September 18, 2000
Professor Sumit Ganguly
University of Texas
PROFESSOR GANGULY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of
the Commission.
I consider it an honor and a privilege to be asked to testify before
this Commission today. The subject that is before us is of obviously no
minor significance, and it indeed deserves very careful discussion and
analysis. I shall basically address three issues in my prepared remarks
and then answer any questions that might arise.
First, I shall talk about what the governments of India and
Pakistan could do to improve the protection of religious freedom and
the conditions of religious minorities in their respective countries.
Second, I'll dwell upon the possible measures that the United States
can take to improve the conditions of religious minorities in these two
countries; and finally, as I've been asked by the Commission, I shall
address the question of American policy options towards the ongoing
crisis in Kashmir.
At the very outset, I think it's important to underscore that
polemical commentaries to the contrary notwithstanding, the conditions
of religious freedom in India and Pakistan are indeed markedly
different. Both states, in their existing constitutional apparatus,
guarantee religious freedoms. However, this apparent similarity quickly
falls apart under closer scrutiny.
Pakistan started its independent history as a homeland for the
Muslims of South Asia and is now an avowedly Islamic republic. India,
on the other hand, made an explicit commitment to secularism at the
time of its independence and remains, as Marshall Bouton has
underscored, a constitutionally mandated secular state.
Under Pakistan's 1985 constitution, which is currently in
abeyance owing to the military coup, it notionally guarantees freedom
of religion. Religious freedom, however, according to the constitution
is deemed to be, quote, "subject to law, public order and morality."
Actions or speech derogatory to Islam or its Prophet, for example, are
not protected. In 1994, Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto unsuccessfully
made an attempt to amend the blasphemy law. More recently, General
Musharraf, the military ruler, also made a similar attempt but very
quickly was forced to back down in the face of Islamist opposition.
The consequences of this law are indeed far-reaching, because
it carries a mandatory death sentence. Tragically, this law has been
exploited to settle economic grievances or professional rivalries or to
target non-Muslims at the behest sometimes of local clerics.
In India, despite a vigorous challenge to the secular state
and ironically from both ends of the political spectrum, the legal
dispensation of secularism, as Marshall has underscored, remains
intact. Even the most ardent critics of secularism argue that they're
merely attacking what they consider to be pseudo-secularism. Since the
late 1980s, however, religious intolerance has indeed grown in India.
It reached its apogee in December 1992, when members of the Bajrandal
[ph], a group loosely associated with the dominant party in Parliament
currently, the Bharatiya Janata Party, attacked and destroyed a mosque,
the Babri Mosque, in the most populous state of India, Uttar Pradesh.
This edifice had been putatively built on the ruins of a Hindu
temple consecrating the birthplace of Lord Rahm [ph], one of the
principal members of the Hindu pantheon.
The responses of key elements of Indian society and government
to these loathsome acts have deferred markedly, and I would like to
underscore that the free press in India makes a vital difference. The
English language press in India particularly has done an exemplary job
of reporting on these incidents, and a number of Indian human rights
organizations have also vigorously condemned them.
Sadly, in my view, the national government, particularly this
government, has failed to demonstrate similar concern or alacrity about
this kind of recrudescence of violent religious intolerance. Instead,
on occasion, its spokespersons have suggested that these acts are
merely isolated incidents, the inevitable backlash against the
excessive proselytizing zeal of missionaries or the work of perfidious,
Pakistani-sponsored terrorists intent on fomenting communal hatred in
India.
There is some element of truth to the last issue, but I would
hardly attribute the entire state of religious violence to the evil
designs of the Pakistani state.
What could the national governments do to curb the rise of
these forms of religious intolerance? I'll talk first about Pakistan,
and then, I'll talk about India. In the Pakistani case, the tasks are
indeed manifold. To begin with, the Pakistani Government should be
urged to dispense with one of the most obvious elements of religious
discrimination, namely, the imprinting of religious affiliation on
national identity cards.
The government of General Musharraf should also be pressed to
dispense with the blasphemy law and its most draconian form of
punishment. This law has already been subjected to much abuse. It is in
Pakistan's interest, frankly, to promptly repeal it.
Finally, the Musharraf regime should be strongly urged to
bring the minority Ahmadiyya community within the fold of Islam. A
state that putatively was created to be the homeland of the Muslims of
South Asia can ill afford to treat fellow Muslims as apostates.
CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: Please; go right ahead. That's--
PROFESSOR GANGULY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: --irrelevant.
PROFESSOR GANGULY: Thank you.
Pakistan will eventually have to pursue fundamentally
institutional reforms to address the problem of minority rights.
However, even if it undertakes the few steps that I've outlined above,
it will have made significant progress towards preventing the further
abuse of its religious minorities.
