LETTER TO THE EDITOR- RE: US SPECIAL ENVOY FARAH PANDITH'S VISIT TO INDIA AND INDIAN MUSLIMS

Friday, February 19, 2010

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

US special envoy Farah Pandith's meetings with Muslims in Delhi and Mumbai, could not be rated more than a propaganda exercise by Obama to pacify Muslims, who are deeply agitated and distressed over US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and the continued shedding of blood of innocent civilians. As per reports, by her own account, she is not authorised to even discuss the most important issues that are agitating the Muslims all over the world: Israel-Palestinian peace and withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan. She referred one issue to George Mitchell and the other to Richard Holbrooke. So what is there for her to explain to her selected audience in American Centers? In fact, it would appear that she is an innocent victim of abuse by the Obama and Clinton administration as she has not been entrusted with any policy decision making and merely asked to perform a parrot like role to advance America's false propaganda about a new thinking towards Muslim world. Mere words don't count. Muslim world expects action on both issues that is the main cause of alienation of Muslim from US administration's armed actions that kills innocent Muslims and destroys Muslim lands. That action is not forthcoming --- neither in short term nor in long-term USplanning!

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com

www.GhulamMuhammed.Blogspot.com

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

US is a friend of Muslims, says Obama envoy

By IANS,

New Delhi : Farah Pandith, the Kashmiri-born US special representative for the Islamic world, Wednesday said her country wanted a "long-term relationship" with Muslims, based on "mutual interest and mutual respect".
Addressing an invited gathering mostly of Muslims in Delhi's India Islamic Cultural Centre, Pandith said the US wanted to invest in building a relationship with Muslim youth and establish people-to-people contact.
"Secretary (Hillary) Clinton has asked me to work with the Muslim community around the world as much as we can," she said on the second day of her first official four-day trip to India that will also take her to Mumbai.
"We want to build a long-term relationship and engage with young Muslims in a dialogue based on mutual interest and mutual respect," Pandith said.
She said President Barack Obama's administration wished to reach out to the grassroots of Muslim masses in countries where the Muslims "are either in majority or minority".
Pandith said Muslims formed one-fourth of the world population and the US wanted to negotiate future relations with young Muslims.
"I am focused on the young generation in the Muslim world and we are engaging young Muslim generation in dialogues and conversations to build trust and remove misunderstandings," she said.
Pandith highlighted Obama's "vision to build partnerships with Muslim communities across the globe".
Pandith is an American Muslim born in India's Jammu and Kashmir. Her parents immigrated to the US in 1969. She was nominated the Muslim envoy June 23, 2009, by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She was sworn in Sep 15 last year. 

"Professionalism in Political Assassination? Only an Israel writer in Israeli newspaper can boast about it." - Ghulam Muhammed

"Professionalism in Political Assassination? Only an Israel writer in Israeli newspaper can boast about it."

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

-------------
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1150126.html

Assassinated senior Hamas figure Mahmoud al-Mabhouh.(Archive)

