A report by Organizers of the biased Conference is available here. Please read the biased discussion and do not forget to provide your comments.
CONTENTS:
1) Summary
2) MIT Workshop Details
a) Work shop on Group Violence, Terrorism, and Impunity–Challenges to Secularism and Rule of Law in India.
b) Speakers and Abstracts.
c) Speakers and Schedule.
3) Online Petition against the MIT Conference.
4) Moorthy Muthuswamy on Omar Khalidi and MIT Conference to media in US and India (Author of book Defeating Political Islam that received favorable review from Washington Times)
5) Response from Concerned NRIs
6) LETTER TO MIT BOARD AGAINST THE CONFERENCE.
7) Human Rights Activist and Scholar Kalyanraman writes to MIT Board.
8 ) Letter to MIT protesting invitation to Mukul Sinha (speaker at the Conference)
9) Second Letter to MIT Protesting invitation to Mukul Sinha (speaker at the Conference)
10) SAMPLE OF OMAR KHALIDI THOUGHT PROCESS.
11) Omar Khalidi troublesome record
12) Article in mainstream media from India (which shows the gross biased nature of the agenda of this conference)13) SOME CONTACTS OF MIT BOARD MEMBERS AND ORGANIZERS.
Summary
The conference is this weekend at MIT is Organized by Omar Khalidi who is staff at MIT. Information about Omar Khalidi can be found in the book ‘Defeating Political Islam’ by Moorthy Muthuswamy that received good reviews from Washington Review. ( In that book the author wrote about 2 pages on Omar Khalidi). The conference is selective in its speakers and topics to paint a given picture.
Mr. Omar Khalidi advocates different laws for Muslims such as Polygamy etc, different constituencies for Muslims to elect Muslim lawmakers, would have issues with Christian nature of USA and is known even by Muslims as someone who selects his data to paint a picture that suits Islamic agenda. Some people are of opinion he is what you call ‘soft’ jihadi.
In addition, one of the speakers Mr. Mukul Sinha has apparently written with a welcoming tone on terror attack on World Trade Center. Other speaker Anjana Chatterjee said sending money to help families of firefighters at World Trade Center attack was anti-Muslim.
Such speakers may not be Jihadi’s but they are “Jihadi enablers” by espousing the causes of Jihadis through selective use of data, lies and deception that provides fodder for jihadi recruitment and their acts. Today there are talking about countries outside USA (in this case India), but when the forces are stronger, they will turn against US from within.
The conference is shown live at: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/indiaworkshopmit.
MIT Workshop Details
Date: Sunday, March 14, 2010, 4:30 P
In recent decades, group violence, especially communal violence, has become a recurrent theme in the lives of Indians in many parts of the country. Starting with the Nellie, Assam massacre of Muslims in 1983, anti-Sikh massacres in 1984, communal violence has continued to challenge India’s secular credentials in the Ayodhya riots (1992), Bomday bomb blasts (1993), Gujarat pogrom (2002), and the Orissa riots (2008). There is a rising phenomenon of terrorism, as seen in the Mumbai terror attacks (2008), which lead to societal and State responses that centrally challenge secularism and rule of law. There is a dire need to study these forms of violence and the impunity enjoyed by its perpetrators. This workshop thus aims to fulfill a timely need to examine the roots and processes of such violence. The workshop begins with the premise that rather than being endemic to the region, group violence needs to be contextualized and is always historically contingent. Violence, whether perpetrated by terrorists or civil society or states, is a process rather than a discrete product of random “mob” activity. India has had a history of violence based on religious and cultural differences since the colonial period culminating in the Partition violence of 1947. The workshop seeks to explore how and why such violence continues, or is different in the postcolonial period. Among the ideological reasons for violence are differing ideas of India, of who, what groups or communities belong to it and who are the others/outsiders even if they meet the criteria of legal definition of citizenship. Similar is the case with variant definitions of secularism and its implementation by the postcolonial state. This workshop seeks to critically engage with the relationship between group violence and the rule of law. In doing so, it seeks to put to test the many definitions of ‘secularism’ and examine the role of the Indian state in perpetuating group violence. This workshop is organized by Dr. Omar Khalidi, Prof. Balakrishnan Rajagopal, and Prof. Haimanti Roy. Prof. Paul Brass, University of Washington, will give the keynote address. Besides the keynote speaker and the organizers, participants include Prof. Angana Chatterji, California Institute of Integral Studies; Prof. Parvis Ghassem-Fachandi, Rutgers University; Meenakshi Ganguly , Human Rights Watch; Prof. Chinnaiah Jangam, Wagner College, New York; Dr. Ratna Kapoor, CFLR New Delhi; Shafiq R. Mahajir, Attorney, Hyderabad; Manoj Mitta, Senior Editor, The Times of India, New Delhi; R.K. Raghavan, IPS, retd. and former Director of Central Bureau of Investigation; Prof. Srirupa Roy, University of Massachusetts- Amherst; Prof. Bish Sanyal, MIT; Prof. Ornit Shani, University of Haifa, Israel; Attorney Mukul Sinha and Nirjhari Sinha, Jan Sangharsh Manch, Ahmedabad; and Prof. Arvind Verma, Indiana University. http://web.mit. edu/phrj/ index.html Speakers and AbstractsWorkshop Organizers & Presenters Balakrishnan Rajagopal, Ford International Associate Prof. of Law and Development, MIT Haimanti Roy, Assistant Professor of History, MIT Dr. Omar Khalidi, MIT Omar Khalidi is a staff member (not a faculty member) at MIT (Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture). Key Note Address Presenters & Discussants Prof. Angana Chatterji, California Institute of Integral Studies Meenakshi Ganguly, (Human Rights Watch) Prof. Parviz Ghassem-Fachandi, Rutgers University Prof. Chinnaiah Jangam, Wagner College, New York Dr. Ratna Kapoor, CFLR New Delhi Attorney Shafeeq R. Mahajir, Hyderabad Manoj Mitta, Sub-Editor, The Times of India, New Delhi R.K. Raghavan, IPS, retd; former Director of Central Bureau of Investigation Attorney Mukul Sinha, Jan Sangharsh Manch, Ahmedabad, Gujarat Dr. Nirjhari Sinha, Associate Jan Sangharsh Manch, Ahmedabad, Gujarat Prof. Srirupa Roy, University of Massachusetts-Amherst Arvind Verma, Associate Professor, Dept of Criminal Justice, Indiana University Speakers and ScheduleFriday, April 9, 2010 Bartos Theater MIT Building E15-070 For Directions, click here: http://whereis.mit.edu/?go=E15 Introductory Day 3:00-3:05PM Welcoming Remarks: Omar Khalidi, MIT 3:05-3:10PM Introduction of the workshop: Balakrishnan Rajagopal, MIT 3:10-3:15PM Introduction of the keynote speaker: Bish Sanyal, MIT 3:15-4:00PM Keynote Address: “Forms of Collective and State Violence in South Asia,” 4:00-4:30PM Discussion, Q and A Saturday, April 10, 2010 Room MIT Building 10 Room 105 For directions, click here: http://whereis.mit.edu/?go=10/ Session 1: Secularism and the State: Changing Contours Chair & Discussant: Ornit Shani, University of Haifa 9:00-9:15AM “Secular Subjects: Refugees, Minorities and the Citizenship Act of 1955,” 9:15-9:30AM “Normalizing Violence in and Through the Legal Discourse of Secularism,” 9:30-9:45AM “Neo-Liberal Secularism,” Srirupa Roy, UMass-Amherst 9:45-10:15AM Discussion, Q&A 10:15-10:30AM Coffee break Session 2: State Performance during Group Violence: Case Studies 10:30-10:45AM “Caste & Violence: A Study of Atrocities on Dalits,” Chinnaiah Jangam, 10:45-11:00AM “Kandhamal, Orissa, 2008: Hindu Majoritarian State and its “Others,” 11:00-11:15AM “Ahimsa, Identification, and Sacrifice in the Gujarat Pogrom, 2002,” 11:15-11:30AM “State Failure and Governance: A Rethinking,” B. Rajagopal, MIT 11:30-12:00AM Discussion, Q & A Session 3: Countering Violence: Assessing Police Performance Chair and Discussant: R.K. Raghavan 12:00-12:15AM “Dynamics of Security Sector Performance,” Omar Khalidi, MIT 12:15-12:30PM “Police Performance: An Insider’s Experiences,” “Assessing the Role of Police in Containing Mob Violence,” Arvind Verma, Indiana University 12:30-12:45PM Discussion, Q & A 12:45-2:00PM Lunch break Session 4: Bringing Violence Perpetrators to Justice: Experience and Prospects Chair and Discussant: Balakrishnan Rajagopal, MIT 2:00-2:15PM Delhi: Manoj Mitta, Sub-Editor, The Times of India 2:15- 2:30PM Gujarat: Mukul Sinha, Attorney, and Nirjhari Sinha, Ahmadabad 2:30-2:45PM Andhra: Shafeeq Mahajir, Attorney, Hyderabad 2:45-3:15PM Discussion, Q & A Session 5: Terrorism and the challenge to secularism and rule of law Chair and Discussant: TBD 3:20-3:35PM ”Terrorism and the challenge of advocacy for Human Rights” 3:50-4:05PM Terrorism and the role of the Media: TBD 4:05-4:35PM Discussion, Q&A 4:35-4:45PM Concluding Remarks: Omar Khalidi, MIT |
Online Petition against the MIT Conference
(Note: read, in red, the points about jihadi nature of some speakers)
http://symposiumindia.com/the-latest/petitions
On behalf of the Indian American community
in particular and proactive US Citizens in general, across the world, we appeal as below:
To acknowledge our strong protest against the decision of MIT’s Centre of International Studies and the Program on Human Rights and Justice (PHRJ) to invite certain speakers who support anti-Americanism and violence, whose credentials are questionable credentials and whose presence in fact may work against the stated purpose of the event.
We are appalled that the PHRJ, being a part of MIT have not even conducted basic background checks and due diligence which is expected of a reputable institution such as MIT before sanctioning this blunder on its premises.
Speakers like Mr. Mukul Sinha and his wife Mrs. Nirjhari Sinha who are open supporters of radical extremist Muslims as distinct from moderate Muslims and who may also be linked to communist propagandist groups in India. Mr. Sinha has written apparently with a welcoming tone about the terror attack on the World Trade Center: “… the Soviet Union alone stood in the path of the Western Capitalist mode of production and the “free market” having a different ideal… Globalization bulldozed all that under the hypocritical slogan of freedom and democracy… The resistance however came from the Islamic militants [emphasis ours] who on February 26, 1993, tried to destroy the World Trade Center,..“War against terrorism” thereafter became a convenient slogan to hit at all those who opposed capitalist globalization..”
Failure to do this basic due diligence and/or to balance opinions and allow extremist views to run rampant
has taken a toll in the last decade – not just in India, but in the US also.
