Desicritics Category: Politics: Religion

Barack Obama in the Indian Context

Suresh Naig — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 00:52:24 EST

One more article on Barack Obama, and certainly not once more on Barack Obama and U.S. elections. On the day when Barack Obama won the elections, I was in Colombo and all the Newspapers there screamed, “America creates history with its first Black President”, as if blacks were substandard and unworthy for consideration for the highest post.

Similar things happened when K.R. Narayanan became the president of India, when everyone shouted that India had established its non-partisan credentials, by electing a Dalit president. The crescendo was so much, it would have made KRN shrink at the revile, for people conveniently relegated his achievements as an IFS, a former diplomat, ambassador of India in China etc, and recognised only by his Dalit identity for the coveted post. The corollary of it was, had he not been a Dalit, he would not have been elected for the highest post. The cynical extrapolation of it is, “it is more important to be a Dalit than an IFS” or a diplomat” (is Natwar Singh listening?).

Every now and then we hear people commending Dr.Ambedkar – for introducing reservations for Dalits, as the panacea to contain the evils of caste system. Little we realise that Ambedkar rose to eminence, without the system of reservation for Dalits. Reservation is an opportunity, in the absence of efforts, negates its very purpose and turns the whole exercise futile. That’s why we see today, more people are fighting for backwardness, so as to claim the undue opportunity.

I would define luck as the meeting point of efforts and opportunity. We also know the adage that, opportunity knocks only once. Since we do not know when opportunity would knock, we keep on putting efforts, which is in our control. If one knows there is abundant opportunity available out there, it would turn the person lazy and effortless. Fortunate for Obama, that he was not caught on the vicious circle of reservation. Obama, Ambedkar, KRN or any person who puts in efforts do not require reservations. (is Bihari listening?)

Similarly when Dr. Zakir Hussain was elected as the president of India, people praised Indian polity for its secular credentials. I recall the comments of Dr. Zakir Hussain to a scribe, when the pointed out the cacophony of Indian intellectual press, in this context. With a twinkle in his eyes he said, ‘true secularism lies when you don’t remember and recall a person’s religion’. How true and pertinent in present day context.

I would further add to his statement, “true secularism lies when people do not recall and remember a person’s religion, neither for achievements nor for crimes”.

An Open Letter to the Dalai Lama

Vinod Joseph — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:49:38 EST

Your Holiness,

I hope this letter finds you in good health. You must be very busy right now, Your Holiness, preparing to attend the six day meet you have convened for members of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile in Dharamshala from 17 November 2008 to discuss the future course of action for Tibet. I assume you are not in the best of spirits, Your Holiness. You underwent a surgery for removal of a gall bladder stone last month. You have publicly stated that you have lost hope of reaching a settlement with China through dialogue. Ever since March 1959 when you left Tibet and went to India, you have been trying to obtain a better deal for Tibet and its people. You have not only always stuck to the path of non-violence, but you have also insisted that your followers do the same. All of this is admirable until one realises that, as you recently admitted, you have not managed to wring a single compromise out of China.

Your Holiness, are you worried that history will judge you harshly for not having achieved anything much for the people of Tibet, despite struggling for almost 50 years? I don’t have an answer to that, Your Holiness. Before we respond to that question, why don’t we take a quick look at Tibet’s history?

The Tibetan language belongs to the Tibeto-Burman branch of the Sino-Tibetan language family. Tibetan is as much distinct from Mandarin as Burmese is. Tibet has always been an independent country. In the early 9th century, Buddhism reached Tibet after a Tibetan king invited Buddhist preachers and artisans from India. There have been occasions when Tibetan kings have defeated Chinese rulers in battle. From the 13th century onwards, Tibet was under the control of the Mongols who also controlled vast stretches of China. It was when the Mongols controlled Tibet that Buddhism spread to Mongolia. In the seventeenth century, the fifth Dalai Lama became the spiritual and temporal head of the whole of Tibet. Tibet has had wars with the kingdoms of Ladakh, Bhutan and Nepal, losing many battles and winning a few.

Since the early eighteen century, the Manchu rulers of China have made claims on Tibet. However, China went into a period of decline after that and Tibet managed to assert its independence. In the early 20th century, the British led a few expeditions into Tibet in order to prevent any Russian influence in the region. The British forced the Tibetans to sign a trade treaty which opened Tibet’s borders to British India. In 1907, Britain also entered into a treaty with Russia which recognised Chinese suzerainty over Tibet.

After China was defeated by Japan in a series of battles in the early twentieth century, Chinese control over Tibet waned. Britain, Tibet and China held negotiations in Simla in 1913 and 1914 to resolve the boundaries between India, China and Tibet. The negotiations broke down and Henry McMahon, the then British Indian foreign secretary and the chief British negotiator, unilaterally demarcated the Indo-Tibetan border. Approximately 9,000 square kilometres of traditional Tibetan territory in southern Tibet (the Tawang region) was given to India (which now forms the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh). McMahon also recognised Chinese suzerainty over Tibet and affirmed that Tibet was a part of China. China did not agree to this Simla convention and hence, this treaty became a bilateral agreement between India and Tibet.

Immediately after the communist takeover of China, the communists took over parts of eastern Tibet and initiated a process of land reforms. Landlords were publicly humiliated and at times executed. However, the traditional Tibetan aristocracy was allowed to remain in place till public unrest in eastern Tibet led to a military crackdown, which in turn led to the Lhasa uprising. It was at that time, Your Holiness, that you fled to India.

Your Holiness, at the time of the communist takeover of Tibet, Tibet was a corrupt and undemocratic theocracy. Monks held all the powers and abused them. The peasants were oppressed and lived in extreme poverty. One of the reasons the Chinese were able to takeover Tibet so easily was because it was a backward, feudal and theocratic state. The blame for this should lie primarily on the Buddhist clergy which kept Tibet in the dark ages. Your Holiness and your predecessors were always at the helm of such a state of affairs.

After Your Holiness came over to India, you set up a Government-in-Exile consisting of a legislative assembly (the Assembly of Tibetan People's Deputies), an executive (the Kashag), and a judiciary (the Tibetan Supreme Justice Commission). You have categorised the Government-in-Exile as a constitutional monarchy. Elections were held and exiled Tibetans voted. You have gone into semi-retirement and if rumours are correct, you would like to retire permanently. Considering the fact that prior to the Chinese take-over Tibet was a full-fledged theocracy, I feel that you have done an admirable job in injecting a decent dose of democracy into the Tibetan community. Since almost all Tibetans are Buddhists, not many Tibetans have objected to having you, the Dalai Lama, a living incarnation of the Lord Buddha, as the head of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile. This would mean there is a shade of theocracy in the Government-in-Exile, but I feel this was inevitable.

