Focal Point on Scheduled Castes, the National Human Rights Commission made specific recommendations to address atrocities against Scheduled Castes and been has monitoring their implementation at field level.

India has embarked on a programme of affirmative action which is, perhaps, without parallel in scale and dimension in human history. However, it is recognised that much remains to be done to bring to an end the discrimination and inequality that have been practiced for centuries and that this requires both sustained effort and time. It requires change of mindsets. There are inadequacies in implementation which need to be addressed. Legislative and affirmative action programmes are firmly in place, but need to be far better implemented.

The provisions in the Constitution make it incumbent on the State to “take care” of Scheduled Tribes [STs]. In articles 15 and 16 (which refer to fundamental rights of citizens) exceptions are made to ensure that what is needed to be done for STs is done. For example, though equality of opportunity is the policy of the State, an exception is made for reservations. Article 244 enables the State to make special arrangements for development of STs. Article 275-1 enables the State (the central government particularly) to set aside financial provisions to be used for tribal development. If there are any schemes from the state government and the central government approves it then the central government is bound to finance the scheme. So we get all ingredients for the State in terms of the legality and financial arrangements. The State cannot have any excuse that they are not empowered enough. The V schedule is a unique aspect of the Constitution - it empowers the governor of a state to suspend any act of parliament or state legislature if he thinks it is not in the interest of the STs. This he can do even with retrospective effect. A similar aspect is not found anywhere else in the constitution. The VI schedule enables an autonomous district level body to be formed where there is a large percentage of tribal groups. This has been formulated especially for north-eastern region which is unique in many respects. Districts in the northeast can be mini-states - they have a lot of financial, legislative, executive, and judicial power. Education, health care, rural development, social security are all subjects under the State List of Schedule VII to the Constitution, the maturing of our federal systems has prompted the Centre to play an increasing role in these areas
When tribals are displaced by dams and other mega projects, as has happened in some States of the country, they raise important human rights issues. It is necessary to pay heed to the fate of those who pay the price for "development", whether through the undertaking of mega projects or as a result of economic policies that, advertently or otherwise, have the effect of marginalizing the most vulnerable sections of society.
The recognized rights of the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers include the responsibilities and authority for sustainable use, conservation of biodiversity and maintenance of ecological balance and thereby strengthening the conservation regime of the forests while ensuring livelihood and food security of the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers.

The forest rights on ancestral lands and their habitat were not adequately recognized in the consolidation of State forests during the colonial period as well as in independent India resulting in historical injustice to the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who are integral to the very survival and sustainability of the forest ecosystem.

To address the long standing insecurity of tenurial and access rights of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers including those who were forced to relocate their dwelling due to State development interventions, the Parliament enacted the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. It recognizes and vests the forest rights and occupation in forest land in forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who have been residing in such forests for generations but whose rights could not be recorded; it also seeks to provide for a framework for recording the forest rights so vested and the nature of evidence required for such recognition and vesting in respect of forest land. This Act received assent of the President on 29th December, 2006. On 1st January 2008, rules were notified for the implementation of the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.

The National Human Rights Commission intervened in a number of cases involving displacement of tribals. At the policy level, the Commission recommended that the Central and State Governments re-examine and appropriately amend their laws, regulations and practices in order to ensure that, when it comes to acquisition of land for purposes related to national economic development, the provisions of the Constitution, as expounded by the Supreme Court and as contained in international instruments to which India is a party, notably ILO Convention 107, are fully respected. This is essential if the 'national interest' was to be reconciled, as it can and should be, with true respect for the rights of the weakest sections of society.


Minorities:

The first Statutory National Commission for Minorities was set up on 17th May 1993. On 23rd October 1993 five religious communities viz. the Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Zoroastrians (Parsis) were notified as minority communities. As per the 2001 Census, these five religious minority communities constitute 18.42% of the country’s population. Despite the safeguards provided in the Constitution and the laws in force, there are concerns among members belonging to minorities about inequality and discrimination.

In order to address such concerns, the new Ministry of Minority Affairs was set up. The National Commission for Religious and Linguistic Minorities and the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions have also been set up. The Government approved the proposal to grant Constitutional Status to the National Commission for Minorities to infuse greater confidence among the minorities about its working and the effectiveness. The Prime Minister’s New 15 Point Programme for welfare of minorities covers (1) Enhancing opportunities for Education (2) Equitable Share in Economic Activities and Employment, (3). Improving the conditions of living of minorities (4). Prevention & Control of Communal Riots. It was also decided that 15% of the funds may be earmarked wherever possible in relevant schemes / programmes, for the nationally declared minorities. The 15 Point Programme has been recast to focus action sharply on issues intimately linked with the social, educational and economic uplift of minorities and provide for earmarking of outlays in certain schemes so that the progress is monitorable.

The Government approved relief and rehabilitation of victims of communal riots in Gujarat of 2002, on par with the measures taken in respect of victims of anti-Sikh riots of 1984. The Union Cabinet gave its approval for the enactment of Legislation titled “The Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill, 2005.” This Bill is aimed at i) Prevention of communal violence / offences; ii) Speedy investigation; and speedy dispensation of justice; iii) Imposition of enhanced punishment on the persons involved in communal violence / offences; iv) Providing relief and rehabilitation facilities to the victims; v) Creating institutional arrangement for speedy investigation, disposal of cases, providing relief and rehabilitation to the victims. vi) Empowering the States / Central authorities to discharge their duties in assisting victims in the matter.

