I wish to thank the Government of India for inviting me
here and for giving me this unique opportunity
to study the situation with regard to freedom of religion or belief. India
is a diverse country where religions and beliefs are abundant and find
respect in a secular framework. My mission started on March 3, 2008 in
Amritsar and subsequently I visited Delhi, Jammu, Srinagar, Ahmedabad,
Mumbai, Thiruvananthapuram, Bhubaneswar and Lucknow. Now I am again in
Delhi and with this press conference I am concluding my mission to India.
During my country visit, I had the opportunity to meet
with several government officials, including the ministers of external
affairs, minority affairs and culture as well as with the chief ministers
of Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir, Gujarat, Kerala and Orissa. In addition, I
met with the solicitor general, several Supreme Court justices and high
court judges as well as with members of various human rights and minority
commissions. Further meetings with civil society included leaders and
members of the religious communities in India, academics, journalists,
human rights activists, lawyers and professionals of the visual arts
industry. I would like to acknowledge the high level of cooperation I
received both from the government and from the citizens of India.
Indeed, due to the religious diversity of India, this
country visit has been an enriching experience for the mandate I hold
since 2004. I will be submitting a detailed report with conclusions and
recommendations to the United Nations Human Rights Council therefore this
press statement will only cover some preliminary impressions that I have
formed during the past two and a half weeks. In this press statement it
would be impossible to make a general assessment of the current state of
freedom of religion or belief in the whole of India. In fact, this was not
the first visit of the mandate, as my predecessor undertook a mission to
India in 1996 (see UN Doc E/CN4/1997/91/Add 1). Consequently, my
forthcoming report will also be a follow-up on developments during the
past 12 years in order to analyse what has changed and why.
Concerning the legal framework, I am well aware of the
fact that the political system of India is of a federal nature and that
the states have wide powers, including in the field of law and order. Thus
the level of action of the government to protect its citizens in terms of
freedom of religion or belief varies according to the states concerned. I
also acknowledge that there are democratic safeguards within the system
and that the institutions have accumulated a vast experience in protecting
human rights.
Many of my interlocutors have pointed to the positive
impact of Indian secularism as embodied in the Constitution. By and large,
Indians do value secular principles and I was told time and again that the
term "secularism" does not necessarily mean the same as in other
countries. Historically, there have been believers of a whole range of
religions and beliefs living in India. The central government has
developed a comprehensive policy pertaining to minorities, including
religious ones. In this context I would like to compliment various recent
reports on religious minorities, for example drafted by the committees
headed by Justice Rajindar Sachar in 2006 and by Justice Ranganath Misra
in 2007. Such committees mandated by the government are a good example of
mechanisms put in place to analyse the situation and put forward
recommendations for the government to take action upon.
The National Commission for Minorities too has taken up
several challenges. Their members took prompt action and issued
independent reports on incidents of communal violence with concrete
recommendations. However, the performance of various human rights
commissions depends very much on the selection of its members and the
importance various governments attach to their mandates. It is vital that
members of such commissions have acute sensitivity to human rights issues
and must reflect the diversity – particularly in terms of gender – as
women are one of the worst sufferers of religious intolerance. At the same
time, I noticed that women’s groups across religious lines were the most
active and effective human rights advocates in situations of communal
tension.
All individuals I met recognised that a comprehensive
legal framework to protect their rights exists yet many of them –
especially from religious minorities – remained dissatisfied with its
implementation. By and large, Indians respect the diversity of religions
and beliefs. At the same time, organised groups based on religious
ideologies have unleashed the fear of mob violence in many parts of the
country. Law enforcement is often reluctant to take any action against
individuals or groups that perpetuate violence in the name of religion or
belief. This institutionalised impunity for those who exploit religion and
impose their religious intolerance on others has made peaceful citizens,
particularly the minorities, vulnerable and fearful.
I have received numerous reports of attacks on religious
minorities and their places of worship as well as discrimination of
disempowered sections of the Hindu community. The following are only a few
examples that are well publicised.
In Uttar Pradesh I received concrete reports of violence
and rapes as a reaction to cases of intermarriage between believers of
different religions or castes. Acts of violence continue to occur while
perpetrators are dealt with some sympathy by the law enforcement agents.
This bias is deep-rooted in society, which makes the protection of the
victims even more difficult. Some of the cases I was informed about are
still under investigation and I hope that justice will prevail.
Less than three months ago there was widespread violence
in the Kandhamal district of Orissa, targeting primarily Christians in
Dalit and tribal communities. I received credible reports that members of
the Christian community alerted the authorities in advance of the planned
attacks of December 24-27, 2007. The police too had warned Christian
leaders about anticipated violence. The National Commission for Minorities
stated in a recent report: "Destruction on such a large scale in places
which are difficult to access could not have taken place without advance
preparation and planning." Even today tensions are prevalent and the
anti-conversion legislation is being used to vilify Christians in general.
Concerning the 2002 Gujarat massacre, I have read numerous
reports, both of official bodies and civil society organisations and I met
a large number of eyewitnesses and people who visited Gujarat during the
trouble. The state government reported that prior to the Godhra incident
Gujarat had witnessed 443 major communal incidents between 1970 and 2002.