Last update - 10:46 16/02/2010 Dubai assassins used Mossad methods to kill Hamas leader By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent What makes the security camera shots released last night by the Dubai police interesting is the professionalism exhibited by the suspected assassins of senior Hamas figure Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. They arrived on separate flights from different destinations; one of them flew in via Munich and Qatar. They stayed in different hotels and were careful to make phone calls using international routers. They wore clothing that makes them difficult to identify. One is seen with a mustache and a hat, others wearing hats and glasses. They try, throughout, to appear to be innocent tourists or business people, there to enjoy themselves and even play some tennis. On the basis of the video clips and the information provided by Dubai police officers investigating the murder, the assassination squad involved 10 men carrying British, French, German and Irish passports. A woman carrying an Irish passport was also captured by the cameras. The Dubai authorities claim there were two teams: one carried out surveillance of the target, while the other - which appears to be a group of younger men, at least as far as the camera shots show - carried out the killing. Contrary to reports, the squad did not break into Mabhouh's hotel room, nor did they knock on the door. They entered the room using copies of keys they had somehow acquired. The Dubai police chief says it is not unlikely that the assassination teams were made up of Mossad agents. The bits of information and the camera images suggest methods used by the Mossad that Mishka Ben-David wrote about in detail in his novel "Duet in Beirut." Ben-David, who served as the intelligence officer for the Caesarea operations branch of the Mossad, insists that his novel is a work of fiction. However, it is obvious to all that the experience he accumulated in the Mossad over the years appears in his book. "Duet in Beirut" is very similar to the failed attempt in 1997 to assassinate Hamas politburo chief Khaled Meshal in Jordan. Ben-David describes the Mossad agents, changing hotels, changing vehicles, arriving from different destinations, and changing clothes and appearances in order to make identification difficult. Two of the suspects are seen changing clothes on the security camera footage in Dubai. The actual capture of the suspects on film may reveal their identities - and even suggest only partial success of the operation. However, it is clear that whoever they are, they knew ahead of time that in an era when terror is a global threat, security measures have also expanded considerably. Anyone embarking on an international operation of this sort takes into account that nearly every hotel, airport and basically any public building is equipped with security cameras working 24/7. Those on such a mission consider this as part of their calculated risks and do their best to distort their appearance. In any case, if the police in Dubai manage to receive the information from Interpol regarding the suspects' passports, they will reveal fictitious names and possibly forged passports. Therefore the information will do little for the investigation. The only weak point that may lead to the identification of the group behind the assassination is the arrest in Dubai of two Palestinians. According to Dubai police, the two were linked to the operation and provided logistical information. Even if they are connected to the killing, we can assume that they know very little that would help identify the perpetrators. Such operations involve stringent compartmentalization, not only among the members of the teams, but also with those assisting them and who may have provided information that allowed them to actually carry out the assassination.

Doha Debate in Delhi : 'Do Muslim get a fair deal in India'.

RE: Doha Debate in Delhi : 'Do Muslim get a fair deal in India'.

Andrew Buncombe, a British Journalist with Independant newspaper, left Doha Debate in Delhi, with the impression that the majority of the audience appears to support the the motion that Muslims do not get a fair deal in India?

 

To his utter surprise, next day he finds that audience has voted against the motion.

 

He should not be surprised. This incident itself proves how deep is the negative feeling against Muslims in India and how little sympathy they get from an elitist crowd of middle class, upper caste Hindu milieu. The worst part is that like Sachin Pilot, his own Congress Party has been guilty of gross discrimination in public affairs and horrendous violations of Human Rights of Muslim minority, though declaring their governed nation to be a model of secularism and democracy. Congress double game is the the biggest fraud that Muslims have suffered in their own country. Even with level-headed leaders like Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi, the rank and file of Congress thrives on demonising Muslims and paying only lip service to their upliftment.

The daily media chorus against Muslim seems to be a must to get a samblance of unity among the diversified pluralist society. Only Muslim bashing can give the minority of Brahmins, the bare electoral majority to rule the country. That scenerio is hard to change, given the electoral compulsion of the political class. Some drastic changes imposed on the system of governance can only do justice to 150 to 200 million Muslims of India.

 

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Siraj Wahab <sirajwahab@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2010 4:29 PM
Subject: [nrindians] Do Muslims get a fair deal in India?
To: nrindians@googlegroups.com

 

http://andrewbuncombe.independentminds.livejournal.com/16688.html 

Do Muslims get a fair deal in India?

Posted by Andrew Buncombe

• Tuesday, 16 February 2010 at 11:46 am

 Last night I was in the audience for the filming of the of the latest of the Doha Debates, the series of discussions headed by Tim Sebastian and broadcast by BBC World News. Held within the quite solace of St Stephen's College, one of the most prestigious colleges within Delhi University, the debates were breaking new ground by holding their first event in Asia.

 I had been in two minds whether to go, mainly because I thought the issue being discussed, "This house believes that Muslims are not getting a fair deal in India", seems to be so overwhelmingly obvious. Ever since the government-appointedSachar Committee reported in 2006 that Muslims in India had less access to education, government jobs and survived on lower incomes than average, it seemed the issue was settled. Of course, there are plenty of Muslims who reach the heights in India, from politicians through to Bollywood stars such as Shah Rukh Khan, but taken as a whole it would be hard to argue that Muslims did not suffer discrimination.