Another speaker Angana Chatterjee, who is associated with radical communists, such as the Forum for Inquilabi (revolutionary) Leftists (FOIL) and supporter of Maoist terror groups in India has publicly stated that sending money to help families of firefighters who died in the World Trade Center attack was anti-Muslim. She is also one of the promoters of the view that 911 attacks were an “inside job,” engineered by the Bush Administration.
The halls of academic excellence cannot be used in the guise of free speech or academic exploration to perpetrate the very agents who are responsible for evil.Building a society free from communal hatred it is necessary that yardsticks for evaluating the positive or negative conduct of people has to be the same irrespective of which religion they belong to.
Angana Chatterjee says sending money to help families of firefighters who died in the World Trade Center attack was anti-Muslim.
We request your kind attention to the fact that while many court cases related to violence, riots and discrimination in India are pending, the agenda of this event may adversely interfere with the legal proceedings underway. Instead of helping to resolve the issues of violence in the Indian subcontinent, we believe that this event may potentially add to the confusion, division, strife and perhaps may cause more violence which would be counter-productive to the said purpose of the event. And finally, it is needless to say that this event may significantly tarnish the image of MIT worldwide, and especially among the one billion Indians.
In keeping with the great reputation of MIT and its affiliate institutions organizations we earnestly request you to deny permission for the event.
Thank You
Sincerely yours
The petitioners
Moorthy Muthuswamy on Omar Khalidi and MIT Conference to media in US and India (Author of book Defeating Political Islam that received favorable review from Washington Review)
———————————–
Omar Khalidi – the man driving India’s policy toward its Muslim minorities
By Moorthy Muthuswamy PhD
Omar Khalidi is the lead organizer of the much-anticipated India workshop (
http://indiaworkshopmit.com/) to be held at MIT on April 9-10, 2010. The workshop is titled “Group Violence, Terrorism, and Impunity — Challenges to Secularism and Rule of Law in India.”
In my recent book Defeating Political Islam: The New Cold War (Prometheus Books, 2009) I have analyzed Dr. Khalidi’s writings on Indian Muslims. My book gives an unprecedented look at jihad in India. It was favorably reviewed in the Washington Times. My website: http://www.moorthymuthuswamy.com.
Omar Khalidi has the job title of Reference Librarian at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), USA. He grew up in India, and was brought up in a Muslim family. Omar Khalidi obtained his doctorate in 1994 from the University of Wales in Islamic studies. He has published a number of books on Indian Muslims through Indian publishing houses.
In my view, the thrust of Omar Khalidi’s writings appear to advance the jihadist agenda in India without addressing the root cause of Muslim radicalism and backwardness. The forthcoming workshop too, I am afraid, is suggestive of promoting this nefarious agenda.
Dr. Khalidi’s sectarian history, contentious scholarship and his prominent role ought to handicap how the MIT workshop will be received.
In my book I point out the following about Dr. Khalidi: “[H]is one-sided portrayal and selective use of data to favor his [Indian] Muslim community at the expense of others is notable for a scholar.”
Even prominent Indian Muslims have reservations on Dr. Khalidi’s scholarship. In critiquing Dr. Khalidi’s essay titled “Why India is NOT a Secular Country,” Mohib Ahmad finds that “[Dr. Khalidi]He selectively pick and choose dots to create an ugly picture and then present it as the reality.”
Colonel Anil Athale, a distinguished retired officer of Indian armed forces who heads a Pune-based Think Tank says that “seeing [Dr. Khalidi’s]his intention, I and my colleagues refused any cooperation. But he obviously has won over Sachar [Committee -- established at the behest of Ahmed Patel, Political Secretary to Sonia Gandhi, to provide reservation and other preferences for Indian Muslims] and [Congress] party. We ought to smell a rat when the Sachar Committee approvingly quotes from Khalidi’s book and makes it as the basis for its ‘work.’
From pages 109 through 111 of my book, I have discussed Dr. Khalidi’s work in detail:
In his writings, [Khalidi]he has consistently portrayed Indian Muslims as being victimized, attacked, and discriminated, while saying little or nothing about the ongoing jihad in South Asia — which includes massive non-Muslim ethnic cleansing conducted with the active support of Muslims. Khalidi clearly understands the need to reach out to non-Muslim Indians and to create a feeling of guilt about the dismal state of Indian Muslims in order to extract unfair concessions that would eventually doom these non-Muslims.
Khalidi is a proponent of reconfiguring districts in many Indian states to create “compact Muslim zones” where Muslim culture and rights could be “safeguarded.” It doesn’t matter to him, as some have pointed out, that India has more than safeguarded Muslim interests at a constitutional level, even at the expense of social cohesiveness and national security. Looking at this suggestion from a jihadist angle is revealing: Khalidi is devising new ways by which Muslims can achieve political power within certain areas in a secular and democratic India. This is a clever ploy. As pointed out earlier, in every Muslim-majority area of South Asia, including ones within India, non-Muslims have been marginalized and ethnically cleansed in a massive way. Also, once Muslims in these regions achieve power, the regions have become jihad bases for further destabilizing India.
Khalidi published a book in 2005 titled Muslims in Indian Economy. This book discusses the shortcomings of Muslims in India — the lack of proportional representation in government, private jobs, law enforcement agencies, the armed forces, and education, as well as the prevalence of poverty and illiteracy. The blame was squarely placed on the majority Hindu community and the government. An objective analysis would have concluded otherwise: most Indian Muslim problems, including the ones under discussion, are self-inflicted. Besides, most Indian Muslims appear to be under the spell of extremists. Since India is currently being targeted by neighboring Islamic nations for conquest, and as these nations are finding ready recruits among Indian Muslims, no sane government could afford the luxury of proportional representation of Muslims in law enforcement and in the armed forces.
The ruling [Manmohan Singh-led] regime established a committee headed by retired justice Rajinder Sachar to produce a report largely based upon Khalidi’s work. Not surprisingly, the Sachar Committee, stocked with Muslims and led by Rajinder Sachar, who has supported the ceding of Muslim-majority Kashmir from India through “self-determination,” called for a sweeping and far-reaching system of giveaways allotted to Muslims, from preferred student admissions in Indian elite schools to job allotments. The committee called for allotting an increased number of loans to Muslims and for evaluating the contents of schools texts, presumably to ensure that Muslims and Islam are portrayed in the best manner possible and to make the unbelievers least prepared to counter jihad. On one of the most important national interest issues, that of Kashmir, Sachar’s views are similar to that of Pakistan’s and many other Indian Islamists. That the ruling Singh regime would convene a commission consisting of individuals who may neither have national interests at heart nor are likely to have neutral (and therefore, objective) outlook toward Muslims should be noted.
Response from Concerned NRIs
Can we have a Conference on Terrorism in US without 9/11? A perspective of MIT Conference organized by Omar Khalidi
A conference on Group Violence, Terrorism and Impunity – Challenges to Secularism and Rule of Law in India is being Organized at MIT on April 9th, 2010. Such a debate addressing the ongoing turmoil in Indian Subcontinent from Terrorism and Naxal Violence is welcoming. However, a close look at the Conference Organizer Omar Khalidi and the agenda of the Conference paints a different picture. Its exclusive selection of topics and its speakers show that the outcome of this conference is preordained.
The truth about the agenda of this conference is reflected by the fact that it does not even mention the long lasting struggle of Kashmiris who were driven away by Islamic terrorists from their homes and are living in squalid camps as refugees in their own country for last 18 years. Here is what Fact India Exhibition that was shown to US Congressmen in 2006 when the congress passed resolution on Kashmir (HR 344) said about the conditions of the camp:
“A 1997 Study based on inquiries at various migrant camps in Jammu and Delhi revealed that there had been only 16 births compared to 49 deaths in about 300 families between 1990 and 1995, a period during which terrorist violence in J&K was at peak. The deaths were most of people in the age group of 20 to 45. Causes for low birth rates were primarily identified as premature menopause in women, hypo-function of the reproductive system and lack of adequate accommodation and privacy. Doctors treating various Kashmiri Hindu patients assert that they had aged physically and mentally by 10 to 15 years beyond their natural age, and that there was a risk that the Hindus could face extinction if current trends persist. On the conditions at the camps, one report stated that, at the Muthi camp on the outskirts of Jammu where a large number of the Pandits stayed after migration from the Valley, a single room was being shared by three generations . In certain cases at other places, six families lived in a hall separated by partitions of blankets or bed sheet”.
As recent rediff article (dated Mar 26, 2010) by Vivek Gumaste points out, “When we can raise your voice for 2000 Muslims killed in Gujarat, we must cry from the rooftops for 2.4 million Hindus killed in 1971 or the 250,000 Kashmiris forced out of their homes in Kashmir. Why do we not?”. Even this author is taken over by the propaganda that is perpetuated in conferences such as these. As per report tabled by UPA Government in Indian Parliament in 2005, the total number of people died in Gujarat is 1044, out of which 790 are Muslims and 254 are Hindus. Does this qualify to a pogrom of only one community, especially when it is triggered by the a brutal incident targeted against other community, whose families till today has not received any kind of compensation from state or central governments? Why this predominant focus on only one riot when Gujarat and the country has history of so many riots? Is it not the number of people died in riots in India since 1947 is equivalent for both communities and that too after discounting Kashmir?
Times of India article dated Nov 30, 3008 mentions that nearly 7,000 people lost their lives since 2004 over 25,000 incidents according to Government home ministry. According to US National Counter terrorism and other media articles both the number of people and the number of incidents due to terror in India betwen 2004 and 2008 is only next to war torn Iraq. What is the roots of this violence? Who is supporting and perpetrating it? But No, such discussions are not important topics for this conference.
Take Naxal Violence. This is supported by Marxists and has affected more than 1/3 rd of India (212 out of 604 districts as per 2007 data) which from 1998 to 2007 caused more than 5000 civilians and 1300 security forces killed in 14,046 incidents (as per data from Government of India). Just last year this has taken a new dimension and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh pointed out, “it would not be an exaggeration to say that the problem of Naxalism is the single biggest security challenge ever faced by our country.” But no, this topic is NOT part of this conference.
I urge readers to look at the background of many of the speakers at the conference. It is not just who is speaking but also who are also not speaking (such as KPS Gill, Ajit Doval). Some of the speakers speaking at this conference have spoken about human rights of people across different continents but not a single word of sympathy or compassion to the ongoing brutal genocide of Bangla Deshi Hindus. According to Hindu American Foundation report endorsed by several US Congressmen and Senators was reduced from 30% to less than 10% since 1947 and while that in Pakistan reduced from 25% of Hindus and Sikhs to less than 1%. If only these people open up their hearts and see them also as human beings, the magnitude of the horrors, the fallacy of their narrow prism of viewing things and about whom they should be speaking out most loudly would dawn upon them.
