Recently, the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has lectured India on matters of religious freedom for minorities, even though India has not sought such counsel. This unsolicited and often misguided intervention raises serious questions about the commission’s understanding of India’s socio-religious fabric, its respect for national sovereignty, and the effectiveness of its approach in promoting genuine religious harmony.
To understand why the USCIRF’s preaching is both unwelcome and inappropriate, one must first appreciate India’s unique religious landscape. As the world’s largest democracy, India is home to an unparalleled diversity of faiths, cultures, and traditions. Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism, and numerous other religions have coexisted on the Indian subcontinent for centuries, often intermingling and influencing each other profoundly. This rich tapestry of religious diversity is a historical artefact and a living, breathing reality in modern India. The country’s constitution enshrines the principle of secularism, guaranteeing freedom of religion as a fundamental right. Article 25 of the Indian Constitution explicitly states that all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion. Given this constitutional framework and India’s long history of religious pluralism, it is both presumptuous and condescending for an external body like the UNCIRF to lecture India on religious freedom. The commission’s approach fails to acknowledge the complexities of managing religious diversity in a nation of over 1.3 billion people with hundreds of languages and ethnic groups.
The UNCIRF’s Flawed Methodology
One of the primary issues with the USCIRF’s approach is its reliance on a Western-centric understanding of religious freedom, which often fails to capture the nuances of India’s unique spiritual landscape. The commission’s reports frequently betray a lack of deep knowledge of India’s historical, cultural, and social contexts, leading to misinterpretations and overgeneralizations. For instance, the USCIRF has often criticised India’s anti-conversion laws in several states. While these laws can be debated on their merits, the commission fails to acknowledge the historical context in which they emerged – as a response to aggressive proselytization efforts perceived as threatening to India’s social fabric. The USCIRF’s blanket condemnation of these laws ignores the legitimate concerns of many Indians about predatory conversion practices that exploit economic vulnerabilities. Moreover, the commission’s methodology for gathering information and assessing religious freedom is often questionable. Relying heavily on reports from NGOs and activist groups, some of which may have their agendas, the USCIRF’s findings usually lack the nuance and balance necessary for a fair assessment of the situation.
Perhaps the most problematic aspect of the USCIRF’s preaching to India is its disregard for national sovereignty. India, as a sovereign nation and the world’s largest democracy, has robust institutions for protecting religious freedoms and addressing related issues. These include an independent judiciary, a free press, and a vibrant civil society. By positioning itself as an external judge of India’s internal affairs, the USCIRF oversteps its mandate and undermines the democratic processes it claims to support. This approach smacks of a neo-colonial mindset, where Western institutions presume to know better than the people and governments of developing nations.
The Hypocrisy of Selective Outrage
Another aspect that undermines the credibility of the USCIRF’s preaching is its apparent selectivity in targeting certain countries while turning a blind eye to religious freedom violations in others. This selective outrage raises questions about the commission’s objectivity and whether geopolitical considerations influence its assessments. For example, while the USCIRF has been vocal in its criticism of India, it has been relatively muted in its condemnation of religious persecution in countries that are strategic allies of Western powers. This inconsistency in approach diminishes the commission’s moral authority and fuels suspicions about its true motives. Furthermore, the USCIRF’s focus on India often seems disproportionate when compared to countries with far more egregious records of religious persecution. While India certainly faces challenges in managing its diverse religious landscape, it remains a country where religious minorities have reached the highest offices of the state and have made significant contributions in all spheres of life. This stance raises significant questions about the role of international bodies in addressing domestic issues of sovereign nations such as, who decides which countries have the moral authority to critique others on human rights and religious freedom? How can the line be drawn between legitimate international concern and unwarranted interference in a nation’s internal matters? Does the USCIRF’s focus on specific countries reflect genuine religious freedom concerns, or is it influenced by broader geopolitical considerations? To what extent should historical context and cultural differences be considered when evaluating religious freedom in diverse societies?
The Complexity of Communal Issues in India
The USCIRF’s simplistic narratives often fail to capture the complexity of communal issues in India. Religious tensions in the country are frequently intertwined with historical, social, economic, and political factors that cannot be reduced to simple binaries of majority versus minority. For instance, the commission’s reports often highlight incidents of violence against religious minorities without adequately exploring the underlying causes or acknowledging cases in which members of the majority community have been victims of communal violence. This one-sided portrayal misrepresents the ground reality and risks exacerbating tensions by reinforcing divisive narratives. Moreover, the USCIRF’s focus on religious identity as the primary lens through which to view social issues in India ignores other crucial factors such as caste, class, and regional disparities. This reductionist approach fails to acknowledge the intersectionality of identities in Indian society and the complex ways in which various forms of discrimination and disadvantage interact.
The Danger of External Interventions
The USCIRF’s unsolicited preaching to India on religious freedom matters is not just ineffective; it can be actively harmful. External interventions in sensitive internal matters can exacerbate tensions and provide ammunition to extremist elements on all sides. When an international body like the USCIRF criticises India’s handling of religious issues, it inadvertently provides legitimacy to those who seek to portray India as a country that oppresses its minorities. This narrative, often at odds with the lived experiences of millions of Indian citizens, can be exploited by separatist and extremist groups to further their agendas. Furthermore, such external criticism can provoke defensive reactions from the government and segments of society, potentially hardening positions and making constructive dialogue on religious issues more difficult. It can also undermine the efforts of local civil society organizations working to promote interfaith harmony and address religious discrimination through grassroots initiatives.