Your Holiness, your emphasis on non-violence and peaceful negotiations won you not only many admirers all over the world, but also the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989. Until you threw in the towel last week, you have always stated that you would be happy with greater autonomy under Chinese authority (on par with what Hong Kong has) and would not press for independence. However, it cannot be said Your Holiness, that all Tibetans have been happy with your approach. Organisations such as the Tibetan Independence Movement, the Students For a Free Tibet led by exiled Tibetans and supported by celebrities like Richard Gere have insisted that Tibet should be independent. They have rightly said that China has been diluting Tibetan culture by flooding Tibet with Han Chinese. Tibet’s natural wealth, especially its forest wealth, has been eviscerated. Most importantly, they say that Tibet has historically been an independent state.

Your Holiness, it must not be forgotten that Chinese rule has brought some benefits for Tibet. There are a lot more roads and railways and industries, though it can be argued that all these developments further Chinese exploitation of Tibet and facilitate Han Chinese expansion into Tibet. We all know that sadly, in Tibet, the Han Chinese outnumber the Tibetans.

Your Holiness, even though you have won international acclaim and admiration, you have not been able to persuade a single country to take concrete measures for Tibet’s independence. Measures such as imposing sanctions against China and not trading with China. Please don’t laugh at me, Your Holiness. I do realise that the mere thought of not trading with China sounds silly. Who can afford to not trade with China? It is not only nation states who can’t afford to antagonise China. A few months ago, the London Metropolitan University awarded Your Holiness a doctorate in recognition of your outstanding achievements in promoting global peace. The threat of a boycott by Chinese students forced this British university to express regret for any offence caused to the Chinese government.

Were things always like this Your Holiness? No, Your Holiness. It is only in the last ten years that China became so powerful. Twenty five years ago, China was an unknown country, tolerated because it was a counterweight to the Soviet Union. Your Holiness, for a couple of decade after you went over to India, there were many armed groups of Tibetans carrying out guerrilla operations against China. These were not on a very large scale and were funded by the CIA. However, they slowly died down due to various reasons. One of the reasons was that India slowly distanced itself from the USA and became friendly with the USSR, which meant that the CIA could no longer use India as a base for attacks on China. Your Holiness, I wonder if your insistence on non-violence as the only option has been mainly because you’ve known that neither the USA nor India would provide the quantum of commitment and support that would make it feasible for Tibetans to fight China.

Your Holiness, even during the period when China was yet to become an economic powerhouse, you could not persuade Buddhist majority countries like Thailand or Sri Lanka to boycott China. Even though Buddhists believe that you are a living incarnation of Lord Buddha, you have not been able to build up any following within the Buddhists among the Han Chinese.

Your Holiness, would things have been different if you have played a less key role right from the time you went over to India? I doubt it Your Holiness. Your personality and charisma gave the Tibetan cause the sort of publicity and respectability that no secular leader could have obtained. It is tempting to speculate on what could have been achieved if a secular person who believed in using all options had headed the Tibetan Government-in-Exile right from day one. At a time when China was fighting the USSR, could such a person have obtained independence for Tibet through armed action? I doubt it, Your Holiness, but we will never know.

Your Holiness, I believe that the head of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile must not be the Dalai Lama. It must be headed by a secular individual. If you are to head this Government-in-Exile, it becomes a theocracy and there is no place in the modern world for a theocracy. However, the Tibetan movement still needs your help. You must not retire completely, though you have expressed your wish to do so. You must work with the Tibetan Government-in-Exile in order to keep the Tibetan cause in the limelight. History has been unkind to Tibet and its people. You have, in my opinion, performed a stellar role in fighting for their rights. I don’t think history will judge you harshly.

Where do we go from here, Your Holiness? I don’t believe that there is a magic solution to the Tibetan issue. I wonder what advice you will give your fellow delegates at the forthcoming conference.

There will be some hotheads who will want armed action against China. Around eight months ago, in March 2008 there were orchestrated riots in Tibet. Nothing much was achieved, but it did scare the Chinese government a lot, since it was so close to the Olympics. Next time your followers try something like that, the Chinese government might not be as restrained, since the Olympics are now over and the Chinese couldn’t give two hoots about public opinion.

I assume muscular lobbying is an option. The Tibetan cause has supporters and well-wishers all over the world. Your Holiness, things can change very quickly. If the current economic recession were to continue, China will not be able to provide employment for many of its restless millions. If economic unrest were to spread in China, which now has a vast rich-poor divide, the Tibetan Government-in-Exile might be able to bargain a certain degree of autonomy for itself. There might even be a fortuitous turn of events which enables Tibetans to get their country back.

I wish Your Holiness and the people of Tibet all the best for the future.

With warm and sincere regards

A blogger from the World Wide Web

The Hindu Terrorist and Current Investigations

Ashish — Thu, 6 Nov 2008 11:39:55 EST

For the first time in the country, the term 'Hindu terrorist' has come into common usage. It all started with the Malegaon blasts of September 29, outside the office of SIMI where 6 people died in the explosion, and many others were injured. As it turns out, this was not a case where terrorists, inspired by the word of radical Islam, had committed the crime. While the blast is under probe, all information that has been revealed so far by the ATS, and by the press, is that this was in the nature of a retaliatory attack (retaliation for the bomb attacks carried out by terrorists inspired by radical thought). While investigation is being carried out, this incident and the investigation has already led to a huge amount of hue and cry.

For once, both the BJP and the Shiv Sena are on the defensive. One of the main accused, Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, was apparently a fiery speaker who was capable of rousing the spirits of people; incidentally, she was also a former national executive president of the Durga Vahini, and has been shown in the same photo as Rajnath Singh and the Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister. The BJP has disowned her and her actions, claiming that this was done after she left the organization (and this part may be true). However, many constituents of the Sangh Parivaar are not happy with this and are pitching for the BJP to support the accused. The Shiv Sena is in total support of the accused (one can always consider the Shiv Sena to have a sense of irrationality in their actions).

This is where the BJP should have been a party with a difference. Having a political plank of National Security would mean that the party should stand firm against anyone who indulges in matters such as riots and bomb blasts. In this case, the refusal of the party to take a firm stand against the alleged bomb plotters means that the actions of the party are similar to the actions of the Congress, Samajwadi Party and are personally very disappointing. No matter what the reason, there cannot be any justification for supporting any brand of terrorists, whether they be terrorist inspired by radical Islamic theology or Hindu terrorists inspired by some concept of revenge. The bigger worry (based on current police reports) is that a senior army officer is involved, against their duty of protecting the nation:

Public prosecutor Ajay Misar said in the court that Purohit had attended most of the meetings organised by others accused at Kashmir, Pune, Bhopal, Nashik, and Deolali. "Since he is a senior army officer, he could have been the source for the RDX used in the bomb. We also have evidence that he distributed money to several people through his organisation through cheques and cash. The financial transactions are through hawala as well," said Misar, adding, "Purohit also trained several youths in bomb making."

Those arrested also include retired Major Ramesh Upadhyay and former Durga Vahini national executive president sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur. The ATS completed all the formalities regarding the arrest of Lt Col Purohit — the first instance of an armyman being booked for a terror act — on Tuesday evening. Purohit came in contact with Upadhyay when he was posted at Nashik as liaison unit officer. Sources said he used the Nashik stint to fraternise with the extremists in various radical Hindu outfits and to draw them into Abhinav Bharat fold.