If only MIT board members read what Omar Khalidi has written about secularism in India and reflect on what it translates to United States with its Christian character of the country where Omar Khalidi currently resides, they will realize what they are dealing with. If only they see through the presentation of truth by him with careful selection of topics, speakers and data to paint a picture, they may question the purpose of this conference. What is most dangerous is that his narrow views are being used by Indian Government via committees such as Sachar committee to create division and unrest in India and worse is that the unfortunate in other communities will be relegated to second class citizens.
What is worse is speakers like Angana Chatterjee are well known for their bias and untruths to project a given picture. Is Orissa violence of one community against another Community? Who instigated it and who tried to kill a most revered 84 year saint seven times and finally brutally murdered him (in presence of 130 Orphan children), after four decades of selfless service, simply because he opposed conversions of innocent tribals. Mahatma Gandhi called Christian missionaries as the deadliest poison that ever sapped the fountain of truth. It is said that he was more passionate against Christian missionary activities than even the freedom of India. Today close to 30% of South India is being converted with allure of money and dubious tactics by missionaries with tacit support of those in power.
The core of the issue is whether truth is selective and divisible? Is human rights pertains to only certain communities? Is the life of one community more precious than another community? Is pain and suffering of a mother, father, brother, sister different for different religions? Is human rights a means for forwarding an agenda?
The selectiveness with which only certain communities are pointed and other are not in conferences by so called human rights activists such as these shows that there is a price for human rights. It is tough luck if you are not a community who can deliver the price or if you cannot organize yourself to counter it.
Regards,
Concerned NRIs
LETTER TO MIT BOARD AGAINST THE CONFERENCE
Human Rights Activist and Scholar Kalyanraman writes to MIT Board
Reporting academic misconduct of Omar Khalidi, academic staff of MIT organizing India Workshop
Professor Phillip L. Clay, Chancellor, MIT
Professor Richard Samuels, Director of the Center for International Studies, MIT
Professor Steve R. Lerman, Vice Chancellor & Dean Graduate Education, MIT
Professor Balakrishnan Rajagopal, Faculty Director PHRJ, MIT (workshop organizer)
Professor Haimanti Roy, Assistant Professor of History, MIT (workshop organizer)
To:
Dr. Susan Hockfield, President, MIT
cc: Ombudsman, Provost
Dear Dr. Susan Hockfield,
This is to bring to your notice a serious issue of academicmisconduct by an academic in MIT.
This is in reference to ‘India Workshop’ organized by Omar Khalidi’s department. The workshop is slated for April 9 and 10 as a public event. The agenda is ‘communal violence’ which is a clear reference to Hindus and Muslims and intended to create ‘communal’ tensions between the communities within India by presenting a jaundiced, prejudiced and dertogatory view of the Indian state.
A general reading of the abstracts submitted by selected participants will be enough to prove that this is a biased exercise derogatory of the efforts of the Indian state to contend with jihadi terrorist violence in the region, far more serious and more extensive and prolonged, than the 9/11 terror attack in USA. (Excerpts from the abstracts of speakers at the Workshop are appended — See Annex A at the end of this email — to demonstrate the biased nature of the presentations orchestrated to only indulge in hindu-bashing and NOT intended to find or recommend methods for mitigating violence in one region of the globe).
Academic misconduct is patent in the MIT conf. initiative on India Workshop. From the set of abstracts posted at the website http://indiaworkshopmit.com/, the event is clearly an India- and Hindu-bashing orchestrated, motivated jamboree. This clearly is NOT an academic workshop intended to educate the students of the MIT and the public in general about the issues of violence in many parts of the globe, in this case, focussed on India, to the exclusion of issues of jihadi violence in the region.
Clearly, the so-called workshop is impinging upon the areas which should of be concern to the State Department and Department of Homeland Security and will adversely affect the relations between USA and India. I do not think that MIT should be seen to be a party to souring the friendly relations between two sovereign nations by presenting a lopsided, biased and derogatory account of happenings in India which should be the concern of the Indian state and the government officials and social organizations there.
The conference is directed against the Indian State and Indian Constitution with the Conference organizer, Omar Khalidi declaring that India is a non-secular state.
Will Omar Khalidi, the organiser, propose different laws for Muslims and for Muslim polygamy in USA, as he does for India?
The list of invited speakers is a biased list including names like well-known India-basher, Angana Chatterji and a person called Raghavan who heads the Special Investigation Team on Gujarat (focussed on demonising Gujarat CM, Hon’ble Narendra Modi).
If the conf. intends to focus on violence and terrorism, the issue should also be of concern to US Internal Security authorities. Why is their point of view being shut out from this MIT conf. Why are other authorities on jihadi violence in India not being invited, e.g. authorities such as Andrew Bostom, Ajit Doval, KPS Gill, B. Raman?
Can we have a Conference on Terrorism in US without 9/11? How can there is a conf.called India Workshop on violence, without discussing Jihadi terrorism in India, an issue which is of global concern given the ongoing war against terror led by USA and NATO nations and others?
Why is a discussion on human rights violations against hindus being shut out from the conf. agenda? There are annual reports on this topic brought out by HAF. There are also reports on human rights violations in Bangladesh. Why are these issued not being addressed.
MIT should explain why the topic of jihadi terrorism in India has not been included as a topic for discussion.
Since the conf. is a public event, what facilities will be provided for opposing views to be expressed? The earlier announced public event has now been made restrictive requiring prior registration providing personal details. How free is freedom in MIT?
It is incumbent on policy makers in MIT and in USA to ensure such events are not encouraged whose main motive is or whose main outcome will be to derail and dent the ongoing efforts for increased cooperation between USA and India in many areas of world peace and development initiatives.
You are requested to investigate this workshop which is slated as a public event and make amends before further damage is done not only to the image of MIT as a prestigious academicinstitution but also to the joint initiatives between USA and India to fight violence of all kinds and render the globe a free and peaceful place to live in without fanning regional tensions or societal conflicts.
I will be happy to provide any additional information you may need in taking appropriate disciplinary action against this patent academic misconduct by one or more of your academicstaff. You may also consider appropriate administrative action by calling off the biased, motivated, one-sided public event or reorganizing it as a true academic exercise in which all parties should be able to express their points of view.
I will be constrained to bring this also to the notice of concerned Departments of US Government and to Indian Embassy in Washington DC. Please do not allow this to become a diplomatic faux pas triggered by MIT.
I am sure you will not like to see a headline in the media: MIT academics denounce India’s ineffective state for failure to counter terror and violence
Thanking you for your consideration and with the best regards,
sincerely,
Dr. S. Kalyanaraman
Sarasvati Research and Education Trust,
Former Sr. Exec., Asian Development Bank
3 April 2010
Annex A Excerpts from abstracts submitted by speakers in MIT workshop April 9 and 10, 2010
NB: It is amazing that Mukul Sinha and Nirjhari Sinha have given the same abstract for the MIT conf.
Bish Sanyal and Ornit Shani have NOT given any abstracts.
Therefore this paper further complicates the role of Indian state and its neutral and secular role to understand the cultural and ideological roots that are entrenched within the Hindu ideological consciousness which thereby interpret the atrocities against Dalits as a part of the caste Hindu social process rather than violation of fundamental human rights of its citizens.
–Chinnaiah Jangam
… the deliberate use of even the most extreme forms of violence, such as genocide, to achieve clear political goals; the close connection between violence and political mobilization and electoral competition; the complicity of the state and its agents, particularly the police; and the broader complicity of the press and even that of many academic analysts whose misguided methodologies lead them up numerous blind alleys.
–Paul Brass
…Chronicling concerted action against Christians and Muslims, Adivasis and Dalits, through spectacles, events, public executions, the riots in Kandhamal of December 2007 and August-September 2008, the presentation examines the planned, methodical politics of terror.
– Angana Chatterji
…Under the over-arching theme of the US ‘war of terror,’ it is not uncommon among some Hindu right wing groups to denounce Islam as violent. Much more insidious and hard to prove are the allegations that Muslims find it much harder to find employment or tenancy.
–Meenakshi Ganguly
…Central Gujarat is often called the “laboratory of Hindutva,” a Hindu nationalist ideology that awakens “Hindus” in opposition to Muslims and Christians, who are positioned as foreigners.
–Parvis Ghassem-Fachandi
…The paper exposes how violence against religious minorities is partly produced in and through the discourse of secularism and the judicial interpretations of the right to equality. I propose ways in which secularism can be rescued to accommodate the rights of religious minorities.
–Ratna Kapur
…AP state police and the judiciary. By this case study, I wish to demonstrate the design and functioning of two state institutions when dealing with politically and ethno-religiously charged cases in India.
–Shafeeq R. Mahajir
“When a Tree Shook Delhi,” 1984 Pogrom of Sikhs…While CBI resurrected cases against one leader (Sajjan Kumar), the Delhi high court, in a sudden display of urgency towards the 1984 carnage, set a six-month deadline for completing the pending trials.
–Manoj Mitta
Police Performance : An Insider’s Experiences…Policemen belonging to the majority Hindu community were tested for their objectivity in the field. Some passed the test, and many did not. In many Hindu-Muslim clashes during the past three to four decades, serious charges of bias and consequent apathy have been leveled against Hindu policemen.
–R.K. Raghavan
… Evidence from recent events in India – Gujarat, Kandhamal and Chhatisgarh – suggests that partial State failure may be much more prevalent in the contemporary world, and much harder to theorize and respond to in policy and legal terms, than complete State failure.
–Balakrishnan Rajagopal
…especially in the case of refugees, evacuees and minorities, the rules of citizenship entered the murky waters of contextual interpretation as border officials and middle and lower level bureaucrats subjected those seeking Indian citizenship to provide intangible proofs of loyalty to their chosen nation.
–Haimanti Roy
…this paper seeks to understand whether and how “neoliberal secularism” differs from its statist counterpart.
–Srirupa Roy
“Jan Sangharsh Manch”…make the judiciary functional even in the state like Gujarat where thousands of Muslims were killed in the genocide of 2002.
–Mukul Sinha
“Jan Sangharsh Manch”…make the judiciary functional even in the state like Gujarat where thousands of Muslims were killed in the genocide of 2002.
–Nirjhari Sinha
…Some recommendations for police reforms different from Police Commission Reports and Supreme Court Directives will be presented for further discussion.
–Arvind Verma
CC: braj@mit.edu, samuels@mit.edu, plclay@mit.edu, lerman@mit.edu, haimanti@mit.edu,
Letter to MIT protesting invitation to Mukul Sinha (speaker at MIT Conference)
Professor Susan Hockfield
President
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
77 Massachusetts Avenue, Building 3-208
Cambridge, MA 02139-4307, USA
Email address: hockfield@mit.edu
Subject: invitation to Mr. Mukul Sinha to speak at India Workshop at MIT
Dear Professor Susan Hockfield,
This letter is written as a strong protest against the decision of Program on Human Rights & Justice (PHRJ), Center for International Studies Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), to invite a biased and harmful human rights activist and lawyer, Mukul Sinha, to speak at the India workshop at MIT on Gujarat on Saturday 10th April 2010.