The context of religious tolerance in India or intolerance, as
I've already talked about, is a far cry from the conditions that
prevail in Pakistan. At the outset, it needs to be highlighted that the
prevalence and indeed the deepening of electoral democracy in India
prevents parties which are insensitive to the concerns of religious
minorities from pursuing their wantonly callous behavior simply because
they do not wish to lose at the ballot box.
At an institutional level, also, the existence of an
independent judiciary, albeit slow and elephantine on occasion, also
provides the possibility of legal redress for the grievances of
minorities, and indeed, it has acted on occasion in that fashion.
Finally, the existence of an election commission has also
sought to prevent political parties from making blatantly sectarian
appeals.
What other steps can national governments do to curb this
infelicitous trend that we see both in India and Pakistan? Let me now
turn to India. This process of addressing the grievances of religious
minorities and the intolerance shown towards religious minorities
really has to begin at the highest levels of political authority in the
land. To this end, the principal party of the coalition government, the
BJP, should eschew its propensity to scapegoat minorities, particularly
Muslims, for India's myriad social and economic ills, especially in
electoral contexts.
Simultaneously, its leaders can make clear through public
speeches, internal political directives and a vigorous implementation
of existing laws that acts of violent religious intolerance will not go
unpunished, regardless of who engages in them.
What can the United States do, turning to my second question,
to improve religious freedom in India and Pakistan? I think first of
all, any American policy that seeks to improve the conditions of
religious freedom in India and Pakistan must unequivocally condemn all
acts of religious violence, regardless of which group or sect is
involved in such violence. This inconsistency in the expression of
concern has led to justifiable charges, I would argue, of double
standards and hypocrisy.
Second, public hectoring, as Marshall correctly pointed out,
of either India or Pakistan could actually generate a jingoistic
response and undermine the effectiveness of American condemnation.
Instead, the United States should rely on existing diplomatic channels
in Islamabad and New Delhi to express its displeasure about acts of
religious hatred and intolerance.
Third, I would argue that the U.S. needs to pursue a very
differentiated policy towards India and Pakistan. I can well imagine
many taking exception to this argument. However, I do believe and will
strenuously argue that my position is eminently defensible. India does
have a working judiciary, a free press and a variety of domestic human
rights watchdog organizations. The situation in Pakistan is indeed
different. The judiciary is pliant; the scope of the free press
limited; its norms weak or nonexistent; and independent human rights
organizations few and far between. Most importantly, Pakistan is again
in the throes of military rule.
Fourth, I would argue that the U.S. needs to allocate some
funds to public diplomacy and foreign assistance programs for the
promotion of secular education in both India and Pakistan. Such efforts
are especially important in Pakistan, where low levels of literacy and
educational attainment simply compound problems of sectarian conflict.
Finally, to turn to the most contentious issue, namely,
American policy towards Kashmir, and I am going to be downright
heretical on this issue. Being a tenured full professor enables you to
do these kinds of things, particularly in a democratic society. This is
one of the great joys of tenure in America.
The American policy, to the best of my understanding, holds
that India and Pakistan should settle the Kashmir dispute peacefully
while taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. This
policy, bluntly put, is both unimaginative at best and disingenuous at
worst. It is unimaginative because obviously, the U.S. would be loathe
to see the problem settled through the use of force.
It is also disingenuous because the Kashmiri people are not
confined to the aggrieved Sunni Muslims of the Kashmiri valley but also
include the Buddhists of Ladhar [ph]; the Hindus of Jamrhu [ph] and the
Shias of the Himalayan region of Kargil [ph].
Mr. Chairman, I will promptly wrap up.
Given the
conditions that currently obtain in Kashmir, where basically, the
pristine quality of the insurgency of 1989, which represented a popular
uprising, has been lost, and today, basically, you have a bunch of
condotierri running a protection racket, one needs to pursue a very
different set of policies towards the Kashmir issue.
To begin with, I think it should--the United States should
call on India to forthrightly address allegations of human rights
abuses on the part of its security forces in Kashmir; to maintain its
offer to negotiate with any insurgent group while continuing necessary
counterinsurgency operations: to renew the stalled dialogue with
Pakistan; and to seriously consider returning Kashmir, the portion of
Kashmir that it controls, to the autonomous status that it once enjoyed
in 1953.
Simultaneously, this new policy would make clear to Pakistan
that continued support for terrorism in Kashmir would inexorably lead
to its being placed on the list of states deemed to be supporting
terrorism. Pakistan has narrowly escaped this designation on several
occasions in the past. It may not be as fortunate in the future.
The final policy recommendation will be greeted with some
delight in New Delhi and much dismay in Pakistan. These expressions of
delight and dismay, however, could be tempered if the U.S. could
successfully induce both sides to adopt the other measures that I have
already outlined. The measures enumerated represent important
concessions for both India in Pakistan on the Kashmir question.
Consequently, their adoption would entail significant costs both for
New Delhi and Islamabad. Neither side should feel unduly aggrieved as
the Kashmir conflict then slouches toward a solution.
Thank you.
|