It is incumbent to nip such attacks and planning in the bud. The country already faces enough problems from terrorists and separatists in many corners of the country without having more people join this front (and there are terrorists who are Hindu as well - the ULFA, Naxalities, and many others). The BJP and other parties should take the lead in cutting such misguided people from getting public support and that there is no sympathy for them. Else, there is no justification in the BJP blaming people for showing support for the terrorists killed in the Jamia Nagar shootout in Delhi.

Are Religious People More Charitable?

Vinod Joseph — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 03:36:34 EDT

The British Humanist Association, a registered charity, has been collecting money to run 30 buses across London for four weeks with the slogan: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." The Atheist Bus Campaign has been an amazing success. It has raised a lot more money that it expected to and this slogan will appear on London's bendy buses in the beginning of 2009. On hearing of this campaign, I was about to take out my credit card and donate some money since I've always wanted to see a large scale campaign marketing atheism on the lines of organised religions. Yet, there was something about the slogan that made me hesitate.

Why say "There's probably no God"? Why not say ""There is no God"? The word "probably" carries more than an element of doubt. Do religious people say - "God probably exists"? For Pete's sake, if you think there is a probability that God exists, you might as well invest some time and effort in praying to Him or buttering Him up so that if it turns out that God did exist all the while, you'll get something in return for having believed in him. If it turns out that there was no God, well, you would have wasted some time and effort, but then, does anyone with a life insurance policy complain about having lived a long life?

I found the second bit of the slogan more problematic. "Stop worrying and enjoy life." What does it mean? If the slogan is addressed to atheists and agnostics, it probably means atheists and agnostics have been worrying all along instead of enjoying life. But then, that would be preaching to the converted, wouldn't it? Assuming it is addressed to the religious minded, it assumes that the religious worry all the time when they ought to be enjoying life. What would the religious be worrying about? About God's existence? No, they ought to be happy about God's existence. Or at least pretend to be. May be they worry about not measuring up to God's standards and expectations.

What are God's standards and expectations? What do organised religions want of their followers and devotees? By and large, organised religions want their members to be loyal to them. They ask for prayers. In an indirect way, all organised religions expect their followers to believe their religion is superior. It does make sense. If a religion is to tell its members that it is only as good as the next religion, why should its members stay loyal to it? What else do religions want? All religions expect their followers to be generous and kind to other human beings. Be it the Sermon on the Mount or Lord Krishna's advice as set out in the Bhagavad Gita or Koranic rules on giving to charity, all religions lead their followers to believe that by being charitable, they gain brownie points with God.

So, when the Atheist Bus Campaign says "Stop worrying and enjoy life," does it mean, don't worry about pleasing God, just go out and enjoy life? Don't waste time and effort in being charitable. Don't think of other human beings. Go out and enjoy your life. If this is what's intended, I have many issues with this campaign and my credit card will firmly remain in my wallet. You see, I've always had this nagging doubt that religious people tend to be more charitable (of course in the hope of a reward in the next life) than atheists and agnostics. I mean, how can an atheist compete with a religious person who believes God will match his every kindness with an hour in heaven?

Of course, I know of so many charitable organisations that don't have a religious base. There's Water Aid, Oxfam, Actionaid etc. But these organisations are managed by individuals who are paid like the employees of a large company and supported by tiny donations from people all over the world. Organisations like Amnesty International are very much ideology driven rather than just by charity. These organisations tend to have enormous overheads - more than 50% of the money they collect is spent on administrative costs. In the case of some charities, this goes up to 90%.

Maybe religions, for all the harm they do, serve an useful purpose. By and large, they force their followers to be kind and generous to other human beings. There are exceptions to this of course. Every religion will have a fundamentalist fringe which wants to fight other religions rather than accumulate brownie points. However, on the whole, worrying about God and not enjoying life all the time, is not a bad thing.

Polygamy: Why The Step-Motherly Treatment?

Vinod Joseph — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:41:18 EDT

As India intensively debates the demand for decriminalisation of homosexuality, there is growing consensus everywhere that two consenting adults ought to have the freedom to do almost anything they like as long as they don't harm anyone else. Homosexuality is not a crime anywhere in the West. In most Western countries, homosexuals have the right to marry or enter into civil partnerships.

Whilst this is encouraging, I find it surprising that a a similar debate is totally lacking with respect to polygamy. In my opinion, if two consenting adults can do what they like in the privacy of their bedrooms and beyond, three or four or more consenting adults should have a similar right.

Polygamy is a generic term used to describe a situation where an individual (male or female) has multiple spouses. When a man has many wives or partners, it is called Polygyny. When a woman has many husbands or partners, it is called polyandry. Among organised religions, only Judaism and Christianity have strict prohibitions against having more than one spouse. Polygyny is most common among Muslims who have religious sanction for this practice. Polyandry is a lot less common, especially in the modern world. In India it used to be practised on a large scale among matriarchal tribes such as the Khasis of Meghalaya and matrilineal communities like the Nairs and Menons of Kerala. Recently I read a CNN news item regarding the practice of polyandry in Himachal Pradesh.

It is not only among Muslims that you see polygyny being practised. The US has the Mormons or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who used to practice polygyny on a large scale. Some of them still do.

The ban on polygamy is enforced through the criminalisation of bigamy and adultery. A person commits bigamy when he or she undergoes a marriage ceremony when already married. Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code penalises a person who undergoes a marriage ceremony whilst having a having a living husband or wife, with imprisonment of up to seven years. If the spouse in the second marriage was unaware of the first marriage, the punishment is higher (imprisonment of up to ten years) under Section 495.

Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code says that “Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case the wife shall be punishable as an abettor.” In other words, only a man can be guilty of adultery and then only if his lover is a married woman. The woman in the adulterous relationship will only be guilty of abetting the offence of adultery. The offence of adultery, as defined in the Indian Penal Code, is meant to protect married men from other men who may steal the affections of their wives.

Now consider this scenario. A married man or woman has an affair outside his or her marriage. The parties in the illicit relationship don't bother to get married. In any event such a marriage will be void and so unless there are religious reasons, there is no incentive in going through a marriage ceremony for a second time. Is there any offence being committed in this example? No, not unless a married woman is having an affair outside her marriage, in which case her lover will be guilty of adultery.

Therefore, the criminalisation of bigamy prevents married people from registering relationships they may be involved in outside their marriage, but does not actually prevent the relationship (unless it amounts to adultery). In my opinion, polygyny and polyandry ought to be legalised, just as homosexuality ought to be decriminalised and homosexuals given the right to have a civil partnership. Every marriage and civil partnership must be registered and the register should be available to the general public for inspection and accessible through the internet. Bigamy and adultery should not be criminal offences, though they should be a ground for divorce. Just as a spouse whose partner cheated on him or her can get a divorce, a spouse whose partner contracts a second marriage should be able to get an immediate divorce. A person who got married without knowing about his partner's first marriage should be able to get compensation for fraud. Criminal law should have no place in the bedrooms of consenting adults.