The harmful agenda and background of Mr Sinha must to be scrutinized before inviting him to speak at the MIT. At the least, a balanced discussion should be ensured by inviting a speaker with views distinct to Mr. Sinha to speak from the same platform at MIT. Mr. Sinha has been a deeply divisive figure for Gujarat and has damaged processes of truth, justice and peace. Mr. Sinha has been part of a campaign to target the 3-times elected Gujarat Chief Minister Mr. Narendra Modi who is a recognised icon of development and good governance. This political campaign of Mr. Sinha and other controversial activists has emerged as a damaging factor in keeping Muslim and Hindu communities divided since the 2002 Gujarat riots. These activists have been accused of manipulating the course of justice and using mis-information in a damaging media attack against Mr. Modi.These harmful activists have pronounced Mr. Modi personally guilty of mass murder and ignored the process of India’s Justice system. Eight years after the riots and despite many of the cases going to the Supreme Court, there is no First Information Report (FIR) or charges against Modi. To date, no hard evidence has been submitted implying Mr. Modi’s direct role in the riots, this is exactly why there is no FIR or chargesheet against him. The image of Mr. Modi should be considered with the fact that he has successfully transformed the paradigm of development in India by innovative and result-oriented measures on a range of issues of climate change to poverty reduction.
In keeping with the esteemed reputation of MIT and the organizations related to it we earnestly request you not to allow Mr. Sinha to speak on the 2002 Gujarat riots, at least till such time there is somebody there to balance the discussion with an alternate view of the Gujarat 2002 riots. MIT should not join these activists in supporting distortion of facts, manipulation of the course of the justice system and disruption of peace. Any debate should be open, informative and valuable; anything otherwise would damage the reputation of MIT. It will indeed be inappropriate to the values of truth and justice if Mr. Sinha is allowed to speak at the India workshop at MIT, especially without any speaker to balance the discussion.
Sincerely yours
Copied to:
- Professor Phillip L. Clay, Chancellor, MIT
- Professor Richard Samuels, Director of the Center for International Studies, MIT
- Professor Steve R. Lerman, Vice Chancellor & Dean Graduate Education, MIT
- Professor Balakrishnan Rajagopal, Faculty Director PHRJ, MIT (workshop organizer)
- Dr. Omar Khalidi, MIT (workshop organizer)
- Professor Haimanti Roy, Assistant Professor of History, MIT (workshop organizer)
Another Letter to MIT Protesting invitation to Mukul Sinha (speaker at the Conference)
Professor Susan Hockfield
President
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
77 Massachusetts Avenue, Building 3-208
Cambridge, MA 02139-4307, USA
Email address: hockfield@mit.edu
Subject: invitation to Mr. Mukul Sinha to speak at India Workshop at MIT
Dear Professor Susan Hockfield,
On behalf of the Gujarati people who dominate the Indian community across the world including the United States of America and whose contribution to the greater good of the human race is well known across the world we strongly protest against the decision of MIT’s Centre of International Studies and the Programme fon Human Rights and Justice (PHRJ) to invite a very biased and one-sided human rights activist and lawyer on Gujarat, Mr. Mukul Sinha, to speak at the India workshop at MIT on the 2002 Gujarat riots on 10th April 2010.
The PHRJ with its prestigious association with the MIT should have checked on the antecedents Mr Sinha before calling or at least tried to balance by inviting somebody holding a correct, non-biased view of the episode as distinct from that of Mr Sinha to speak from the same platform. Mr Sinha, who is an open supporter of radical Wahhabi Muslims as distinct from moderate Muslims and whose sole purpose is to target the popular Gujarat Chief Minister and the new Indian icon of development and progress, Mr Narendra Modi, has been known for his one-sided campaigning on the issue of Gujarat riots. This political campaign of Mr. Sinha and two other activists of India who are active in the US , Ms. Teesta Setalvad and Father Cedric Prakash, has emerged as the single factor in keeping the Muslim and Hindu communities permanently divided after the 2002 riots by keeping the flame of communal hatred burning.
The reaction against Muslims from the Hindu majority in 2002 began only after a group of over 500 radical Wahhabi Muslims allegedly attacked a train at Godhra railway station on February 27, 2002 morning carrying Hindu pilgrims and brutally burnt to death as many as 59 of them. The single biggest proof of Mr Sinha’s biased and political agenda is the fact that as a lawyer he is desperately defending in courts and commissions the radical Wahhabi Muslims who killed the 59 Hindus at Godhra and triggered the riot while seeking punishment for the Hindu accused who participated in the riots in a fit of rage thereafter in reaction to the killing of the 59.
You will agree that for building a society free from communal hatred it is necessary that yardsticks for evaluating the positive or negative conduct of people has to be the same irrespective of which religion they belong to. Mr Sinha has sacrificed this golden principle in support of his political agenda by using one yardstick for Hindus and another for the Muslims and that too for a set of ultra Wahhabi Muslims by defending the alleged killers of 59 Hindus at Godhra.
In keeping with the great reputation of MIT and the organizations related to it we earnestly request you not to allow Mr. Sinha to speak on the 2002 Gujarat riots, at least till such time there is somebody there to give you a correct view of the episode without bias.
The United States of America is known for its consistent struggle against radical Wahhabis as against the moderate Muslims in keeping with its avowed objective of strengthening moderate Islam. And therefore PHRJ should also take note of the fact that Mr. Sinha along with Ms. Setalvad and Father Cedric Prakash is supporting the ultra Wahhabis in the Gujarat episode by legally defending the alleged ultra Wahhabi killers of Godhra. You should also take note of the fact that Mr. Narendra Modi has changed the paradigms of development in India by his innovative and result-oriented measures on a string of issues facing the world community from climate change to poverty removal. It will indeed be a travesty a travesty of justice if Mr. Sinha is allowed to speak at the PHRJ platform tomorrow. If still you do so we will be compelled to seek justice by approaching the courts in the US.
Thanking You
Sincerely yours
Copied to:
- Professor Phillip L. Clay, Chancellor, MIT
- Professor Richard Samuels, Director of the Center for International Studies, MIT
- Professor Steve R. Lerman, Vice Chancellor & Dean Graduate Education, MIT
- Professor Balakrishnan Rajagopal, Faculty Director PHRJ, MIT (workshop organizer)
- Dr. Omar Khalidi, MIT (workshop organizer)
- Professor Haimanti Roy, Assistant Professor of History, MIT (workshop organizer)
SAMPLE OF OMAR KHALIDI THOUGHT PROCESS:
Omar Khalidi article – using selective information and pseudosecularism painting a poor picture of India.
(NOTE: TRANSLATE WHAT KHALIDI IS SAYING IN ARTICLE BELOW TO WHAT HE WOULD BE EXPECTING FOR MULSIMS IN USA WHICH HAS CHRISTIAN CHARACTER – DIFFERENT LAWS FOR MUSLIMS SUCH AS POLYGAMY, BURKHA, MUSLIM CONSTITUENCIES ETC).
http://ghulammuhammed.blogspot.com/2010/02/hinduising-india-secularism-in-practice.html
Thursday, February 11, 2010
HINDUISING INDIA: SECULARISM IN PRACTICE By Dr. Omar Khalidi
HINDUISING INDIA: SECULARISM IN PRACTICE
OMAR KHALIDI
ABSTRACT
Of all the postcolonial states of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, India is regarded in academia and media as a secular state. This paper challenges the academic and media consensus of the notion that India is a secular state. It does so by marshalling empirical evidence that far from being state practicing neutrality between religious affiliations of Indian society or equidistance from all religions, the Indian state is actually and directly involved in Hinduization of the country. It does so by promoting Hinduism through “reform” and favoritism at state expense. While the constitution guarantees educational and cultural autonomy as well as religious freedom, in practice, there are widespread and systematic violations by state institutions. In public employment, the state follows discriminatory policies to perpetuate Hindu majority by restricting religious freedom. The discriminatory policies are most visible in affirmative action policies and recruitment in the army. Contrary to some academic writings, the paper establishes that Hinduization of Indian state is not only associated with the votaries of Hindutva represented by a “family,” parivar of Hindu militant groups. The notion of India as a Hindu state predates the creation of postcolonial state in 1947, and was inherent in the militant, right wing of Congress Party that perceived Christians and Muslims as foreigners. There is, the paper demonstrates, major continuity between the educational, cultural and employment policies pursued by Indian state regardless of party in power.
The paper is based on primary Indian sources and interviews in India and abroad.
Political secularism may be defined as the separation of religious activities from those of the state, customarily referred to as “the separation of church and state” in the west. Secularism in theory then would mean that religion and state cannot occupy the same space. The state in its governmental capacity does not promote any religion or religious group, nor intervene in religious affairs. It cannot even be involved in interpretation or “reform” of any religion much less favor one over any other. This model of secularism may be characterized as maximum separation between state and religion except on manifest grounds of morality, health, and public order. Theoretical formulation, interpretation, and implementation of secularism have varied in several countries. Writing in 1963, Donald E. Smith posed the question: Is India a Secular State? Replying in the affirmative, Smith described India “a secular state in the same sense in which one can say that India is a democracy.” 1 Prakash Chandra Upadhyaya “uses the term “majoritarianism” to characterize the official nationalist brand of Indian secularism.”2 According to Ashutosh Varshney, “Secularism, in its Indian usage, has…come to mean religious equidistance, not non-involvement.”3 Gary Jacobsohn in a comparative study of secularism developed three models. He characterizes these models of secularism as assimilative (exemplified by the United States), visionary (Israel), and ameliorative (India). American assimilative secularism seeks to preserve religious liberty in the private sphere, while urging political assimilation in the republic. Israel’s visionary secularism involves the coexistence of the vision of Israel as a state for the Jewish people with commitments to preserve religious liberties and cultural autonomy. India’s ameliorative secularism involves a commitment to promote the transformation of enduring social inequalities, some of which are related to religious belief and practice, while recognizing the autonomy of religious groups in some ways.
4 My paper challenges the formulations of these three authors as well as a host of others who hold the view that India is a secular state regardless of the particular model of secularism it follows. In challenging the conventional wisdom, I demonstrate that far from upholding state neutrality or equidistance between various religions and its adherents, the Indian state is in fact engaged in Hinduising it by reforming, promoting and advancing Hinduism, often at the expense of other religions. India’s secularism in fact translates into Hindu assimilationism. Evidence for Indian state’s policy of Hindu assimilationism comes through an examination of a. state promotion of Hinduism through reform and favoritism; b. promotion of Hindu beliefs and practices; c. erosion of educational, cultural and religious autonomy; d. conflation between Hindu and Indian cultures resulting in the exclusion of Christians and Muslims from the national mainstream.