 
  Indeed, when the debate got started it seemed everyone taking part agreed on this issue, including the two participants challenging the motion. The veteran journalist MJ Akbar, who has spent much of his career highlighting discrimination in India, was one of the two taking on this task and even he admitted "you cannot say that Muslims get an entirely fair deal". Sachin Pilot, a young government minister, (he is also the son of a former Congress minister) and an alumni of St Stephen's, also admitted things were not perfect. Yet he argued that there were many elements within Indian society that suffered and it was not that Muslims suffered particular discrimination.

 
 Against this, Seema Mustafa, a journalist and political commentator, said the government had done little for Muslims who had been especially victimised by security forces since the 9/11 attacks. Teesta Setalvad, a prominent civil rights activist, claimed that Muslims were being excluded from the "elite political and economic leadership of India". "The Muslim today lives in a segregated class leading to ghettoisation and a consequently very dangerous situation. Above all, Muslim women are discriminated against to make sure a credible leadership does not emerge," she said.

 They also mentioned the Indian establishment's refusal to properly bring to justice those responsible for attacks on Muslims, be it the destruction of the Babri Masjid of the appalling misnamed Gujarat "riots" in which hundreds of Muslims were brutally murdered in a systematic operation assisted by elements within the local government, headed by the right-wing nationalist Narendra Modi, a man who has been tipped as a possible future leader of the country.

 In fact, so obvious to me was the outcome of the debate, that I left early. I was rather surprised therefore to wake up and discover that the vote had gone the other way. The vote by the students of the college, alumni of which account for six current government ministers, found that 63 per cent opposed the motion while only 37 agreed.

 So what to make of this? In a situation where the statistics apparently prove one thing, how could a group of such young smart people have voted the other way. Were they really taken in by Sachin Pilot's disingenuous argument that "everyone in India has an equal opportunity" or what it simply that was this was what they wanted to believe (and who would not wish for such a situation). 

I couldn't help thinking there was something of a cycle here: if the sorts of people that get to become government ministers in India are drawn from educational establishments seemingly so blind to the obvious pitfalls of their society then maybe that's why nothing get's changed. And yes, one could say the same thing about plenty of other countries all around the world.

Obama names Indian-American Muslim as special envoy to Muslim - By Chidanand Rajghatta - The Times of India, Mumbai

Obama names Indian-American Muslim as special envoy to Muslim world

 

 

Obama's choice of Indian Muslims, while breaking out of the traditional Anglo-Saxon, or Jewish political stranglehold on US state appointments especially in foreign relations field, cautiously avoids more pronounced Muslim and Arab identifications of his new opening to the Muslim world. Indian Muslims as a community have been a neglected lot and have not only suffered maligned neglect from the Brahmin headed ruling class in India, but have been sidelined by the world Muslim narrative writers too. Obama's choices will focus new light on a 150 million strong Indian Muslim community that had surprisingly remained moderate but deeply committed to their religious beliefs. The new generation with grounding in both secular and religious education is coming forth with very balanced responses to new world challenges. Impacting US foreign policies, their contribution to a more humane and inclusive world ethos would be and should be welcomed by one and all.

 

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

 

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

 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/indians-abroad/Indian-origin-lawyer-is-Barack-Obamas-new-pointman-for-OIC/articleshow/5577147.cms

 

 

From THE TIMES OF INDIA, MUMBAI

 

 

Obama names Indian-American Muslim as Special Envoy to Islamic world

 

Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN, 16 February 2010, 02:04am IST

WASHINGTON: An Indian-American Muslim who is a product of the liberal, syncretic cultures of India and the United States has been appointed  Washington’s special envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), much to the delight of Indian-Muslims who see this as vindication of their plural and moderate ethos by the Obama administration. 

The White House on Friday named Rashad Hussain, an Obama acolyte who is son of Indian immigrants from Bihar, as the US envoy to the 57–member OIC, following up appointments of several Indian-Americans, including at least two other Indian-American Muslims, to high level posts. 

One of the appointees, Srinagar-born Farah Pandit, who is the State Department’s Special Representative to Muslim communities, arrived in New Delhi on Monday on a visit aimed at furthering Washington’s engagement with Muslims around the world. Obama has also named Dr Islam Siddiqui, an immigrant from Uttar Pradesh, as the Washington’s chief agricultural negotiator, although the nomination is currently held up in the Senate. 