It may be argued that if polygamy were to be legalised, polygyny will become common, considering the weaker position women occupy in Indian society, whilst polyandry will only take place in poor communities where there is a scarcity of resources. This is a feasible argument, but I believe the answer lies in empowering women by educating them etc. and not in interfering in what consenting adults do.

Book Review: The Other Side of Israel: My Journey Across the Jewish/Arab Divide by Susan Nathan

Vinod Joseph — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 13:51:30 EDT

Susan tells her readers how, when she was visiting a South African relative at the age of sixteen, she saw a black servant reprimanded for not wearing white gloves while serving them food. An incensed Susan followed the servant to the kitchen and had sex with him on the kitchen table.

Many years later, fifty year old Susan, recently divorced, made aliyah and moved to Israel from the UK, leaving behind two grown up children. Susan was following a path followed by many other Jews. The Jewish Agency in London processed Susan’s application in a week and bought her a ticket to Israel. When Susan landed in Israel, she was put in Rana’ana, one of the best run immigrant absorption centres where she was taught basic Hebrew and the nitty-gritty's of life in Israel.

Soon Susan became unhappy with her life in Israel. She realised that she had performed aliyah at the expense of the Arab citizens of Israel who are treated as second hand citizens. Slowly her romantic notions of Israel and life in Israel evaporated. Israel was a sanctuary for the Jews of the world, but it had a lot of skeletons in its cupboard.

Never shy of taking direct action, three years after reaching Israel, Susan packed up and moved to Tamra, an Arab town of 25,000 people in the Galilee, located between Haifa and Nazareth.

Tamra

Susan paints a vivid picture of Tamra. Electricity and telephone cables are slung haphazardly across the streets. Rubble and rubbish can be found everywhere. Children play in the streets. The drains are overwhelmed by the occasional showers.

Susan rents some space from an Arab family living in Tamra. The grandmother in the family is so very good at making the most of what they have. They grow vegetables in the little patch of land they have. The head of the clam or Hamula stands for office in the municipal elections and wins. Susan votes for him.

Susan finds that Arab festivals are similar to Jewish ones. An Arab engagement party is not much different from a Jewish one. Customs, especially in the case of deaths and burials are very similar. Bodies are buried on the same day by sundown. Arabs have 3 days of mourning whilst Jews mourn for 7 days.

I’ll leave it to you to read the book and enjoy Susan’s description of Tamra, the elections and everything else.

Discrimination in different shapes and sizes

To an outsider, Israel appears to be an open society where all citizens have equal rights. It is a democracy where every citizen is entitled to vote and practice a religion of his/her choice. But it is not as simple as that. Israel, a nation formed on the basis of a UN resolution, does not treat its Arab citizens on par with its Jewish nationals. Discrimination is at times subtle, but at times it is in-your-face. Israel is a made-to-measure-democracy, where a Jewish majority at all times is fixed. ‘Fixed’ as in ‘match-fixing' fixed.

Each page in Susan’s book (two hundred and seventy odd pages) details a form of discrimination or harassment practised against the Arabs. I am not even going to try and capture all of the story here. However, let me tell you that Susan’s book has the ring of truth and honesty and is capable of making even the most committed Israel fan re-appraise his or her stand.

Land policies

The Zionists migrated to an empty barren land, described as a “land without people for a people without land”. Just as the European migrants to the Americas found bison and native Indians, the Jews did find some people in Palestine (lots of people actually), but they were not particularly civilised or in any way worthy of being treated on par with the immigrants. Which was a relief actually since it made it easy to de-humanise them and grab their land.

It worked out like this. The UN resolution which created Israel and a Palestinian state gave 55% of the land to Israel and 44% to the Palestinian state. This despite the fact that the Arabs were a majority in Palestine at that time and the Jews actually owned only 7% of the land. I don't agree with Susan that the 55:45 split was particularly unfair since the State of Israel was supposed to be a haven for Jews from around the world, not just for the Jews already there. It was assumed that there would be continued migration of Jews into Israel, which was to be a predominantly Jewish state.

However, I agree with Susan that what happened after that was not particularly fair. In the course of the 1948 war, Israel did its best to chase Arabs away from their homes. Internally displaced Arabs had their lands and homes confiscated. The Israeli government's programme of extensive confiscation of Arab land has continued ever since. There's an Israeli bureaucratic term for Arabs who are internal refugees - “Present Absentees”. There are 250,000 of such present absentees in Israel.

Israel has put in place a land policy which Susan describes as “land apartheid”. Except for 7% of Israeli land owned by Israeli Arabs, the rest is owned by the government which leases it to Israelis. So far, over 400 Arab villages have been destroyed by the Israeli government.

Whilst there's plenty of land available for Jews, the Israeli government tries to cram in as many Arabs as possible in the least amount of land. With the agricultural land surrounding Arab villages and towns confiscated, many young Arab couples can't find land to build homes for themselves. Susan gives the example of her own town, Tamra, where only 1000 acres of land is available for building. This means 88 people per acre. 6000 acres of Tamra's land has been zoned, that is designated for farming or as green land. We are told that Tamra has run out of land to bury the dead. According to Susan, the message to Arabs from the state is clear. They are not welcome in Israel.

The famous Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem has been built on the ruins of the abandoned village of Ein Kerem.

Ayn Hawd is yet another village taken over by the Israeli army after the villagers abandoned it during the 1948 war. 35 villagers, members of the Abu al-Hija family, went back and occupied a small portion of the land that was theirs. Ever since then, Israel has been trying to evict them from that land. To do so, a large area including the land occupied by the village has been declared to be a national park and later, an archaeological site as well. To put more pressure, the land was also declared to be part of a firing range. Laws designed ostensibly to protect vegetation prevent the villagers from grazing their cattle. The villagers are denied access to electricity or water. A veteran from Ayn Hawd described to Susan how it used to take him 3 hours to get to school. Ayn Hawd is not a one-off, but has been replicated across the country.

Tree planting programmes

The Israeli government has an avowed goal to 'green' Israel. This one involves planting pine, olive, carob and the like trees wherever possible, especially over destroyed Arab villages, so that one cannot find any trace of them. The Jewish National Fund (set up in 1901 in order to buy land in Ottoman ruled Palestine) is an NGO which, inter alia, collects money for the planting of trees in Israel. If you donate $18, you can have a tree planted in Israel. It might be on land once occupied by an Arab village.

Education

More than Israel's land policy, I found Susan's description of Israeli education policy very troubling. To start with, Arab students have a different curriculum from Jewish students The government spends £105 a year on every Arab student, whilst £485 is spent on Jewish students. A mind boggling £1,340 is spent every year on Jewish religious (Yeshiva) students. This is because both the education ministry and the religious affairs ministry support these students.

Infrastructure and other facilities available in Arab schools is markedly inferior to Jewish schools. For example, even though all schools are required to be air conditioned, many Arab schools are not.

Palestinian Arab history is not taught in schools. There is no mention of the 'Nakbah' suffered by the Arabs of Palestine, other than as part of the Israeli citizenship curriculum explained below in the section 'Oases of Hope'.