Promotion of Hinduism through reform and favoritism
Abolition of caste, untouchability, sati, and opening up Hindu temples and the like may be desirable goals for societal amelioration. Article 25 (2) of the constitution calls for providing “social welfare and reform [and] throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of public character to all classes and sections of Hindus…” Pritam Singh questions, “why should a secular state be concerned about the social welfare and reform only of one religion? Why should a secular state be concerned with the…reform of only Hindu temples?” 5 The answer Singh provides is familiar, “the overriding concern behind these social reform measures was to prevent the exodus of the Dalits… from the Hindu fold.”6 The state, whether run by Congress or BJP has been involved in favoring Hinduism by promoting inter-caste marriages through financial incentives including a complete package of gifts including the thread worn by married Hindu women known as
mangala sutra!7 Promoting inter caste marriages may or may not be a desirable goal depending on individuals’ choice. In the words of Pratap Mehta, the “Indian state has used state power to consolidate Hindu identity in more ways than one can list. The state, for the first time, created a territorially unified body of Hindu law, transcending numerous regional divisions. Supreme Court judges not only promulgate public purposes; they act as authoritative interpreters of Hindu religion, defining what is essential to it and what is not. The state runs thousands of temples across the country, appropriated in the name of social reforms or financial propriety.”8
A forest has been destroyed writing about why the state has not changed Muslim Personal Law, when it did so in the case of Hindus. In other words, since the state has changed the family laws of one segment of the population, it ought to do so in the case of others in order to ameliorate the condition of women. There is near consensus in the Muslim community that while changes in the interpretation of the shariat as applied through Muslim Personal Law is possible, the right to change it rests in the community, not the state. At a minimum, the initiative must come from within the community in an environment free from threat to cultural and religious identity. Given the acute sense of insecurity generated by the unending state-sanctioned violence, state-sponsored pogroms (Bombay 1993; Gujarat 2002) and culturecide exemplified by the elimination of Urdu, most Muslims resist assimilation through uniform civil code. The opposition to change in personal law is not to be understood as approval of injustices to Muslim women, who like women everywhere are less than equal in Islamic societies. Those actively advocating change in the Muslim Personal Law from within the community represent a minority opinion confined to a thin layer of secularized intellectuals, with no influence in the community. Liberal, left-wing, centrist Congress opinion seeking reform of Muslim Personal Law is genuinely motivated by a desire to ameliorate the condition of Muslim women, but the motivation of the Congress right wing and Hindutva gang, known as Sangh parivar is driven by Hindu assimilationalism. As Rina Verma Williams noted, “ethnic conflict over the personal laws was caused by Hindu interference in Muslim Personal Law after 1984. Prior to 1984, different communities refrained from interfering in each other’s personal laws. In 1984, however, part of the Hindu community began mobilizing to reform Muslim personal law or even abolish the personal laws and establish, one, uniform law (as in the traditional conception of the nation-state). This mobilization led to Hindu-Muslim conflict over the personal laws. India’s experience indicates that we must-rethink the assumption of legal uniformity underlying the traditional conception of the nation-state….ethnic harmony prevailed when the personal laws of different communities were not threatened. A new conception of the nation-state, that accommodates legal diversity, may be more relevant for many of today’s multi-ethnic states than the traditional “one nation, one law” conception.”
9 One way to reform Muslim Personal Law might be for the state to sponsor an elected Muslim forum to legislate Islamic laws, thus legitimizing and institutionalizing religious autonomy.10
Erosion of Educational, Cultural and Religious Autonomy
The constitution provides in Articles 15-17, 25-30 and directive principles (Articles 330-339, and 350) for the benefit of minorities. But as Ranu Jain has shown, the implementation of the rights has been subject to the interpretation of courts leading to an endless struggle between the state and the minorities.11 Most famously and astonishingly, on narrow technical grounds, the Allahabad High Court judged in 2005 that Muslims did not found Aligarh University! Only a concerted political campaign restored the University’s minority character.12 Cultural rights of minority groups to teach their languages has been under attack since independence. Aggressive promoters of Hindi successfully prevented tribal languages such as Santhali (spoken by 3.6 million), Bhili (spoken by 1.25 million) and Lammi (1.2 million speakers) from recognition in the constitution to inflate their own numbers.13 Oomen has shown that “Bhojpuri, Brij Bhasha, Magadhi, Maithili, Rajasthani, and Chhattisgarhi, to mention but a few, are treated as mere dialects of Hindi, in order to project Hindi speakers as the biggest speech community and to legitimize it as the national language. In the process, nothing short of a culturecide has taken place.”14 The provinces’ reorganization created states along linguistic lines a decade after independence, a Punjabi subah was, however, delayed by a further decade due to its association with Sikhs. The state also victimized Urdu, closely associated with Islamic culture. Urdu literacy has all but perished in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh outside the
madarsas due to the relentless Hindization policies pursed by Congress and BJP governments. No government school in Uttar Pradesh teaches Urdu even as an optional subject and members of UP legislature cannot take oath in any language other than Hindi. 15 Urdu-speaking population is decreasing in UP since the 1960s, as indicated by the census, which is an evidence of successful homogenization campaign of the successive Congress governments.16 The elevation of Hindi at the expense of all other languages nearly fulfils the slogan “Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan” coined by Pratap Narayan Mishra:
Cahuhu jusco nij kalyan to sab mili Bharat santan !
Japo nirantar ek jaban hindi, hindu, Hindustan !
If your well-being you really want, O children of Bharat !
Then chant forever but these words Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan.
Article 25 (1) of India’s constitution proclaims, “all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.” However the Hindu assimiliationists in the Congress Party have been opposed to it as can be gleaned from the debate in Constituent Assembly. Puroshottam Das Tandon, later President of Congress summed up their views by saying “We Congressmen deem it very improper to convert from one to another religion or take part in such activities.”17 Some Hindu assimilationists equate conversion with denaturalization. Soon after independence, in 1954, the Congress government of Madhya Pradesh pioneered anti-conversion legislation by constituting a committee to look into the matter. Several hundred untouchables converted to Islam in Meenakshipuram, an obscure village in Tamilnadu in 1981-82, prompting the central government to take a series of coercive measures to prevent further change of religion.
18 Since that date to 2007, as many as eight states—Arunachal Pradesh, Chhatisgardh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, and Tripura, passed legislation against conversion. In Rajasthan, the BJP-headed legislature passed a law against forced conversions in April 2006, but in May, the governor refused to sign the bill, so it has not become law. Gujarat, led by the pogrom-tainted chief minister Narendra Modi’s BJP government passed a law in September 2006 restricting conversion to Islam but facilitating conversion of Buddhists and Jains to Hinduism, forcing the governor to return it to the legislature.19 Only in one case there has been a move to rescind restrictions on religious freedom. A new administration in Tamlinadu led by Karunanidhi rescinded anti-conversion act of 2004 in June 2007, passed by a previous government (1991-96) led by Jayalalita.20
The laws apply against “forced” or “induced” religious conversions require government officials—district collector in one instance—, to assess the legality of conversions and provide for fines and imprisonment for anyone who uses force, fraud, or “inducement” to convert another. In the case of Gujarat, promising nirvana upon conversion to Buddhism, according to Fr. Cedric Prakash, can come in the definition of “inducement.” 21 When poor citizens do not have access to government officials on routine matters of water and power supply, one can imagine what kind of access they will have on sensitive matters such as changing faith. However, reports of persons having been arrested, still less prosecuted, under these laws are not common. Nevertheless, these laws can sometimes result in a hostile atmosphere for religious minorities, as states in which these laws exist tend to be those in which attacks by extremist groups are more common—and often happen with greater impunity than elsewhere in India. For example, the state of Madhya Pradesh, which is headed by the BJP, was the scene of an increasing number of attacks in 2005. In June 2006, a report by the NCM found that Hindu extremists had frequently invoked the state’s anti-conversion law as a pretext to incite mobs against Christians. The NCM report also found that police in Madhya Pradesh were frequently complicit in these attacks. Since August 2008, there has been large-scale anti-Christian violence in Orissa and Karnataka, the states in which BJP rules in a coalition government or on its own. The anti-Christian violence is driven by the BJP’s intolerance of conversion to faiths other than Hinduism. According to them, people are being attracted towards other faiths since there is nobody to explain the culture and traditions of Hinduism.”
22 The anti-conversion laws, both by their design and implementation favor Hinduism over minority religions, as the law encourages conversion from other religions to Hinduism but not vice-versa. Executive measures often do not need legislation as evidenced by the promotion of Hinduism at state expense with an explicit purpose to limit religious freedom. Almost every state has a department of Hindu endowments, their mission is to look after the secular aspects of religious establishments, but experience shows that they go beyond their mandate. Andhra Pradesh, governed since 2004 by a Congress administration, is led by a Christian chief minister Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy. Under his administration, the Hindu Endowments Department “decided to revive pujas and rituals in old temples to prevent the possibility of religious conversion at the village level. Officials expect that regular spiritual activity in villages will prevent people from converting to faiths other than Hinduism. The desire to keep a Hindu majority intact motivates the state governments, whether run by Congress or BJP to prevent the exodus of Dalits and other disadvantaged groups into Christianity or Islam. The Supreme Court judges have often defined who or what is a Hindu against the wishes of groups wanting to define themselves otherwise, exemplified by a case soon after independence. When Satsanghis, a puritanical sect declared itself outside the Hindu fold, the Supreme Court ruled against them as it did subsequently in many other cases, thus constructing a Hindu identity.23
Promotion of Hinduism at State Expense
State-sponsored promotion of Hinduism began shortly after independence and took many forms. Independent India began its course on the midnight of 14th August as Hindu astrologers declared 15th August as “inauspicious.”
24 The ubiquitous Congress Party poster issued with the picture of Prime Minister Nehru in the first post-independence national election of 1952 with the icon of a pair of sacred cows asked voters to “vote Congress for a stable, secular, progressive [italics supplied] state.” In fact the sacred cows remained the Congress Party symbol. On the night of 22-23 December 1949, Hindu idols “mysteriously appeared” in a sixteenth century mosque, actively used for worship as the Baburi Mosque, in Ayodhya, Fayzabad. The U.P. Congress administration promptly locked the mosque through a court order, and effectively turned it into a temple.25 In western India, the Somanatha temple in Gujarat stood empty and forgotten through much of the period before independence. Thereafter, Gujarati Congress leaders like Deputy Prime Minister Sardar Patel and K.M. Munshi campaigned for its restoration. In May 1951, the temple was built with money provided by Gujarat government.26 In addition to the funds Gujarat provided, in the Congress-ruled Uttar Pradesh, “a system of indirect taxation was devised to pay for the restoration of the temple.” 27 Overruling Nehru’s opposition, President Rajendra Prasad, “with the chanting of Vedic hymns by Brahmin priests, hailed the partial restoration of the temple… [and] took a prominent part in the functions by installing the jyotilingam image in the temple.”28 Evidently, the Indian officials had not heard of the axiom, “Public funds for Public Purposes.”29 To an academic observer, it was “clear that the whole inspiration of this project, with which high government officials (but not Nehru) were so closely identified, was far indeed from the approach which is expected of the secular state. The plea that the deputy prime minister and the president were acting as individuals in their private capacities is not adequate justification for such activities; the influence and prestige of high office inevitably becomes associated with whatever they do in public.”