White House officials said that as Special Envoy to the OIC, Hussain will ''deepen and expand the partnerships that the US has pursued with Muslims around the world'' since Obama's speech in Cairo last June in which he reached out to the Islamic world. 

''As an accomplished lawyer and a close and trusted member of my White House staff, Rashad has played a key role in developing the partnerships I called for in Cairo. And as a hafiz of the Qurân, he is a respected member of the American Muslim community, and I thank him for carrying forward this important work,'' Obama, whose middle name is also Hussain (which he gets from his father, although the President is a practicing Christian) said in a statement. 

Born in Wyoming, Rashad Hussain grew up outside Dallas, Texas, where his parents still live. His father, Mohammad Hussain, is a retired mining engineer from Bihar, while his mother, Ruqaya, is a gynaecologist. His older sister, Lubna, is also a physician, while his younger brother, Saad, is a medical student. The accomplished Indian-American Muslim family offers a different perspective from the dark vision that fundamentalist, grievance-filled Muslims offer.  

Hussain completed a bachelor’s degree in philosophy and political science, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where his thesis was titled, “Assessing the Theistic Implications of Big Bang Cosmological Theory.” He also holds a Masters degree in Arabic & Islamic Studies from Harvard University, and got his J.D. from Yale Law School, where he served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal. 

Between Harvard and Yale, he worked as legislative aide on the House Judiciary Committee, where he reviewed the USA Patriot Act and other bills. In January 2009, President Obama named him deputy associate counsel to the White House after he had served as a trial attorney at the US. Department of Justice. 

Incidentally, Obama also has appointed at least three other Indian-American legal luminaries to administrative posts. He chose Preeta Bansal, 42, as Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Management and Budget, and Neal Katyal, 38 as Principal Deputy Solicitor General, the number two position in the Office of the Solicitor General in the Department of Justice. He also named Ferozepur-born Preet Bharara as the US Attorney for Manhattan. 

But Rashad Hussain’s appointment was particularly sweet for Indian Muslims who have won high praise in the US (including from former President George Bush) for their liberal, syncretic values that contrast sharply with the dark vision of many of their co-religionists in the region. Bush often expressed admiration for the fact that India's 160 million-plus Muslims were largely immune to grievance-laden extremists types that proliferate in neighboring Pakistan, something which is constantly being challenged. 

Hussain’s appointment delighted Indian-Americans, including one fellow Indian-American who was also in line for the job. ''Rashad is greatly influenced by the Indian ethos of pluralism and inclusiveness. As a Special envoy to the OIC, he will initiate a positive relationship between America and the Muslim nations, I am proud of his heritage; an Indian, Muslim and an American,'' said Mike Ghouse, a Dallas-based inter-faith activist from India who has known the Hussain family and who was also under consideration for the post.  

Hussain’s appointment is also politically and diplomatically significant in the context of New Delhi’s own uncertain ties with the OIC. The OIC has not accepted India as a full-member it having the world’s second largest Muslim population after Indonesia, mostly on account of Pakistan’s historical insecurities and fears.

Pressed by Islamabad, the OIC some months back appointed Abdullah Bin Abdul Rahman Al Bakr, OIC's assistant secretary-general for political affairs, who is from Saudi Arabia, as the special envoy on J&K to examine the human rights issues. That few OIC countries, least of all Saudi Arabia, are well known for their protection of human rights was lost on the organization. 

Hussain’s appointment now comes as a huge embarrassment for a militarized, army-dominated Pakistan, whose espousal of a militant, intolerant brand of Islam to cement its national security is increasingly being questioned in Washington. In fact, Pakistani officials have been deeply resentful of what they see as the growing ''Indian'' influence in Washington and Congressional circles and launched a crude, toxic propaganda against Indian-American serving in the administration. 

In a vicious attack last week, a Pakistani newspaper accused Preet Bharara, the Obama-appointed US attorney in New York, of carrying out a witchhunt against Pakistanis in the US because of his ''ideological beliefs'' going back to the sub-continent’s partition days. The paper also alleged that Bharara appointed a ''like-minded controversial Indian who is also known for his hatred and venomous propaganda against Pakistan, Anjan Sahni, as Chief of the Terrorism and International Narcotics Unit soon after he assumed the charge of US Federal Attorney of New York.''