As such, the warning was there. However, the massacre that took place
after the tragic deaths at Godhra in 2002 is all the more horrifying since
by all accounts at least a thousand people were systematically killed.
Even worse, there are credible reports that inaction by the authorities
was evident and most interlocutors alleged complicity by the state
government. In my discussions with victims I could see their continuing
fear which is exacerbated by the distress that justice continues to evade
most victims and survivors. Even today there is increasing ghettoisation
and isolation of Muslims in certain areas. The assertion of the state
government that development by itself will heal the wounds does not seem
to be realistic. It is crucial to recognise that development without a
policy of inclusiveness of all communities will only add to aggravate
resentments.
Furthermore, I am disturbed that at various meetings with
members of civil society during my visit to Gujarat, plain-clothed
government agents took names of all my NGO interlocutors and also made
their presence felt afterwards. On several occasions, I had to insist that
police officers leave the room during my NGO meetings. The terms of
reference of fact-finding missions by special rapporteurs (see UN Doc
E/CN4/1998/45, Appendix V) are very clear in this regard. These terms of
reference guarantee confidential and unsupervised contact with witnesses
and other private persons as well as assurance by the government that no
persons, official or private individuals who have been in contact with the
special rapporteur in relation to the mandate, will for this reason suffer
threats, harassment or punishment or be subjected to judicial proceedings.
I am also concerned at the extended time frame of
investigations in cases involving communal riots, violence and massacres
such as those which occurred in 1984, 1992 and 2002. All of these
incidents continue to haunt the people affected by them and impunity
emboldens forces of intolerance. It is important to draw lessons learnt
from these events in order to prevent communal violence in the future.
While an inquiry into large-scale communal violence should not be done in
indecent haste, it should be accorded the highest priority both by the
investigation, the judiciary and any commission appointed to study the
situation. Unreasonable protraction of the inquiry only keeps tensions
simmering and devalues justice. I was astonished to learn that just before
I arrived in India, the Liberhan Commission – probing the circumstances
leading to the 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya – got the
44th extension to conclude its inquiry.
My predecessor, Mr Abdelfattah Amor, unfortunately was
prophetic when he expressed his fears that something in the nature of the
1992 Ayodhya incident will recur in the event of political exploitation of
a situation. In my opinion, there is today a real risk that similar
communal violence might happen again unless incitement to religious hatred
and political exploitation of communal tensions are effectively prevented.
It is a challenge both for the government and for
non-state actors to diffuse tensions and address the root causes ahead of
time. The sincerity of the central government to implement the Sachar
Committee report will be very much seen on the ground because state
governments have been given direction to follow up on the recommendations
of the report. During my visit I have noticed that – while the state of
Kerala has already undertaken the assignment seriously – many states have
not even set up the relevant committees.
I was deeply touched to hear of the exodus of the Kashmiri
Pandits in the 1990s following a campaign of threats and violence. They
remain dislocated to this day despite the fact the de-escalation of
violence in Jammu and Kashmir has had a positive impact on religious
tolerance. There have been public statements inviting the Hindu Pandits to
return to Kashmir. Places of worship are now more accessible and the
tensions are reducing. At the same time, many interlocutors have confirmed
a continuing bias amongst security forces against Muslims who also face
problems with regard to issuing of passports and security clearances for
employment purposes. There are also reports of discrimination against them
outside of Jammu and Kashmir, such as the refusal of hotel bookings.
At all places where I met with members of the Muslim
community in India, I was informed that a number of them have been
arrested on ill-founded suspicions of terrorism. They are disturbed that
terrorism is associated with their religion despite various public
statements from Muslim leadership denouncing terrorism. There was though
recognition of the government’s efforts in ensuring that Indian Muslims’
rights are protected when arrested abroad.
The visual arts industry in India has played an important
role in public education regarding religious tolerance. For this reason it
remains a target of mob pressure. Films are effectively banned by
non-state actors through intimidation. Regrettably, professionals seem to
routinely seek the approval of self-appointed custodians of religious
sentiments before going ahead with a film which touches upon communal
issues. While any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement
to violence needs to be prosecuted, this subtle form of self-censorship
begs the question how the state could prevent the build-up of an
atmosphere of fear of repercussions and mob pressure.
There are other issues of concern with regard to my
mandate. These include the legal link between scheduled caste status and
religious affiliation, the impact of "anti-conversion laws" in several
states as well as the concerns voiced by Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and
atheists. I intend to discuss these issues in my report to the Human
Rights Council.
The vast majority of Indians respect secular traditions
and keenly follow the teachings of the nation’s founding fathers. I have
noticed encouraging signs in the fight against religious intolerance and I
am impressed by the outstanding degree of human rights activism in India.
There are innumerable examples where individuals have come to each other’s
rescue, crossing all religious boundaries. Indeed, in Gujarat a large
number of victims recognised the positive role played by some national
media and other courageous individuals who effectively saved lives. It is
a crucial – albeit difficult – task for the state and civil society to
challenge the forces of intolerance.