30 Rajendra Prasad’s successor S. Radhakrishnan “always went to pay respects to Sri Shankaracharya whenever he visited Delhi,” which may have in turn pressured a future incumbent to do likewise.31 When he became President, “Zakir Husain called on Jagadguru Sri Shankaracharya of Srinegri. Placing flowers and fruits at the feet of the Jagadguru, Husain…touched the Swamiji’s feet in reverence and took leave.”32 While the conduct of the two immediate successors of the first president was certainly against the spirit of secularism, it was not directed against religious beliefs of anyone. But the state-sponsored rebuilding of Somanatha had far reaching significance as it encouraged Hindu extremists to claim, and in worst case, destroy the Baburi Masjid. The UP administration led by Congress governments developed Ayodhya as a Hindu religious site from 1949 to 1980s, including unlocking the Baburi Masjid as a place of Hindu worship in 1986. Directly inspired by Deputy Prime Minister Patel’s example, a future Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani began his ratha yatra from Somanatha against Baburi Mosque in 1990, culminating in its demolition two years later in 1992.33 The crazed Hindu mob that applied the jack hammers on the mosque in December 1992 was merely completing the task began under Nehru.34 Numerous examples may be cited of state sponsorship of explicitly Hindu religious activities. The central government for instance, promotes Amarnath yatra in Kashmir, officially advertizing it in explicitly denominational terms as a “yearning for moksha which can move the devotees to the challenging heights of Kashmir and will be a fitting gesture of solidarity with our valiant soldiers who have been fighting the enemy to defend our borders.”35 In other words, “what is merely a religious pilgrimage of Hindus has been elevated as a patriotic enterprise.”36 On a trip to United States in 1984, Telugu Desham’s A.P. chief minister N.T. Rama Rao found nothing objectionable in spending state funds on medallions with Hindu gods’ images for distribution among Indian Americans of all faiths as part of a promotion kit to invite investments in his state.
37 Post offices in U.P. sell bottled Ganga water, sacred to Hindus, and marketed through Garhwal Vikas Mandal, a public sector undertaking.38
Hindu Environment in State Institutions: The Armed Forces
According to Shashi Tharoor: “The Army is still a splendid advertisement for India… The army has no place for bigotry in its ranks: prejudice and discrimination on account of caste or religion are completely unknown.” 39 The Army emphasizes inter group harmony. Every officer, junior commissioned officer or jawan, whatever his religion attends and takes active part in the festivals of all religions represented in a unit. Religious teachers whether pundits, maulawis, or granthis are trained to impart their particular religious teaching but with due respect to all faiths. Every Sunday, the whole unit generally attends a religious gathering at a given time. 40 Contrary to this rosy picture, the press reports the celebration only of Hindu festivals, such as Dassera, Divali, Durga puja, Rakhi Poonam, never of the Eids and Christmas for instance.41 Jhatka, not halal meat is served in most officers’ messes and jawans’ langar forcing observant Muslims to eat vegetarian.
Moreover, several events since the 1980s point to emerging problems. First, the refusal of the army authorities to permit Friday prayers (an Islamic obligation and must be performed in congregation) has given rise to complaints similar to the refusal to allow Muslim soldiers to grow beards, in contrast to the Sikhs, who are permitted to keep them.42 The Air Force also requires existing staff to shave off beards.43 Second, the physical environment of the cantonments, secular for quite some time, has undergone changes. The “cantonment towns now have focal point—the Hanuman temple, dedicated to the Hindu deity of valor.”
44 A former Lt. General proudly describes the erection of a Hindu temple in the Rajputana Rifles regimental center on government expense.45 Unlike temples, permission to build mosques in Kanpur and Pune cantonments was denied.46 Worse, an already existing mosque in Danapur cantonment was demolished in July 2005, while an army officer desecrated a Delhi mosque two years later.47 Private sainik, military schools receiving grants from the state impart an exclusively Hindu notion of India rather than of a multi-religious nation.48 Given the socialization centered on a single religious tradition, no wonder that the foundation stone of Army Welfare Organization’s housing scheme began with bhoomi pooja, a Hindu ceremony.49 Concurrent with the Hinduization, army trucks show images of Hindu deities, calls put to the army authorities begin to play Hindu devotional music when put on hold, officers and men display outward symbols of their religion such as vibhuti, sacred ash and tilak, caste marks on the forehead.50 Although the Army explicitly prohibited visible religious signs and symbols over the uniform for men on active duty, yet there are reports of violations.51 India’s modern military arsenals are christened with names that resonate with Hindu religious overtones. For example, the medium-range and intermediate range missile is named Agni (fire); the short-range surface-to-air missile is named Trishul, (trident), a weapon also wielded by the Hindu god of destruction, Shiva. The anti-tank missile is named Nag, serpent missile.52 The proclivity of some top military officers to draw values to be inculcated (even when universal in import) only from one tradition, in this case from Hinduism can cause resentment. For instance, Gen. B.C. Joshi, the Chief of Army Staff exhorted his troops to “to follow the Path of Dharma” and moral obligations “enshrined in the two Vedas—Rigveda
and Arthaveda.”53 Rear Admiral Vijay Shankar announced that henceforth new naval cadets would be supplied copies of Ramayana for class room exercises.54 Third, invitation to politicians like Bal Thackerey and Tarun Vijay (of Shiv Sena and RSS respectively) to military events caused dismay among Indians committed to inter-group harmony. Gen. Shankar Roy Choudhury evidently paid tributes to Hindu Mahasabha leader and founder of BJS/BJP, a rabidly anti-minority organization.55 Fourth, by allowing the anti-Muslim, anti-Christian Vishva Hindu Parishad to distribute denominational gifts, such as the rakhis, (sacred Hindu wrist-bands given by women to men as a token of sisterly love) to the jawans-regardless of religious affiliation, the army has permitted its premises to be used for sectarian purpose.56 Although the then chief Gen. V.P. Malik—having opened the Pandora’s box by inviting the RSS and the SS chiefs—is reported to have asked them to “leave the army alone,” 57 yet the VHP is clearly undeterred. In February 2003, it sent anti-Christian, anti-Muslim inflammatory literature to the armed forces. 58 The danger of introducing known anti-minority politicians into the armed forces premises seems to have either been lost on the authorities or to show that some of them may be sympathetic to organizations such as the VHP. However, this is not to suggest that the army can or should ban all religious practices by the men that constitute it. Any such measures will be constitutionally invalid. It is the manner in which religion can be imposed on minorities or misused by any group—minority or majority that is the heart of the issue.
Hinduisation of State Culture
The association of Hindu temples with Indian culture no doubt encourages semi-government institutions to use Hindu images in publicity, for example by banks. Underneath the slogan “Our service is religion,” an advertisement of the State Bank of Hyderabad shows what is unmistakably a picture of Sri Venkatesvara temple in Tirupati, popular among South Indian Hindus.
59 A large stone image of reclining Vishnu located at the entrance to the inspector-general police’s headquarter in Bangalore greets visitors, many non-Hindus mistaking it for a temple!60 Government’s official functions, whether at state or central level, invariably begin with Hindu rituals and songs, exemplified by the cases of lighting the lamps, or placing coconuts on water-filled brass pots, and the recitation of slokas, hymns. Examples are numerous. For instance, on 14 November 1986, India International Trade Fair began with Vedic hymns by a choral group.”61 In September 1993, Air India took delivery of a Boeing 747 in Seattle, Washington, where a “puja was performed by Swami Gahananda of the Ramakrishna Mission invoking Lord Ganesha.”62 The present writer witnessed a ship launch at Vishakhapatnam amidst saffron-robed, ashen faced sadhus singing bhajans, fit for a Hindu event than a national one. The central government honors scholars of various languages through a hierarchy of awards named in Sanskrit such as Padma Shri, Padma Vibhushan and the like, which seem proper for some languages but not for others like Arabic, Persian and Urdu. British India honored literati with titles such as Shams al-Ulama, “sun among scholars,” for Arabic, Persian, and Urdu writers. The colonial state, in retrospect, may have been fairer than the national state. The Andhra Pradesh Health Minister, S. Aruna, a newspaper reported, “laid the foundation stone of the new building of the state dental college with bhoomi puja…two ministers, an MLA, and a host of officials including the Director-General of Health Services, joined the puja.” 63 During a dry spell of weather, a Central Minister for Agriculture S.B. Satyanarayana Rao suggested that “Yagnas should be performed at all villages,” to solve the water crisis.” 64 In the same vein, authorities came up with the idea of a pani yatra, pilgrimage to end water shortage, unmindful of the fact that Osmanabad inhabits Hindus as well as non-Hindus, to whom the pilgrimage was meaningless.