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

From AFP:

 

Obama names special envoy to pan-Islamic body

By Acil Tabbara (AFP) – 2 days ago

DOHA — US President Barack Obama on Saturday named Rashad Hussain as his special envoy to the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, aiming to build on pledges to restore ties with the Muslim world.

In a recorded video message to the seventh annual US-Islamic World Forum meeting in the Qatari capital, Obama said he wanted to deepen partnerships with the Muslim world "and to develop others."

"I'm proud to announce today that I am appointing my special envoy to the OIC Rashad Hussain," said Obama, who opened his message with the Muslim greeting of "Assalaamu Alaykum" (peace be with you).

"As an accomplished lawyer and a close and trusted member of my White House staff, Rashad has played a key role in developing the partnerships I called for in Cairo."

In June 2009, just a few months after his inauguration, Obama travelled to Egypt to deliver an address aimed at restarting US relations with Muslims worldwide after eight rocky years under his predecessor George W. Bush.

"I laid out a vision where we all embrace our responsibilities to build a world that is more peaceful and secure," Obama told the forum in Doha, organised by the Brookings think-tank's Saban Center for Middle East Policy and Qatar's foreign affairs ministry

Washington has since been "responsibly ending the war in Iraq," while "in Afghanistan and beyond, we are forging partnerships to isolate violent extremists, reduce corruption and to promote good governance and development," he said.

"It has only been eight months since Cairo, and much remains to be done. But I believe we've laid the groundwork to turn those pledges into action."

Obama, who has made the elusive search for Middle East peace a top priority of his administration, also renewed his commitment to seeking a two-state solution for the Palestinians.

"We remain unyielding in pursuit of a two-state solution that recognises the rights and security of Israelis and Palestinians," he vowed.

But he acknowledged the path ahead would not be easy, admitting "the United States and Muslims around the world have often slipped into a cycle of misunderstanding and mistrust that can lead to conflict rather than cooperation.

"Fully realising the new beginning we envision will take a long-term commitment. But we have begun," Obama said.

"Now, it falls to us all, governments and individuals, to do the hard work that must be done turning words into deeds and Writing the Next Chapter in the ties between us, with faith in each other, on the basis of mutual respect."

Hussain, who has been acting as Obama's deputy associate counsel, said he was honoured to have been appointed to the post.

"As part of his commitment to continue to seek a new beginning with Muslim communities around the world, and to expand upon the partnerships he outlined in Cairo, I am honoured and humbled that the president has asked me to serve as his Special Envoy to the OIC," he said in a statement.

George W. Bush formally named the first US envoy to the OIC in February 2008, appointing Texas entrepreneur Sada Cumber.

The OIC, based in the Saudi city of Jeddah, with its 57 members is the world's largest Islamic assembly.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is to attend the conference on Sunday, and is due to hold talks with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayip Erdogan and others on key issues including Iran's nuclear drive and Middle East peace.

Speaking at the forum on Saturday, Erdogan criticised "the negative stereotypes... linking Islam and terrorism" and said "racism is as dangerous as anti-Semitism and Islamophobia."

At the 2008 US-Islamic forum, delegates voiced support for then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, although some warned against expecting any radical policy change should he win the White House.

A year into his administration, Obama has yet to achieve any significant momentum on stalled peace talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and Muslim audiences are now less receptive to his promise of a "new beginning" with the Muslim world.

Hard Midwast Truths - By Roger Cohen - The New York Times

A VERY IMPORTANT ARTICLE BY AN AMERICAN JEWISH WRITER OF THE NEW YORK TIMES--- ROGER COHEN.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/opinion/12iht-edcohen.html

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Hard Mideast Truths

• RECOMMEND
• TWITTER
• COMMENTS(212)
• E-MAIL
• SEND TO PHONE
• PRINT
• SHARE

By ROGER COHEN

Published: February 11, 2010

NEW YORK — For over a century now, Zionism and Arab nationalism have failed to find an accommodation in the Holy Land. Both movements attempted to fill the space left by collapsed empire, and it has been left to the quasi-empire, the United States, to try to coax them to peaceful coexistence. The attempt has failed.