In Susan's opinion, the worst aspect of the system is that all teachers are vetted by the security services. Shin Bet has a large network of spies, even in schools. Since students know that their teachers have obtained security clearance, they don't respect them. I don't fully agree with Susan. Does she expect the Israeli government to hand out jobs to people who could be a security threat? However, keeping in mind the fact that almost all Arabs in Israel are bound to have grievances, I assume the teachers who obtain security clearance are bound to be totally spineless.

School books promote stereotypes. Susan went through a textbook which talks of little Gideon and little Avner wanting to be astronauts. There was only one instance of Arabs being mentioned. Young Mohammad and young Yousef are shown to be asking their uncle how to be good camel drivers.

Susan says there is no Arab University in Israel, but towards the end of the book, she makes a reference to Al-Quds University in East Jerusalem, a minor contradiction I guess. Israeli universities don't permit dissent. Arab students find it tough to get admission to universities. There are extra points for students who have done well in Hebrew, but none for doing well in Arabic. In 2003, there was a reform which was meant to make it easy for underprivileged students to gain admission to universities. The measures were intended for underprivileged Jewish children, but the main beneficiaries were the Arabs. The reforms were countermanded within a short time.

Susan tells us of Samiha, a very smart student who could not apply for medical school after she passed out since she was too young. The minimum age limit is set so that Jewish students who join medical school after their 3 year military service are not disadvantaged. So Samiha applied to law school where she was supposed to be a shoo-in. Samiha's application was rejected, for reasons unknown.

Arab Politics

Susan finds Arab Politics to be feudal. A family is usually dressed up as a political party. Susan thinks Israel is to blame for this state of affairs. In Israel, Arab politicians are considered hostile unless they join a Zionist party. Arab parties are excluded from coalitions. So Arab politicians stick to municipal elections.

I don't fully agree with Susan, though, a share of the blame should lie with Israel. I don't really understand why Arabs who form 20% of the population and have the right to vote shouldn't be a decisive force in Israeli elections.

Is it apartheid?

Susan makes a good case to say that Israel's treatment of its Arab minority is apartheid. The petty elements of apartheid are not present. Arabs can sit on the same benches as Jews. They can ride the same buses. However, the discrimination in core areas such as land, education etc. amount to an apartheid of sorts, according to Susan. I can see an element of truth in what Susan says.

The Israeli Left

Susan has nothing but contempt for the Israeli left-wing which reserves its sympathy for Palestinians in the occupied territories and don’t really care about Arabs within Israel. For example, Haaretz (www.haaretz.com), the left-wing Israeli newspaper, has much better reports on Palestinians from the occupied territories than on Arab Israelis. Israeli left wingers say they had no choice but to come from Europe, take a country not theirs and dispossess thousands of Palestinians. Any mention of equal rights for Arab Israelis is anathema to everyone in Israel. There is no concept that rights are basic and universal.

Susan has lengthy descriptions of how left-wing Israelis don't do enough for Israeli Arabs. There is an interesting description of an interview by Sara Leibovitch-Dar, a Haaretz journalist, which ultimately was not published in English. There are interesting quotes from left-wing Israeli's - “If we let the Arabs back, they will be everywhere.”

Susan's friend Daphna Golan, Law Lecturer at Hebrew University, runs an organisation called Btselem which fights human rights abuses in the occupied territories. Daphna wants a Palestinian state, but Susan would rather focus on rights of Arab Israelis

Comparisons with Germany

Ein Hod is a communal settlement of artists built over the remains of the Arab village of Ayn Hawd mentioned above. Samira, whose parents used to live in Ayn Hawd, went to Ein Hod to 'take a look.' She was practically chased away. Susan contrasts the treatment Samira received with that of Rabbi Rayner's experience in Germany. Rayner, an eminent liberal Rabbi from London went to Germany to take a look at the house where his folks used to live. He was graciously invited in and allowed to look around.

Hijab

Susan has an interesting opinion on the hijab, one of the most reviled garments in recent times. Susan says the hijab gives her dignity. She doesn't feel repressed. Instead, she feels free and proud to be a woman. When Susan used to live in Tel Aviv, she felt that skimpy clothing meant that when men spoke with her, they had a conversation with her body and not with her.

Armed Extremists on the loose – with army protection

Susan has a few horror stories of how armed settlers are carrying out a limited form of ethnic cleansing in Israel in order to rid it of its Arab population. She runs into a rifle carrying settler while in a hospital ward who boasts that he has just requisitioned a home in East Jerusalem. 'All of East Jerusalem belongs to the Jews,' he boasts. Later Susan finds a bunch of settlers trying to evict an Arab family from their East Jerusalem home. Having occupied a flat about the Arab family, the settlers work in relay teams in making life a living hell for the Arab family. The hallway is used as a toilet and there is constant noise. To top it all, the settlers have military protection.

The Israeli Army – a culture of hatred and some hope

'What’s the difference between an Israeli soldier who bulldozes a house with people inside and a terrorist?' Susan asks her readers rhetorically.

The Israeli army incubates a culture of hatred, according to Susan. Even nice, law abiding teenagers become machines of hatred once they are in the army. Even the well intentioned among the soldiers cannot make a difference. Susan gives the example of Bar, who joined the army in the hope of doing some good. Bar was on duty at a West Bank checkpoint which had been closed in retaliation for a suicide bombing a few days earlier. Schools had just reopened and a number of school children in their new uniforms and their parents had lined up to cross over. Tempers started to fly when they realised that they won't be allowed across. Soldiers scream at the children to stay away from the gate. The frightened children do stay away. Bar decides to be polite and she is shoved aside by the queuing Arabs.

Irit, Principal of the Waldorf school, tells Susan that she hasn't recovered though she left the army 12 years ago.

Yet, more and more soldiers are objecting to the army's treatment of the Arabs. Many soldiers feel shame. They don’t want to belong to Israel. They say ‘its not mine. I’ll go to India or live in Europe.’

Language Intolerance

Susan tells us of an Arab employee being sacked by McDonald’s for speaking in Arabic with a fellow employee. Apparently there was a company direction that forbid employees from speaking Arabic. Why is there such a prohibition? Because the sound of Arabic might scare customers!

When the Rule of Law leads to injustice

South Africa during the apartheid era was one of those rare instances where the rule of law resulted in gross injustice. Apartheid was sanctioned by law and every other injustice practised by the state had legal sanction. Something similar takes place in Israel. There are laws which are meant to benefit only Jews. But they wouldn't say that. The law will instead say that it applies only to those who are eligible under the law of return or to those who are mandatorily required to perform military service.

Israel does not have a written constitution, though it was promised in the declaration of independence. Susan has an interesting explanation for this. According to Susan, a written constitution would lay down basic rights and guarantees for all citizens, including Arabs, enforceable in a court of law. Israel is not very keen on this.

The commonly accepted definition of a Jew is one born of a Jewish mother. Under the Law of Return, any one with a Jewish grandparent is eligible to perform aliyah, the idea being to get as many Jews as possible into Israel. Susan contrasts the Law of Return with the demand by displaced Arabs for the Right to Return to their homes, a right they have been denied so far.

