Showing posts with label and Christians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label and Christians. Show all posts

Monday, July 01, 2019

India’s Persecuted Minorities

Zafar Bangash


On June 23, India’s NDTV channel broadcast a video showing the lynching of a 24-year-old Muslim man, Tabrez Ansari, in Seraikela in the Indian state of Jharkhand. Tied to a pole, Hindu terrorists continuously beat him with sticks for 12 hours. With broken bones and bleeding, instead of taking him to hospital, the police dragged him to a police station for interrogation and held him for several hours. Later he was taken to a hospital where he died on June 22. He was to be married soon.
Lynching of Muslims has become all too common across India. Self-styled cow vigilantes have taken it upon themselves to prevent the slaughter of cows they consider to be their mother — yes, you read that correctly — for which they kill Muslims. Eleven state governments in India have banned cow slaughter but that has not prevented Hindu businessmen from running slaughterhouses. India rakes in $4 billion annually in beef exports, mostly to the Muslim East. Cow vigilantes do not go after Hindu businessmen; their wrath is reserved only for defenceless Muslims. Even the police join in Muslim lynching, or do nothing when Hindu mobs go on a rampage.
India has always been a deeply divided society along religious, ethnic, and caste lines. Religious minorities — Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians — have faced systemic discrimination despite token positions in government to hoodwink the rest of the world about Indian secularism. The Hindu caste system, a blot on the conscience of the world, has consigned hundreds of millions of people to lower castes suffering humiliation and degradation.
At the lowest rung of the caste pyramid, the Dalits constitute more than 200 million people. They are prohibited from eating in the same plate, drinking from the same glass, or even drawing water from the same well as upper caste Hindus. The caste system is religiously sanctioned apartheid yet such racism has escaped the world’s attention and opprobrium. This is deliberate. India is seen as a potential market of 300 million middle class people.
Such anachronistic policies were papered over under the rubric of Indian secularism. But the mask has finally come off India’s ugly face since the rise to power of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 2014. Led by Narendra Modi, a hard-core Hindu fascist who presided over the slaughter of more than 2,000 Muslims in 2002 when he was the chief minister of Gujarat state, Hindu mobs have unleashed terror on defenceless Muslims.
Although there are 190 million Muslims in India, representing 16% of the total population of 1.2 billion, the ruling BJP does not have a single Muslim member of parliament. This is unprecedented in Indian history. Muslim representation in parliament has declined to a mere 3.7%. They were already discriminated against in the bureaucracy, police, army, and other governmental services. Now they have no voice in parliament either.
India has carefully cultivated its image as the world’s “largest democracy.” In technical terms, this may be true. In the April–May 2019 general elections, of the 900 million eligible voters, nearly 600 million cast ballots but does that make India a democracy?
Leading stalwarts of the ruling BJP including Modi have emerged from the ranks of the RashtriyaSwayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a Hiterlite organization that openly promotes Hindu fascism. It has more than six million members that receive military training. BJP President Amit Shah has called Muslims “termites.”
Despite presiding over a state polity that openly promotes racism and discriminates against religious minorities, Modi is welcomed and feted in Western capitals. There was a break from this craven policy of appeasement of Hindu fascism when the US State Department in its 2018 Report on International Religious Freedom was forced to shine light on India’s horrible mistreatment of minorities. Citing reports by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), the US report makes grim reading. It said, “The government sometimes [sic] failed to act on mob attacks on religious minorities, marginalized communities, and critics of the government.”
Without naming them, the report further said, “Some senior officials of the Hindu-majority Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) made inflammatory speeches against minority communities. Mob attacks by violent extremist Hindu groups against minority communities, especially Muslims, continued throughout the year amid rumors that victims had traded or killed cows for beef. According to some NGOs, authorities often protected perpetrators from prosecution. As of November, there were 18 such attacks, and eight people killed during the year.
On June 22, two Uttar Pradesh police officers were charged with culpable homicide after a Muslim cattle trader died of injuries sustained while “being questioned in police custody…”
When more than 40% of the 543-members in India’s parliament face criminal charges — some as serious as murder and rape — lawlessness is bound to spread across the country. Muslims are its biggest victims as the horrific lynching of Tabrez Ansari showed.
India is not a democracy; it is a country ruled by gangsters, rapists, and mass murderers.
Zafar Bangash is Director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought (ICIT).
 

Zafar Bangash

Wednesday, July 06, 2016

The Two-State Proposal for Palestine: Neither Practical nor Morally Defensible

By Stephen Gowans


I wrote on July 4 in The Jewish Colonization of Palestine and the Recalcitrance of the Natives that United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 of 1947 was the first official two-state proposal. Actually, a decade earlier, in 1937, Britain’s Peel Commission recommended the partition of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. The commission’s report, and not Resolution 181, contained the first official two-state proposal. The Peel Commission plan was rejected by both sides, adumbrating the repudiation of Resolution 181 a decade later. A two-state proposal, then, has been around, in one form or another, for nearly 80 years, and in all those years, one side or both, has rejected it in practice, if not always in words.
Given the proposal’s uninspiring record of repeated repudiation, it beggars belief that two-state proponents should continue to think it has much of a chance of being accepted. The only conditions under which one can conceive of it being accepted by the Palestinians is if they become so ground down that they eventually capitulate and accept whatever crumbs are offered them; that is, if after decades as refugees, under Israeli military occupation, incarcerated in the open air prison of the Gaza Strip, or as third class Israeli citizens, they finally give up, and accept to live forever on their knees, though the chances of that happening seem vanishingly small. All the same, two-state proponents may welcome this unlikely outcome, and celebrate it, but what they would celebrate? Peace? Perhaps. But also the triumph of a grave injustice. And without justice, peace cannot last long.
The moral case against Jewish colonization of Palestine is formidable. The legitimacy of political authority is derived from the consent of the governed. Neither the British colonial authorities nor the Zionist state ever had the consent of the Palestinians. UN Resolution 181 (which is irrelevant anyway since it has never been implemented and was rejected by Jewish forces in 1947 and 1948 when they conquered territory beyond the limits the resolution proposed for a Jewish state) was rejected by the Palestinian majority whose lives would have been profoundly and unalterably affected by it.
As Tomis Kapitan pointed out (The Israeli-Palestine Conflict, 1997), the British had no right to give Palestine as a gift to anyone, and even if they did, London had pledged support for Arab independence throughout the Middle East to an established monarch (Sheriff Hussein of Mecca) before it issued the Balfour Declaration, whose pledge was made to an amorphous body, “the Jews”, lacking political form and juridical definition.
Moreover, Palestinians have a natural right to self government, independent of the promises, declarations, resolutions and preferences of the British, the United States, the United Nations, and the Diplomatic Quartet.
Hence, add to the moral concerns about the two-state proposal, the reality that its history shows it to have long been considered by one or both sides as undesirable, and the conclusion must be that it is untenable as a serious proposal, on moral grounds as well as on the practical grounds that its proponents quite mistakenly believe recommends it.
An alternative proposal that at least has the benefit of being just, morally defensible, and sensitive to the rights of indigenous people to self-determination, is a single, secular, democratic state, in which all citizens, Jews, Muslims, and Christians, are equal, and to which all Palestinian refugees are free to return.