Earl Wilson/The New York Times

Roger Cohen

Go to Columnist Page »

Readers' Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

• Read All Comments (212) »

President Barack Obama came to office more than a year ago promising new thinking, outreach to the Muslim world, and relentless focus on Israel-Palestine. But nice speeches have given way to sullen stalemate. I am told Obama and the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, have a zero-chemistry relationship.


Domestic U.S. politics constrain innovative thought — even open debate — on the process without end that is the peace search. As Aaron David Miller, who long labored in the trenches of that process, once observed, the United States ends up as “Israel’s lawyer” rather than an honest broker. The upside for an American congressman in speaking out for Palestine is nonexistent.


I don’t see these constraints shifting much, but the need for Obama to honor his election promise grows. The conflict gnaws at U.S. security, eats away at whatever remote possibility of a two-state solution is left, clouds Israel’s future, scatters Palestinians and devours every attempt to bridge the West and Islam.


Here’s what I believe. Centuries of persecution culminating in the Holocaust created a moral imperative for a Jewish homeland, Israel, and demand of America that it safeguard that nation in the breach.


But past persecution of the Jews cannot be a license to subjugate another people, the Palestinians. Nor can the solemn U.S. promise to stand by Israel be a blank check to the Jewish state when its policies undermine stated American aims.


One such Israeli policy is the relentless settlement of the West Bank. Two decades ago, James Baker, then secretary of state, declared, “Forswear annexation; stop settlement activity.” Fast-forward 20 years to Barack Obama in Cairo: “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” In the interim the number of settlers almost quadrupled from about 78,000 in 1990 to around 300,000 last year.


Since Obama spoke, Netanyahu, while promising an almost-freeze, has been planting saplings in settlements and declaring them part of Israel for “eternity.” In a normal relationship between allies — of the kind I think America and Israel should have — there would be consequences for such defiance. In the special relationship between the United States and Israel there are none.


The U.S. objective is a two-state peace. But day by day, square meter by square meter, the physical space for the second state, Palestine, is disappearing. Can the Gaza sardine can and fractured labyrinth of the West Bank now be seen as anything but a grotesque caricature of a putative state? America has allowed this self-defeating process to advance to near irreversibility.


In fact, it has helped fund it. The settlements are expensive, as is the security fence (hated “separation wall” to the Palestinians) that is itself an annexation mechanism. According to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service, U.S. aid to Israel totaled $28.9 billion over the past decade, a sum that dwarfs aid to any other nation and amounts to four times the total gross domestic product of Haiti.


It makes sense for America to assure Israel’s security. It does not make sense for America to bankroll Israeli policies that undermine U.S. strategic objectives.


This, too, I believe: Through violence, anti-Semitic incitation, and annihilationist threats, Palestinian factions have contributed mightily to the absence of peace and made it harder for America to adopt the balance required. But the impressive recent work of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in the West Bank shows that Palestinian responsibility is no oxymoron and demands of Israel a response less abject than creeping annexation.


And this: the “existential threat” to Israel is overplayed. It is no feeble David facing an Arab (or Arab-Persian) Goliath. Armed with a formidable nuclear deterrent, Israel is by far the strongest state in the region. Room exists for America to step back and apply pressure without compromising Israeli security.


And this: Obama needs to work harder on overcoming Palestinian division, a prerequisite for peace, rather than playing the no-credible-interlocutor Israeli game. The Hamas charter is vile. But the breakthrough Oslo accords were negotiated in 1993, three years before the Palestine Liberation Organization revoked the annihilationist clauses in its charter. When Arafat and Rabin shook hands on the White House lawn, that destroy-Israel charter was intact. Things change through negotiation, not otherwise. If there are Taliban elements worth engaging, are there really no such elements in the broad movements that are Hamas and Hezbollah?


If there are not two states there will be one state between the river and the sea and very soon there will be more Palestinian Arabs in it than Jews. What then will become of the Zionist dream?


It’s time for Obama to ask such tough questions in public and demand of Israel that it work in practice to share the land rather than divide and rule it.

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 14^th August as Hindu astrologers declared 15^th 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.

(A shorter version of the article was published by OUTLOOK magazine - GM)