Under the Citizenship Law of 2003, Palestinian spouses of Israeli Arabs won't be given Israeli ID or citizenship. A harsh law, it has not prevented Arabs in Israeli from marrying Palestinians, though they can't live together after marriage.

The public sector is almost exclusively reserved for Jews. The Israeli Electricity Board has over 13,000 employees, of whom 6 are Arabs. Please remember that Arabs form 20% of Israel's population.

Water scarcity in the West Bank

The West Bank sits atop one of the most prolific aquifers in Palestine. However, it faces acute water shortages, since water from the West Bank is used to fill up Israeli swimming pools and sprinkle Israeli lawns.

A difficult life

Life is a lot more difficult for Israeli Arabs than for its Jews. Most service providers will not travel to Jewish towns or villages. Susan has interesting stories of how telephone companies won’t sent their repairmen to Tamra which is not listed on El Al's database.

At Ben Gurion airport, Arabs are searched more rigorously and are treated rudely. Susan's friend Dr. Manna’s son and his Jewish girl friend were forced to miss a flight because they were required to undergo additional security checks. A woman travelling to Germany for a cancer operation was asked to turn up early so that she could be subjected to extra security checks. Susan compares this to a black man in South Africa not being picked up by a whites-only ambulance and dying as a result of that. I don't agree with Susan on this. I think El Al is perfectly entitled to carry out additional security checks on any of its passengers. How can El Al ensure that a bomb is not attached to the wheel chair carrying the cancer patient if not by carrying out additional checks? Let's face it, there is a much higher chance of an Arab passenger turning out to be a hijacker than a Jewish one. However, there is no excuse for being rude to Arab passengers.

It is not surprising that Arabs in Israel tend to say “Ma la’assot” or “What to do?” quite often.

Oases of hope

Amidst all this, there are many signs of hope. Mahapach, an NGO in which Susan is involved, does a lot of work for disadvantaged communities, especially oriental Jews, the Mizrarahim.

Eitan Bronstein runs an organisation called Zochrot (meaning remember) which posts signs on places built over destroyed Arab villages.

Israeli schools teaches all senior students before matriculation and military service an Israeli citizenship curriculum. Both Arabs and Jews learn the same lessons, which examine Israeli history including the Nakbah.

Arun Gandhi and non-violence

Mahatma Gandhi's grandson finds a mention in Susan's narrative. Susan says (rightly in my opinion) that Arun Gandhi fails to understand the depth of Palestinian anger when he advocates non-violent resistance to Israeli occupation. Susan attended a lecture by Arun Gandhi where he apparently talked of his childhood in South Africa with his Grandfather. Though Arun Gandhi was born in South Africa in 1934, I don't think he lived in South Africa at the same time as Mahatma Gandhi since Gandhi returned to India in 1915. As far as I know, Arun Gandhi lived with the Mahatma for two years only (1946-1948) in India. I assume Susan misheard what Arun Gandhi said.

Conclusion

I still believe that the UN resolution which created Israel was fair and just. I also think the Israel is entitled to permit Jewish immigration into Israel, since Israel is meant to be a haven for Jews. However, the UN resolution did not give the Israelis a mandate to carry out ethnic cleansing of Arabs from Israel. Israel was meant to be predominantly Jewish and not exclusively Jewish. This selective amnesia, in my opinion, has been the root cause for the state sponsored discrimination against Arabs. I believe that Israel should allow all displaced Arabs to return to their homes from refugees camps in Israel and from outside.

Towards the end of the book, Susan examines the two state theory and wonders if it is the best option available for Israel. An alternative would be for a single state incorporating Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Susan approvingly quotes Dr. Saed Zidan, Prof. at Al-Quds University, East Jerusalem who feels that Israel could become a confederation of an Arab state and a Jewish state. Everyone will stay where they are, but enjoy equal rights.

Palestine is a rough place where dialogue does not always work. I can imagine Jews saying that if they had lost the 1948 war or the 1967 war, the Arabs would have thrown them into the sea. In any event, they would have been treated worse than how Arabs are currently being treated in Israel. But arguments such as these will not offer a solution to the Palestinian problem. Just as the USA made peace with native Americans by conceding that they had been wronged and compensated them with money and land, Israel must make good the losses suffered by its Arab population and make peace with them.

I don't think a single state incorporating Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is practical. There is too much hatred between Jews and the Arabs for that to work. In my opinion, even a confederation will not work since it would require Arabs and Jews to have a common foreign policy and a single army. I just don't see the Israeli army with Arabs and Jews working together. The two-state solution set out in the UN resolution is in my opinion, the only solution in this troubled land. To make it work, Israel must first rein in its right wing Haredim and settlers. Once all Jews in Israel accept that they are not entitled to the whole of Palestine and that Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Jews, Israel will be in a position to offer a meaningful solution to the Arabs.

Conversions, Sham Marriages and Organ Donations

Vinod Joseph — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:00:53 EDT

I'm not sure which of the three is more distasteful. Is selling a kidney or other organ for money more disgusting (or sad) than contracting a sham marriage for financial gain? Is switching one's faith for money sadder than receiving money to marry someone whose only aim is to migrate to the UK or the USA?

Personally speaking, I would put organ donations for money on top of this list. It must be really painful to be in a position where one is forced to donate an organ, maybe a kidney, to earn some money. Mind you, in India the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 makes it illegal to donate an organ for money. This law is observed more in breach. Desperate men and women continue to donate their organs for money. As long as there are willing buyers and eager buyers, this trade will go on. Rather than try and prevent it, it would make sense for the authorities to merely make sure donors are not cheated when they donate an organ.

People get married for reasons that vary from love to a need to please one's parents to getting money or property. Some get married because it is the done thing. In most cases, it is a combination of some of these reasons. I assume more than a few marriages are entered into solely for monetary reasons. Therefore, it should be no surprise to know that there are many people, nationals of countries like the UK and USA which are high up on the migrants wish list, willing to enter into contracts of marriage with wannabe migrants solely for money. Detecting sham marriages is taken seriously in these countries. Last year, the UK even tried to make a law which required foreigners living in the UK (other than permanent residents) to seek special permission to marry, irrespective of the status of their partner. The House of Lords struck down this law, but migration authorities continue to have the right to delve into a marriage to see if it is a 'sham.'

In my opinion, as long as a person is legally entitled to marry, no one should have the right to question his or her reasons for getting married. Why is it acceptable to get married for a fat dowry in India or a farmhouse in Surrey, and unacceptable to marry with a view to facilitating a migrant's entry into one's home country? As long as both parties are legally entitled to marry, that is, they are of sound mind and not already married, it should be none of anyone's business.

People change their religion for various reasons. In my opinion, the most common reason in modern times is – love. I've known so many instances of people switching faith in order to get married. This usually happens when one party in a marriage comes from a very religious background and his or her family will be terribly unhappy if he or she marries someone from a different religion or sect. And so, the other party, when faced with the prospect of losing the love of one's life, agrees to switch faith. Despite so much controversy in India over conversions, no one has seriously challenged the right to convert for love.