While the USCIRF positions itself as a necessary external watchdog, it fails to acknowledge or respect India’s robust mechanisms for addressing religious issues. India has a long-established National Commission for Minorities, which is mandated to safeguard the rights of minority communities. The country also has a National Human Rights Commission investigating human rights violations, including those related to religious freedom. Moreover, India’s judiciary has a strong track record of protecting religious freedoms and minority rights. The Supreme Court of India has delivered numerous landmark judgments upholding the principles of secularism and religious equality enshrined in the Constitution. The court has not hesitated to strike down laws or government actions that infringe on religious freedoms. Despite its challenges, the Indian media remains essentially free and plays a crucial role in highlighting issues related to religious discrimination and communal harmony. Civil society organizations, academic institutions, and interfaith groups across the country actively promote religious tolerance and address instances of discrimination. By ignoring or downplaying these internal mechanisms, the USCIRF not only disrespects India’s institutions but also misses an opportunity to engage constructively with these existing frameworks to promote religious freedom.
Religious freedom is a crucial human right that deserves protection and promotion worldwide. However, assessing religious freedom in diverse societies like India requires a nuanced approach that the USCIRF often lacks. For instance, the commission’s reports frequently cite anti-conversion laws as evidence of religious oppression without adequately exploring the complex debates surrounding these laws within India. While concerns about these laws are valid, legitimate arguments exist about the need to prevent exploitative conversion practices that target vulnerable populations. Similarly, the USCIRF’s treatment of issues like the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) often lacks the necessary historical context. It fails to engage with the full spectrum of perspectives on these complex matters. The commission’s tendency to view such issues through a simplistic religious lens ignores the multifaceted nature of citizenship, migration, and national security concerns that inform these debates in India. A more nuanced approach would acknowledge the challenges and the progress in India’s journey towards religious harmony. It would recognize that while issues of religious discrimination and communal tensions persist, India has also made significant strides in promoting interfaith understanding and protecting minority rights.
The Way Forward: Constructive Engagement vs. Unsolicited Preaching
If the USCIRF and similar international bodies genuinely wish to contribute to religious freedom in India, they must radically rethink their approach. Instead of unsolicited preaching and one-sided criticism, what is required is constructive engagement that respects India’s sovereignty and acknowledges its complexities. First and foremost, the USCIRF should recognize that India, as a sovereign democracy, has the right and the capability to address its internal issues. Any engagement should be based on mutual respect and a genuine desire to understand rather than lecture. Secondly, the commission should strive for a more balanced and nuanced understanding of India’s religious landscape. This would involve engaging with various stakeholders, including government officials, religious leaders of all faiths, civil society organizations, and academic experts. It would also require a more thorough examination of historical contexts and contemporary realities. Thirdly, instead of blanket condemnations, the USCIRF could focus on specific, constructive recommendations aligning with India’s constitutional framework and cultural ethos. These recommendations should be based on best practices from around the world and adapted to India’s unique context. Fourthly, the commission should address its own biases and inconsistencies. A more even-handed approach to global religious freedom would lend greater credibility to its assessments and recommendations. Finally, the USCIRF should consider shifting its focus from criticism to collaboration. By working with Indian institutions and civil society organizations, rather than lecturing from afar, the commission could potentially make a more meaningful contribution to promoting religious harmony.
In truth, religious tolerance and Sarva-Dharma-Sambhava have always been practiced in India. People of different religions feel safe and free to practice their faith in India. There were disagreements, but never hatred. Unfortunately, misleading and inaccurate information made many criticize their nation and ideals for protecting their secular societal objective.
Conclusion
India’s journey towards perfect religious harmony is undoubtedly a work in progress, as it is for many diverse societies worldwide. The country faces challenges in managing religious diversity and addressing discrimination and communal tensions. However, it is crucial to recognize that India has its unique path, shaped by its history, culture, and democratic values. While perhaps well-intentioned, the USCIRF’s unsolicited preaching on religious freedom ultimately does more harm than good. It undermines India’s sovereignty, misrepresents its complex realities, and potentially exacerbates the very issues it seeks to address. As India continues to navigate the complexities of religious coexistence in the 21st century, what it needs from the international community is not patronizing lectures but respect, understanding, and constructive engagement. The USCIRF and similar bodies would do well to remember that religious harmony cannot be imposed from the outside but must grow organically within India’s robust democracy and pluralistic traditions. In the final analysis, India’s religious diversity is not just a challenge to be managed but a strength to be celebrated. It is a testament to the country’s enduring commitment to pluralism and tolerance. While there is always room for improvement, India has shown time and again its capacity to address religious issues through its democratic processes and institutions. The UNICRF and other international bodies would serve the cause of religious freedom far better by recognizing and supporting India’s efforts rather than presuming to preach from a position of assumed moral superiority. We hope to build a world where religious freedom is truly universal only through mutual respect and genuine understanding.
Lastly, India must tell the world that we will not tolerate foreign involvement in our domestic affairs, especially when the nations that judge us are accused of human rights abuses and restrictive religious freedom. Unfortunately, unwanted interference does not help fight such mindsets and hatred politics. Eventually, above all, we must learn to say loudly and boldly thanks, but no thanks.
Comments