65 Preparing for a blast off, the Indian Space Research Organization scientists placed miniature replicas of the rocket in Hindu temples and sought blessings before launch amidst Vedic hymns, to no official disapproval.66 In an official environment soaked with Hindu rituals, it is not surprising to see a sign that greets bathers desiring to wash in the waters of a hot spring in a Bihar town, “Entry of Muslims is prohibited by the order of the Patna High Court.”67 Regardless of religious affiliation, all airhostesses of the official Air India and Indian Airlines are required to wear bindi, a caste mark on their forehead and greet passengers with folded hands in the Hindu fashion of namaste, just as is required of Indian Administrative Staff officers. Door Darshan newsreaders are also compelled to wear bindi in violation of secular norms.68
Hinduisation Through All India Radio and Door Darshan
Before television broadcasting became widespread in the early 1980s, the state-controlled All India Radio (AIR) was the major source of information and entertainment. With virtual monopoly of airwaves, the AIR began its morning programs with “Vande Mataram and Mangala dhwani, (auspicious sonance) …a result of ministerial fiat in the early 1950s… [followed by], Vandana, Hindu lyrics.”69 According to a former Director-General of AIR, U.L. Baruah, “while in theory, the lyrics are chosen…for their noble words and sentiments which should have a universal and nonsectarian appeal, the songs actually included are in praise of one Hindu deity or the other, so much so that days are earmarked for them. Thus Sri Venkateshwara Suprabhatam is broadcast by practically all stations in Andhra Pradesh on Saturdays…70 What about the daily recital of Ramacharitramanas? Evidently, the minister for information and broadcasting decided the recital of this music as he deemed it cultural rather than religious. The same was held true of
Braj madhuri, recounting the legend of Sri Krishna.71 In response to the criticism of Hinduisation through airwaves, the AIR began a program of Quranic recitations on Fridays and Christian devotionals on Sundays but these were exceptional and broadcasted only occasionally from select stations. The language of AIR for most of its north and central Indian stations was a healthy mix of Hindi and Urdu called Hindustani. Just before independence, Sanskritization set in when Sardar Patel removed those favoring Urdu from AIR.72 India’s Central Board of Film Certification, (CBFC) also known as Censor Board is a department of the Central government. Among other functions, it certifies the language of motion pictures. The CBFC denied Urdu its right by certifying films like Anarkali, Chaudhwin ka Chand, Mughal-i Azam, Mere Mahbub, Mirza Ghalib, Taj Mahal, and Umrao Jan Adaa as Hindi, whereas the songs and dialogues in the films are unmistakably Urdu, highly Persianized at that. Moreover, the CBFC routinely passes films stereotyping Muslims as crooks, terrorists and rapists, while buckling under pressure of police and Shiva Sena when a film was mildly critical of their role in the pogrom of Muslims in 1993. The CBFC allowed preview of producer Mani Ratnam’s Bombay to Bal Thackerey and police, and deleted portions of film the Shiva Sena leader and his khaki- clad collaborators wanted.73 Bal Thackerey had remarked during the 1993 pogrom that Muslims deserved the same fate as Jews under Nazi Germany.74 Five years later, the CBFC forced producer Mahesh Bhatt to delete portions of his film Zakhm critical of police violence against Muslims.75
In January 1987 an eighteen month-long serial of the Ramayana based on the manas began airing at prime time on state-run Door Darshan. Directly inspired by and cashing on the popularity of the show, ten months after the conclusion of
Ramayana, the Vishva Hindu Parishad, called on Hindus to make holy bricks inscribed with Rama’s name for use at Ayodhya after demolishing the Baburi Mosque. Building on the success of Ramayana, the Door Darshan began a 48-episode series called Chanakya, about the “Indian Machiavelli,” at a time when India was experiencing political convulsions generated by the movement to build a temple atop Baburi Mosque. Chanakya has long been central to the construction of a Hindu identity of India, and Door Darshan, a state-run institution helped advance the Hindutva perception of the nation.76 The Door Darshan’s stereotypes Muslims as terrorists as exemplified during its coverage of the violent decade of 1990s.77 When it broadcasts serials pertaining to historical figures—Ghalib, Tipu Sultan— for example, they are caricatured into modern stock characters, stripped of their cultural identity.78
Promotion of Hinduism: Beyond Beef
Article 48 of the Indian constitution titled “Organization of agriculture and animal husbandry,” seems innocuous at first sight, but when read in its entirety it is clear that under the guise of an economic measure, the state is promoting Hinduism by “prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.”79 In 1955, the Central government instituted an award Gopal Ratna, presented to owners of highest milk-yielding cows meeting “the most politically potent of the Hindu demands.”80 According to political scientist Kancha Ilaiah, “beef cannot be served in Air India, Indian Airlines, and armed forces dining halls, Rashtrapati Bhavan, the presidential residence, and a host of other state sites.”81 When Dalit students decided to open a beef stall on the Osmania University campus in 2006, the then-Vice Chancellor M. Sulaiman Siddiqi refused permission.
82 Extending the meaning of cow-slaughter ban, the Inspector-General of Prisons R.S. Gupta banned Eid in Tihar Jail with the offensive remark that “since this festival is non-veg, so I cannot allow it to be celebrated here.”83 Restrictions on Hindu food taboos are now extending beyond beef. The Supreme Court upheld in 2004 in Om Prakash v. State of UP, a ban on sale of any meat, fish or eggs at anytime in the year in Rishikesh. In 2005, the Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that “eggs should not be sold in public places as it hurts the sentiments of vegetarians,” while Supreme Court held that the definition of cows includes buffaloes, thus they cannot be slaughtered.”84 The court verdicts no doubt encourage the Hindu groups clamoring to prevent inclusion of eggs in the lunch for students in Karnataka.85 The imposition of Hindu taboos on others stems from the framing of India as a Hindu state and society by Congress86 especially in competition with BJP, as seen from its vociferous espousal of the same issues as BJP.87 In a commercial broadcasted over Door Darshan for a National Dairy Development Board product, Maneka Gandhi, the minister for environment beamed in 1994, “I am a vegetarian because I am an Indian.”88 Kancha Ilaiah counteracts by rejecting the cow as the symbol of all Indians, for him and others the buffalo is more representative both because it more ubiquitous as well as devoid of association with one religion.89 Student lunch precede by a Hindu prayer in several states in violation of secular norms.90
Hinduization Through Education and Public Culture
What kind of education would be imparted to the school children? Who would write what contents in the books, especially those textbooks in history, social studies and languages? This has been a contentious matter in India since the 1930s. The Muslim League protested the inclusion of Hindu mythology, ideas, and symbols in public-funded schools during the 1937-39 Congress rule in provinces.
91 Disregarding Muslim protest, Congress governments in post 1947 U.P. continued their pre independence educational policies, prompting Syed Abulhasan Ali Nadvi to term it as “cultural aggression” as far back as 1960s. 92 In the late 1970s, the first non-Congress administration at the national level was unable to resolve the issue of biased text books.93 Consonant with the Hindu intensification in school curricula, the Ramayana and Mahabharata began to be taught in Delhi to all students while nothing comparable from other religions in the wake of the TV serial Mahabharata.94 Under a Congress administration, the annual conference of union and state education ministers began since independence with invocation of Sarasvati, the Hindu goddess of knowledge.95 The occasion on 3 December 1997 was no different, as school children sang Sarasvati Vandana, in the presence of the president and prime minister in New Delhi. When some ministers objected, Murli Manohar Joshi, the central minister belonging to BJP affirmed that “It is nothing new. Right from the days of Nehru, invocations have been sung.”96 At the same event in 1998, students routinely recited the Sarasvati Vandana. This time the non-BJP ministers led by the then Andhra Pradesh education minister and Dalit leader, K. Pratibha Bharati objected and walked out of the conference.97 With the coming of BJP to power in UP, the government ordered the compulsory recitation of Vande Mataram and Sarasvati Vandana, but relented only when faced with Muslim opposition. 98 Textbooks were not changed despite protest even after a new administration took office in 2004 at the center.99 A judge in Allahabad, U.P. High Court opined that “it is the duty of every citizen of India…irrespective of caste, creed or religion to follow the dharma propounded by Bhagwad Gita.”100 The BJP-led central government, among other Hindutva measures, encouraged the University Grants Commission to “introduce graduate and post-graduate courses in Vedic astrology.”
101 A BJP-ruled state of Madhya Pradesh, made Surya Namaskar, sun worship, compulsory on all students, withdrawing the measure when Muslims protested.102 The Karnataka government, formed by a coalition of BJP and other parties, decided in July 2007 to scrap Christmas holiday, slipped in as part of the reorganization of school year into a semester system, much to the dismay of minority Christians in the state.
Discrimination on the Basis of Religion in Public Employment
Article 16 (2) of the constitution says that “no citizen shall, on grounds only of religion be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office of the state.” In practice, however the situation is different. Right after independence, Kashmir’s largely Hindu army was absorbed in the national army, while Hyderabad’s largely Muslim army was disbanded rendering nearly 20,000 unemployed. As I have demonstrated elsewhere, India’s 1.5 million army’s most important infantry units are named after religious (Sikh for example), ethnic (Gurkha), and caste and region (Rajput, Garhwal) regiments. Anyone not belonging to these religions or castes or regional groups is excluded. Given that these regiments constitute a bulk of the army, the continuation of the single-ethnic-religious regiments represents a clear violation of the constitution.103 India’s new paramilitaries and espionage agencies excluded Muslims for long and now Sikhs are also distrusted since the 1980s.
The Scheduled Castes have long been the beneficiaries of an affirmative action system for public employment, education, and electoral system, but only if they remain within the Hindu and Sikh religion per Presidential order of 1950 and 1956 respectively. When several thousand Dalits converted to Buddhism in 1956, the state governments quickly withdrew the benefits,
104 restoring it with an amendment to the order only upon massive protests in 1991. The affirmative action plan is not designed to benefit the poor on a purely economic basis. It is designed to benefit only those who have been branded Hindu, thus it is not religion-blind. Christian and Muslim poor are thus denied the benefits of reservation simply because they profess a religion other than Hinduism.105 Tamilnadu removed a state employee on conversion to Islam in pursuance of this policy as early as 1983 per government order.106 In Andhra Pradesh, government forced an SC convert to Islam to resign his position after he declared his conversion.107 Former Prime Minister V.P. Singh echoed the views of many when he demanded the state to “remove the “communal clause” from the constitution” in matters of reservation.108 Benefits of affirmative action are contingent upon a person remaining within the Hindu fold. If a person converts to another faith after availing benefits, he or she must resign the job or return the money to the state. As the courts have ruled, it is possible to resume Scheduled Caste status if the SC person reconverts from any other religion back to Hinduism!
Conclusions
Indian secularism may be “majoritarianism,” as Upadhyaya suggested if we accept that Hindus constitute Indian majority population, which I contend elsewhere that it is problematic.109 Contrary to Varshney, I demonstrate that secularism in its Indian usage is in fact proximity to Hinduism, not religious equidistance. Its “ameliorative” character, contrary to Jacobsohn is motivated at least partially by a desire to curb conversion to religions other than Hinduism and to construct a Hindu out of a myriad of sects, a new primordialism. Again contrary to Jacobsohn, Indian state secularism in fact restricts cultural, linguistic and religious autonomy. The root cause of the state’s Hinduisation stems from the Indian elite’s perception of Christians and Muslims as less Indian than Hindus. Their notion of India, coterminous with Hindus led them to draft the apparatus of the state in a manner designed to assimilate into Hinduism whoever is not proven to be Christian or Muslim. Article 1 of the constitution, describes “India, that is Bharat,”
110 to denote the founding father’s conception of the nation, which in the words of Girilal Jain, the late editor of The Times of India, has “In all but name…been a Hindu rashtra since 1947. This is unpleasant from the Muslim point of view.”111 Given that Muslims are the “other” for many in right wing upper caste Hindu elite, Jain mentions only Muslims as being unhappy with the Hindu rashtra. Had he been an academic he would have added that many religious Hindus seeking church-state separation, Buddhists, Christians, Dalits, STs, and Sikhs, not to speak of liberal to Maoist/Naxalite shade of Indian opinion– are also unhappy with the Hindu rashtra. But as William Gould has demonstrated, the making of Hindu rashtra since 1947 has roots in Congress’s use of an explicit Hindu idiom in the political language since late nineteenth century.112 The preface to the Hinduisation of the state was written long before 1947.