Then there are conversions for social advancement. By social advancement, I don't just mean escaping the caste system. Unlike the British, the Portuguese and the Spanish considered conversion to be one of the goals of colonisation. Therefore, during the Portuguese rule in Goa, many conversions were achieved by force. But not all conversions were forced. There were many who wanted to be be on the side of the ruling class, with the expectation of various benefits. Something very similar must have happened during Arab/Mughal rule in India. Some of those who converted may have been forced. Many others must have converted for social advancement and other benefits.

In recent times, practically every religious community in India has indulged in conversions. Various Hindu sants have converted tribals and dalits to mainstream Hinduism and reconverted those Hindus who had converted to Christianity. Christian priests have continued their noble task of spreading the Word and Muslim preachers have not been far behind. Interestingly, the growing economic clout of the overseas Indian/Hindu community has meant that Hindu missionary activities outside India have gained momentum. One only has to walk past Oxford Circus in London to see a number of 'white' Hare Krishna devotees singing and dancing and preaching. The Hare Krishnas and various Hindu temples in the UK such as the Sri Mahalakshmi temple in East London, serve free food to the hungry and run schools. I believe this practice is followed in the USA, Canada, Australia etc. In the West, no one questions the right of the Hare Krishnas or other Hindu organisations to conduct these activities which are not much different from the activities of Christian missionary and Muslim organisations in India. Like Christian missionaries in India, Hare Krishnas face flak in some intolerant parts of the world such as Kazakhstan. When a local authority in Kazakhstan destroyed part of the Hare Krishna settlement outside Almaty, there was a global outcry, including from the West.

Usually the ones who are willing to convert for benefits are not particularly religious. Having converted to a new faith, they do display the outward signs of that religion and bring up their children in the new faith. Usually the new faith sticks, though it may take a generation or two to do so.

I don't think religious conversions can be or should be banned. The Indian Constitution gives every Indian the freedom to practice any faith of his or her choice. This obviously includes the freedom to convert to any religion for any reason whatsoever. It could be for the purpose of getting married to someone, it may be to gain nirvana or salvation, it may be to get a job or to escape the caste system. But it should be none of anybody else's business.

A Uniform Civil Code For India - Will It Happen In Our Lifetime?

Vinod Joseph — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 09:20:10 EDT

Yesterday (22 October 2008), a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court observed that India urgently needs a law (yet another!) to set up bodies at Central and regional levels to regulate, control and supervise Muslim marriages and divorces. Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Harun-Ul-Rashid were passing their verdict in a matrimonial case involving a Muslim couple. On the face of it, this observation by the learned judges appears sensible and progressive, but I was actually disappointed by it.

India is a secular country where every community is allowed its own personal laws. Christians have the Indian Christian Marriage Act of 1872 and the Indian Divorce Act 1869, Hindus have the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1976 and so on. Muslim personal law, based on the Sharia, is not codified. Since Muslims are governed by the Sharia, an Indian male Muslim is entitled to have four wives at any time. It is interesting to note that after independence, Pakistan modernised its personal law and made it quite difficult for a man to marry a second time. A written approval from a government appointed arbitration council must be obtained before a man can take on a second wife. Tunisia and Turkey have actually abolished polygamy.

The Indian Muslim male's right to marry more than once is misused not only by Muslims, but also by men from other communities. I remember the case of a non-Muslim chap accused of bigamy managing to prove that he had converted to Islam prior to his second marriage. It is not unheard of for men who want to marry for a second time to convert to Islam.

Article 44 of the Indian constitution says that "the State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India." The Indian State has made very few 'endeavours' in this regard. Neither the 'secular' Congress Party nor the right-wing BJP has had the guts to introduce a uniform civil code which will apply to all Indian nationals irrespective of religion. The Supreme Court has on various occasions reminded the Indian government of its failure to implement a uniform civil code.

What am I to make of the Kerala High Court ruling that doesn't call on the government to implement a uniform civil code, but instead asks for central and regional bodies to "regulate, control and supervise Muslim marriages and divorces"? Do the honourable judges who passed this verdict believe that a uniform code will not materialize in the near future? What sort of regulation will these bodies carry out? Will it be made mandatory to register each Islamic marriage and divorce with these bodies? Have 4 wives at any given time, but do register each wedding? If the government is to interfere in personal laws (and interfere it must), why go in for such a half-hearted measure? Any interference will be met with opposition from the fundamentalists and so, why not take the bull by its horns and do a thorough job?

I believe that most Indian Muslims would welcome a uniform civil code since Islamic personal law is one of the so-called 'perks' allowed to this community, which isn't actually a perk at all. It is not as if the Koran calls on every Muslim male to mandatorily have four wives! However, we are yet to hear a popular demand from within the Indian Muslim community for a uniform code. I am not sure when such a demand will arise, but rather than wait for a moderate messiah to arrive, the government should put this code in place and worry about the consequences later.

A Moratorium on Conversions: Who Decides?

Madhu Chandra — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:40:27 EDT

In the first wave of attacks on Christians in modern India during the late 1990s, a Christian leader flinched under the pressure of Hindu extremists and called for a five year moratorium on conversions. Extremist Hindu forces have repeatedly said Christians are engaged in forced and fraudulent conversions and this is the chief reason for 'spontaneous' violence against Christians. The Christian leader apparently succumbed to the incessant propaganda campaign.

During the rule of the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) government, the emboldened RSS maneuvered to bring various Christian denominations and associations into a dialogue that would result in a public agreement to end conversions among the downtrodden castes of India. Major Christian organisations were forced to come to the table due to political pressure and veiled threats. After every meeting with the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh), the spokesperson of the RSS informed the media that the Christians had agreed to their agenda of stopping conversions in modern India.

In the midst of this theatre of the absurd, the All India Christian Council (AICC) was one of the main groups that refused to dialogue with the RSS. This aligned with the position of major civil society leaders and human rights movements in India. This decision was also taken in conjunction with Dalit-Bahujan leaders. The AICC differentiated between a genuine dialogue with non-Christian religious leaders and the sham of 'discussions' with Sangh Parivar outfits who have already decided, before the meeting begins, what they want the outcome to be. The AICC supports a genuine dialogue with other faiths out of our respect for our neighbours - Jesus said we must love our neighbour as ourselves - and in order to maintain civil law, decency, and peace.

Currently, the issue of a moratorium on conversions has emerged in the media in fulfillment of the propaganda of the Sangh Parivar. If the Hindu nationalist parties come to power in New Delhi, I suspect Christian organisations will be forced to come to the table again. Once again the AICC will refuse any dialogue on the issue.

Why? The answer is found in a deeper question.

Who ultimately decides the issue of conversion?

According to the India's Constitution the freedom of religion is given to every individual Indian citizen. He or she has the freedom to believe and practice the faith he or she chooses. The freedom of speech enshrined in the Constitution gives every Indian citizen the right to propagate his faith as long as civil norms and decency are maintained.