As there was lack of authentic information about the social, economic, and educational status of the Muslim community of India, a High Level Committee was constituted on 9th March, 2005 under the Chairmanship of Justice Rajinder Sachar to prepare a comprehensive report on this subject. After extensive consultations, the High Level Committee submitted its report on 17th November, 2006. The report made recommendations with regard to education, skill development, employment and economic opportunities, poverty and development and social conditions of Muslims. The Sachar Report on Social, Economic and Educational Status of the Muslim Community of India has produced a compendium of authentic information required by the Government for planning, formulating and implementing specific interventions, policies and programmes to address issues relating to the backwardness of the community. As a follow up action to the Sachar Committee Report, the Government proposes, among others, to take the following actions:

It has been decided in principle to set up an Equal Opportunity Commission (EOC) to look into grievances regarding discrimination. An expert group will study and recommend its (EOC’s) structure and functions.

In order to promote diversity and social inclusion in educational institutions, work places and living spaces, an expert group has been constituted to propose an appropriate “diversity index”. Such an index can be the basis for providing incentives for better representation in all three areas mentioned above.

A National Data Bank (NDB) and an autonomous Assessment and Monitoring Authority (AMA) will be soon set up which will analyse the data so generated and suggest appropriate policies to Government on a continuous basis.
END OF QUOTATION

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

Government of India must not profile the Muslim community

PRESS STATEMENT
14 July 007

Civil Society distressed at racial Profiling of Indian Muslims

Civil Society in India must be deeply distressed that our democratic Government admits to have started religious profiling of its own Muslim citizens in the wake of the bombings in the Untied Kingdom in which at least one Indian doctor is a prime suspect.
No activist or association working for Human Rights, Civil Liberties and Freedom of Faith issues condones terrorism, or the killing and maiming of civilians – or for that matter even of combatants – in bombings, shootouts, or attacks. It is because of this that we condemn landmines and booby traps as much as we do torture, custodial deaths and fake encounters.
We are also all of one accord that terrorism and terrorists can not be labeled by religion, caste, race or nationality, and at the end whatever motivates the killers, it is ordinary men, women and children who have nothing to do with the confrontation, who get killed. This has been the case all through.
Profiling of communities because of the actions of individuals is a shortcut that States take when their respect for their own people is overwhelmed by the colossal failure of their security forces. The worse case scenario is when governments and authorities in charge of security and police forces are themselves guilty of partisanship, bigotry and hate.
Christians have been victims of religious profiling in Gujarat for almost ten years now, and have borne the brunt of it under the chief ministership of Mr. Narendra Modi, a hero to a political ideology that feeds on hate. Sikhs suffered religious profiling for more than a decade through the Seventies and into the Nineteen hundred and Eighties. Muslims, whether we have the courage to accept it or not, have been victims of an informal, unofficial and latent profiling since Independence, and the absence of the community from the Intelligence Bureau, Raw, and till quite recently, from the higher echelons of the Army, are directly linked to this national aberration.
As is obvious, once it is given legitimacy, religious, caste and racial profiling spreads its tentacles far beyond the immediate police needs of surveillance. An entire community is stigmatized, its patriotism and nationalism tested and made suspect.
It is the worst in the case of stigmatizing of the religious minorities. No one, quite correctly, bothers about the religion of the armed militants of the ULFA or of the many terrorist groups of the North East. No one bothers about the religion of dacoits and the many thugs and gang-lords whose writ runs in large tracts of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh.
I, personally, am deeply distressed that the Union Home Minister, Mr Shivraj Patil whose name was at the top of the list for the National Presidency, and the Prime Minister, himself the pride of the minority communities in India, should be so directly party to the decision to profile the Muslim community. And this even as lip service is paid to the plight of Indian Muslim doctors who may now find it difficult to get a visa to the UK. There is something morbid in the cynicism of senior bureaucrats who say there should be no surprise in Indians facing visa problems for has not India itself been denying visas to Pakistani and Bangladesh citizens. No remorse, so feeling for the human tragedy, no sense of guilt.
As the report by Laskshmi Iyer in Bombay and New Delhi newspapers chains said on 14 July 2007, officials `admitted that instructions have gone to states to keep track of the activities of the community.` Before the Glasgow case, it was enough to profile just those who attended madrasas and were members of fundamentalist groups. Now even those who have had liberal education are being profiled.
It is good that social and political leadership of the Muslim community has made clear in the words of Justice Sachchar Committee secretary and eminent economist Dr Abu Salah Sharief, the suspected bombers are individuals “whose actions cannot be a reflection of the entire community or the nation.”
The government of India must make it clear that it has not put the Muslim community under the microscope. It must, of course, also make sure that anyone who in due process of law is found guilty of conspiracies against the state and against the people will not be spared, whether he or she belongs to the majority community, or to the minority communities. The rule of law demands – and expects -- no less.