The author is grateful to Professors Peter Flugel, SOAS, John Mansfield, Harvard University Law School, Chris Queen, Harvard University, Haimanti Roy, MIT, and Theodore P. Wright, Jr. emeritus, SUNY-Albany for comments on the earlier drafts of the paper. Thanks also to Shiben Banerjee, a graduate student at MIT’s Department of Urban Studies. I am responsible for views expressed in the paper.
NOTE ON CONTRIBUTOR
Omar Khalidi is on the staff of Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in Cambridge, Mass and an independent scholar. He is the author of Muslims in Indian Economy, 2006; Khaki and Ethnic Violence in India, 2003; and edited Hyderabad: After the Fall, 1988, and wrote numerous articles on Indian politics, urbanism and architecture. His academic interests are in the upward and downward economic mobility of ethnic groups, nationalism, and minorities in the politics and society of India.
Omar Khalidi troublesome record
Omar Khalid is a staff member at MIT Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture. His work is used for Sachar Committee, Muslims in Army, reservations for Muslims etc. But close look at Omar Khalid work reveals a pattern. Omar Khalidi is a “Jamaati” or follower of Jamaat-e-Islami, an international Organization founded by Abu Ala Maududi, who was born in Hyderabad (India) and migrated to Pakistan after partition. Madudi is one of the two founderss of the Islamism, the other being Hasa al-Banna, founder of Muslim Brotherhood. Omar Khalidi is an admirer of Maudidi as seen in his article, “Mawlana Mawdudi and the Future Political Order in British India, The Muslim World”, VL: 93 NO: 3-4 PG: 415-427 2003. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118833732/abstract.
For a disturbing report of Jamaat-e-Islami (which Omar Khalidi follows and admires) and its Jihadi off shoots, read the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/Ideologies.pdf written by Husain Haqqani, Pakistani Scholar, educator and current ambassador of Pakistan to USA This is something that MIT and American Security agencies need to seriously take into cognizance.
Below are some quotes from above article about Jamaat-e-Islami:
All the above is the reason, why some call Mr.Omar Khalidi, a ‘Soft Jihadi’ or ‘Jihadi Enabler’, as one who selectively uses data and create a picture of vindictiveness which in turn used by Jihadis in their violent acts. His work and this conference is forwarding of an agenda that has deep roots.
Article in mainstream media from India (which shows the gross biased nature of the agenda of this conference)
The genocide we and the world forgot – Vivek Gumaste article in Rediff on Kashmiri Hindus
March 26, 2010 17:45 IST
http://news.rediff.com/column/2010/mar/26/the-genocide-we-and-the-world-forgot.htm
When we can raise your voice for 2,000 Muslims killed in Gujarat, we must cry from the rooftops for 2.4 million Hindus killed in 1971 or the 250,000 Kashmir [ Images ]i Pandits forced out of their homes in Kashmir. Why do we not? asks Vivek Gumaste.
Public memory is short and fleeting. Events register momentarily like a blip on a radar and are then consigned to some dark corner of our cerebral galaxy. The brain needs to be bombarded with repetitive stimuli or jolted by a single moral turpitude of seismic proportions to evoke a strong and sustained response. In the absence of such reinforcement, a thought fades away from ones mind and that is the unfortunate tragedy of the Bangladesh genocide.
To ascertain the etiology of this amnesia or selective attention deficit we need to delve deeper into the details of this gory chapter of South Asia. In a massive military operation, code named Operation Searchlight aimed at crushing Bengali aspirations of autonomy, the Pakistan army [ Images ] in March of 1971 unleashed a deadly reign of terror that killed about 3 million Bangladeshis and forced another 10 million to seek refuge across the border in India [ Images ].
Estimates of the actual numbers vary from a ridiculous low 26,000 put out by the Pakistan government (Hamood-ur-Rahman Commission) to a high of 3 million circulating in the international media. In a preface to this massacre, Yahya Khan, the military dictator of Pakistan at that time is supposed to have remarked: “Kill 3 million of them and the rest will eat out of our hands.” (Pierre, Stephen and Robert Payne (1973), Massacre, New York: Macmillan, p 50). The official position from Bangladesh concurs with the figure of 3 million.
R J Rummel in his book, Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900 (ch.8) concludes: “Consolidating both ranges, I give a final estimate of Pakistan’s democide to be 300,000 to 3,000,000, or a prudent 1,500,000.” Even this figure of 1.5 million places this massacre high up in the list of notable world genocides. While the number killed by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia (in excess of 2 million) may top the Bangladesh genocide, it was carried out over a period of 4 years in comparison to the nine-month deadly rampage of the Pakistan army: a chilling testimony to the awesome brutality of this massacre.
Who bore the brunt of this genocide? Was it the Bengali Muslims? Were the Bengali Hindus selectively targeted? Or did both communities suffer equally? It is important to know the actual distribution of the casualties for therein may lie the clue to the big unanswered question: Why were the guilty not brought to book?
The killings were not random acts of response to a mass uprising but a meticulously crafted strategy of selective victimisation as Rummel indicates in his book: “In East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) [General Agha Mohammed Yahya Khan and his top generals] also planned to murder its Bengali intellectual, cultural, and political elite. They also planned to indiscriminately murder hundreds of thousands of its Hindus and drive the rest into India. And they planned to destroy its economic base to insure that it would be subordinate to West Pakistan for at least a generation to come. This despicable and cutthroat plan was outright genocide.”
A report in the Sunday Times, London [ Images ] (June 13, 1971) corroborates the existence of such a diabolical blueprint: “The government’s policy for East Bengal was spelled out to me in the Eastern Command headquarters at Dacca. It has three elements: 1. The Bengalis have proved themselves unreliable and must be ruled by West Pakistanis; 2. The Bengalis will have to be re-educated along proper Islamic lines. The — Islamisation of the masses — this is the official jargon — is intended to eliminate secessionist tendencies and provide a strong religious bond with West Pakistan; 3. When the Hindus have been eliminated by death and fight, their property will be used as a golden carrot to win over the under privileged Muslim middle-class. This will provide the base for erecting administrative and political structures in the future.”
In a report submitted to U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee (November 1, 1971) Senator Edward Kennedy further confirms this persecution of Hindus: “Field reports to the US government, countless eye-witness journalistic accounts, reports of international agencies such as World Bank and additional information available to the subcommittee document the reign of terror which grips East Bengal (East Pakistan). Hardest hit have been members of the Hindu community who have been robbed of their lands and shops, systematically slaughtered, and in some places, painted with yellow patches marked ‘H’. All of this has been officially sanctioned, ordered and implemented under martial law from Islamabad [ Images ].”
An article in Time magazine dated August 2, 1971 titled Pakistan: The Ravaging of Golden Bengal (external link)categorically concluded: “The Hindus, who account for three-fourths of the refugees and a majority of the dead, have borne the brunt of the Muslim military hatred.”
All this evidence clearly indicates that the Hindu community of Bangladesh was the specially culled out by the Pakistan army for this inhuman treatment. Coming to specifics, let us see whether we can ascertain with a fair degree of accuracy, the ball park figures for the Hindus killed or driven from their homes.
In the senate judiciary committee report, Kennedy indicates that 80 percent of the refugees were Hindu, that is 8 of the 10 million; a figure in line with the Time magazine report that suggests that three-fourths of the refugees were Hindu.
The percentage figures follow the same pattern when we look at the people killed. Shrinandan Vyas in an article in The Hindu titled Hindu Genocide in East Pakistan uses population statistics from the Bangladesh ministry of planning, bureau of statistics to extrapolate the number of Hindus killed by the Pakistan army: a mind-numbing figure of 2.4 million equivalent to 80 percent of the overall total of 3 million emerges.
While this is not an attempt to underplay or trivialise the sacrifices of Bangladeshis as a whole (Muslim intellectuals were also killed in large numbers), it cannot be denied that the Hindu community of Bangladesh accounted for an astronomically disproportionate share of the dead and paid a price that was more than its due.
A crime like genocide usually involves established institutions like governments or nations. For the criminals to be brought to book one needs a dedicated champion like the legendary Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal or a driven community who share a commonality with the victims and will not let the perpetrators to rest. The Hindu community has neither.
Logically it would fall upon the Bangladesh government to relentlessly pursue the executors of this horrific massacre. After some half-hearted attempts in the immediate post -1971 period, the Bangladesh government has relegated this issue to a back burner. Why they have done so is intriguing? Does it have to do something with Islamic brotherhood and the fact that the victims happened to be predominantly Hindu?
What about the Hindus themselves? The Hindus, wherever they maybe, are afflicted with a strange psychic malady that inhibits them from standing up for their rights or highlighting atrocities committed against them. Moreover those Hindus who do so are shouted down by their own brethren .However, in defence of Bangladeshi Hindus, I must say that the continued oppressive religious environment in that country makes any such protest impossible, especially with their limited numbers.
The only other lobby with a special interest in this matter was predominantly Hindu India. I have always felt that India owes a moral responsibility to the Hindus left behind in Pakistan and Bangladesh in 1947. While the Muslim minority of India became a part of a secular republic with equal rights, the Hindu minority of Pakistan (and later Bangladesh) were relegated to second class status through no fault of theirs.
Could India with its famed free and secular media have played a key role? Yes it certainly could have. And should have. But did not.
To side with Hindus even if they are right is akin to blasphemy in the vaunted circles of the free Indian media. How else can you explain the relentless crusade against the Gujarat riots that persists even to this day in comparison with the near total silence on the monumental genocide that obliterated 2.4 million Hindus from the face of the earth or the shoddy treatment meted out to the continued ethnic cleansing of a quarter million Hindus from Kashmir?
All atrocities regardless of the colour, caste, creed or religion of the victims must be condemned fair and square and the perpetrators relentlessly pursued till eternity if need be and brought to book. When we can raise your voice for 2,000 Muslims (the official figures are much less) killed in Gujarat and we should, we must cry from the roof tops for 2.4 million Hindus killed in 1971 or the 250,000 Kashmiri Pandits forced out of their homes in Kashmir. Why do we not?
Vivek Gumaste
SOME CONTACTS OF MIT BOARD MEMBERS AND ORGANIZERS
| Title and Name | Position at MIT | Email Address |
| Professor Balakrishnan Rajagopal | Faculty Director, Program on Human Rights and Justice (PHRJ) (workshop organiser) | braj@mit.edu |
| Professor Susan Hockfield | President | hockfield@mit.edu |
| Professor Richard Samuels | Director of the Center for International Studies. | samuels@mit.edu |
| Professor Phillip L. Clay | Chancellor | plclay@mit.edu |
| Professor Steve R. Lerman | Vice Chancellor & Dean Graduate Education | lerman@mit.edu |
| Dr. Omar Khalidi | Workshop organiser | okhalidi@mit.edu |
| Professor Haimanti Roy | Assistant Professor of History(workshop organiser) | haimanti@mit.edu |
truthaboutmitindiaworkshop