In the context of the caste revolt in modern India, a revolution which began with Mahatma Phule, Ambedkar, and Periyar, there is another logical reason. If our country does not give the Dalits, tribals and the OBCs (Other Backward Castes) the right to choose their faith, we have effectively imposed permanent slavery of the caste system on them. It was Ambedkar who said that 'I was born a Hindu but I will not die a Hindu'. In 1956 he fulfilled that promise with hundreds of thousands of followers. Since then, rightly or wrongly, the liberation of the oppressed castes is fatefully tied with the choice to convert out of the religion that imposes the caste system on them.

The Indian State tried to deal with caste discrimination by banning the practice of 'untouchability' in the Constitution. With affirmative action provisions through reservation programs, the State tried to lift up the low castes of our society.

In contrast, the Hindu fundamentalist groups led by the RSS only revived and enforced casteist religious practices that demean both the Dalits and also women. These extreme groups have done nothing to enforce the banning of the caste system within their religious systems. It was the Vice-President of the VHP who said the life of a cow is more valuable than the life of a Dalit. This was immediately after five Dalit young men were lynched to death in Jhajjar, Haryana, for skinning a dead cow.

Hindutva groups tried to revive the practice of Sati and have distributed books which contain the Law of Manu which codified the caste system in ancient India.

So who decides on a moratorium on conversions? The RSS? The media ? Those who come to the table and dialogue on this issue? Or the oppressed Dalit and low caste person in India? Dare we take away this final and most basic of human rights from the most dehumanized group of people in human civilization?

Those of us in the AICC movement - we are a coalition of many Christian groups from mainline to Pentecostal - refuse to strip this right from the Dalits or any oppressed group. And we acknowledge there are two sides to the coin. Thus, we refuse to take away this right even from those who are Christians but may choose another faith. Simply said, we believe that, without the freedom of conscience, all other freedoms become meaningless.

We unconditionally condemn all forced and fraudulent conversions and we consider the terms themselves as oxymoron. We condemn proselytizing or any effort to denigrate another faith.

The targeting of Dalits who turned to Christianity in Orissa is now out in the open. This is blatant violence against Dalits who exercised their freedom of conscience. The Dalits are not stupid in matters of conscience. Their leader Dr. Ambedkar has shown them the way. They neither need the State nor upper caste religious leaders to tell them how to make their choices.

The AICC is determined to protect and serve the Dalits. We have stated long ago that we will love and serve them unconditionally with Christ's love whether they are Christians or not.

The Dalit Christian ethnic cleansing of Orissa must be contested by every means possible under the Indian Constitution and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The freedom of religion must be supported in every corner of our beloved country.

Author - Dr. Joseph D'Souza. Dr. Joseph D'Souza is President of the All India Christian Council. Dr. D'Souza lives in India and operates out of London and Denver.

The Muslim World - A 'Neutral' View

Chandra — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 08:57:35 EDT

Recently, I had the opportunity to attend an industry event and the good fortune to attend a presentation on Muslim attitudes across the world. The difference in this presentation is that the authors are Indians based in Dubai and not some western researcher based in New York. Here, I am pleased to share with you some of the findings of this research

The research was designed to segment the market in such a way that marketers can subsequently target each of these segments with customised products. An example would be 'Islamic banking'. A 'conservative' Muslim would be an excellent target for this concept. Therefore one must note that the authors designed this research not to understand the political machinations of the Muslim world but to help marketers identify opportunities in the Muslim world. The two main objectives of the research were a. Understand values that resonate across the Muslim world, and b. Understand differences in value systems that could impact the choices made by consumers The following countries were covered - Algeria, Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia. About 7000 citizens were interviewed in these countries, a sample size large enough to draw meaningful interpretations about each of these countries. Summary of findings: :

a. While Family was paramount across the region, marital insecurity amongst women was high in some regions (MENA)

b. There was an over-riding desire for traditions to adapt to changing times

c. There was almost universal emphasis on the Importance of education amongst both men and women

d. A large proportion of people felt that Individual opinions should be respected

e. A large proportion aspired to be a part of a social forum wherein they can voice their views and concerns

In other words, most of what Muslim world customers want is not significantly different from what the average household in New York, Tel Aviv or New Delhi wants.

Apart from these basic findings, the researchers attempted to segment these individuals on the basis of their beliefs and attitudes. The five segments they identified are

a. Religious Conservatives: These are extremely religious individuals, and also extremely conservative. They do not approve of gender interaction. They also expect others to follow religious practices. They are anti-media and information averse. They would override their personal choices for religious beliefs

b. Societal Conformists: These are individuals who believe that social norms should be adhered to, even if it means overriding personal choice. They do not approve of a reason based approach. They lack self confidence and depend on others to make decisions. At the same time they are not particularly religious themselves.

c. Pragmatic strivers: These individuals are non-traditional & ambitious. They are open minded, and are willing to compromise on religious values in order to get ahead in life. They are also economically the least affluent group.

d. Liberals: These people are very liberal, independent and assertive. They are not very particular about traditions & religious practices. They like to explore different options even if those do not conform to accepted religious/ societal norms.

e. New Age Muslims: These are religious individuals, yet they do not expect others to follow religious practices. They believe in societal progression and support female empowerment and gender equality. They are pro-media and realize the potential advantages of internet.

I need to warn you in advance that segmenting people has often been a challenge and it is highly likely that many of us may end up being a member of more than one group. The idea is to associate an individual to a group closest to his/her beliefs and attitudes.

Now, the question is whether a country segmented on the basis of these segments matched with the perception amongst outsiders about them? The answer is yes and no. A few snippetsa. Which country has the highest proportion of religious conservatives in their population?

Ans: Egypt, closely followed by Jordanb. Which country has the highest proportion of liberals in their population?

Ans: Turkey, followed by Pakistanc. Isn't Saudi Arabia a very conservative country?

Ans: Yes and No. Only 15% of the population have been identified as 'conservative' as opposed to nearly 50% in the case of Egypt and Jordan. However if you include 'societal conformists', this figure would increase to close t 40%d. What about Pakistan?

Ans: Again, only 10-15% of the population can be classified as 'conservative'. Add 'social conformists' and this comes to only 30%. e. Which country has the largest proportion of 'New age Muslims’?

Ans: UAE followed by Pakistan and Saudi Arabiaf. Which country has the largest proportion of 'Pragmatic strivers'?

Ans: Indonesia, followed by Malaysiag. What about Iran?

Ans: A very small proportion of the population can be classified as 'conservative'. 2/3rds of the population are 'new age', liberal' or 'pragmatic'Some of the findings of this research surprised many who thought they knew everything about the Muslim world. I thought it was an excellent research paper which attempted to provide a more practical understanding of Muslims across the Muslim world. While one can disagree with the size of the segments, the clear underlying conclusion is that Muslims are far more like us than the terrorists that many people associate them with. It is a pity that 30% of world's Muslims were not covered in the research (India and Bangladesh) but I suspect our Muslims would be more like Turkey rather than Pakistan. Hopefully our friends in the right understand this and figure out ways to reach out to our Muslim brothers. The current factionalism is ruining the nation.

Source: AMRB JWT research. This will be available shortly via syndication