US Needs to Review its IRF Report on India

by Jagdish N. Singh
July 2, 2020 at 4:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16151/india-religious-freedom

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom apparently based its India report on the versions of evidently hostile non-governmental organizations and media outlets.
If US President Donald J. Trump is determined to promote religious freedom the world over, he also needs to call upon other nations vastly more abusive than India is to "end religious persecution.'"

Pictured: Burned vehicles and buildings in New Delhi on February 26, 2020, following intercommunal rioting. (Photo by Prakash Singh/AFP via Getty Images)

It is astonishing to note that the International Religious Freedom (IRF) Report, released by the US Department of State on June 10, 2020, ranks India on its lowest grade, "Countries of Particular Concern (CPC)." The report recommends that the US State Department meet people from India's "religiously persecuted" communities and slap sanctions on the agencies and officials responsible for the predicament of the affected.

The report also groups India with countries, such as China, Iran, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia, which have long been notorious for their religious freedom rights violations. It says that India's newly passed Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) makes the Muslims in the country "bear the indignities and consequences of potential statelessness." It also claims that the Narendra Modi government allows "campaigns of harassment and violence" against Muslims and other religious minorities.

The report suggests that the government-perpetuated discrimination against religious minorities in India can be discerned in the newly changed status of the Muslim-majority Jammu and Kashmir region, the enactment of the cow-slaughter and anti-conversion laws, the inflammatory remarks of some Hindu-majority parties against minority communities, and the Supreme Court's decision in the Babri mosque case. The report also alleges that in February this year ", three days of violence erupted in New Delhi with mobs attacking Muslim neighborhoods." Finally, it adds that innocent members of minority communities "are being punished under India's cow protection laws" that prohibit the export or import of beef.

It is hard to believe that the Modi government allows any campaign of harassment and violence against Muslims and other religious minorities. Ironically, successive governments in India have generally resorted to a policy of appeasing minorities in a bid to attract more votes. The Modi government has been no exception.

The 2019 manifesto of the Modi's party talks of the empowerment and "development with dignity' of all minorities, including Muslims and Christians." During the Modi government (2014-19), the representation of minorities in India's employed by the central government increased from just about 4.9% to 9.8%. The Modi government's "New 15-Point Programme for the Welfare of Minorities" gives a fair percentage of the priority sector lending to the minority communities.

The claim made in the report that the Citizenship Amendment Act is anti-Muslim simply is not true. None of the provisions in this legislation harms Muslim citizens in India. The legislation just seeks to fast-track citizenship to refugees from the Hindu, Christian, Buddhist, Sikh and Zoroastrian communities who face religious persecution in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan and who fled to India. India's Home Minister Amit Shah has clarified that the CAA will not take away the citizenship of any Muslims.

Clearly, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) is to blame for these pitfalls in this report. The Commission authored this report and submitted it to the US Congress on April 29, 2020. The USCIRF apparently based its India report on the versions of evidently hostile non-governmental organizations and media outlets.

Even in doing that, the USCIRF has not been fair. It did not care to note the plight in India of religious communities other than Muslims and Christians. It ignored how the Hindus and Sikhs in Kashmir still continue to feel about their right freely to practice their religions. It ignored how some Christian and Islamic missionaries have been converting Hindus to Christianity and Islam.

In its depiction of the incidents of violence in New Delhi and other parts of India, the USCIRF has been one-sided. It reported on the alleged activities of the disruptive elements in the Hindu community but meanwhile overlooked those of the disruptive elements in the Muslim community. In a court hearing, India's Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told Chief Justice of India S A Bobde that both Hindus and Muslims "indulged in hate speech" against each other during the February riots. The USCIRF did not care to note that some Hindus alleged that the Muslims had started the violence. The USCIRF also overlooked reports suggesting some Muslim leaders had been preparing for riots since January.

One hopes that in view of the glaring lapses in the current USCIRF's India report, the Trump administration would review it. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo should not accept the USCIRF's current recommendation to slap sanctions on India, and he should instead investigate if the USCIRF today is operating in a truly professional way. If US President Donald J. Trump is determined to promote religious freedom the world over, he also need to call upon other nations vastly more abusive than India is to "end religious persecution."

Jagdish N. Singh is a senior journalist based in New Delhi.

© 2024 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Related Topics: India

Recent Articles by Jagdish N. Singh

India: The Land of Deprived Childhood, 2023-09-04
India: Care for Minorities Intact, 2022-12-26
India to Lead Efforts to Cure the World Health Organization, 2020-06-04
Democracies Need to Back Taiwan's Bid to Join the World Health Organization, 2020-04-30
Tibet: The Pointless Pursuit of Dialogue with China, 2020-01-22

receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free gatestone institute mailing list.

Comment on this item

18 Reader Comments

Khushi • Jul 6, 2020 at 09:54

Excellent article. Thank you.
The USCIRF report was heavily biased against India and must be reviewed immediately.

Reply->

Jagdish N. Singh • Jul 3, 2020 at 06:36

Shri Durai ought to bear in mind that the right to speech and conscience is be exercised purely out of conviction, not any greed or fear . He would also do well not to blindly believe news reports and statistics. Experience is that what is printed in newspapers depends a lot on who owns them. Anthony Maduekwe ought to defend the freedom of all faiths, not only Christianity. Jonathan Tripp ought to know we must be cautious of political elements based in any faith, not only Islam.

Reply->

Shri Durai

Jagdish N. Singh • Jul 7, 2020 at 18:33

Jagdish Singh stated in his response "right to speech and conscience is be exercised purely out of conviction, not any greed or fear". I agree on moral ground, but who is the judge of conviction, greed, or fear regarding speech? He? Modi and his horde? Why could not one judge the article itself to be written out of fear or greed? Turning a blind eye by BJP political rulers to the atrocities of their RSS goons is one of the major problems in India as documented in the USCIRF report. Just as one should not blindly believe news reports and statistics, one should not be blind to news reports and statistics.

Reply->

Jagdish N. Singh

Shri Durai • Jul 8, 2020 at 08:12

The judge in the case could be one's own enlightened conscience . Please do not abuse me. I am not greedy. I am not scared. You need not introduce yourself . I am not interested in it.

Please read my piece carefully. I have not defended any atrocities herein.

Also, you ought to know what the word 'report' means. It is not a mere compilation of what others say.

Reply->

Shri Durai

Jagdish N. Singh • Jul 9, 2020 at 15:28

There was no abuse, none intended. Mr. Singh's reply, "the right to speech and conscience is [to] be exercised purely out of conviction, not any greed or fear". Begs for caveats limiting the right of "speech and conscience" are impure conviction, greed or fear. My argument is these caveats are impractical. None but God can judge a heart for conviction, greed or fear. Subjective human judgement of heart is dangerous for the right to speech and conscience. I am not charging Mr. Singh's motive to be greed or fear. Read carefully. My rhetorical question is – "Why could not one judge the article itself to be written out of fear or greed?" using a subjective flawed judgement. If one judges the article is out of fear or greed, I will reject it as a subjective judgement against Mr. Singh. What Mr. Singh is oblivious to is, evil motives cannot be an excuse to limit speech and conscience. In a July 8th article in Gatestone illustrates why there is no caeats for free speech. In it, Alan M. Dershowitz says, "Farrakhan — like Nazis and Communists — has a First Amendment right to tell his lies and spread his hate." Telling lies and spreading hate is wrong, but they are not caveats limiting free speech. Similarly, there is no limitation to the right to speech and conscience, no subjective judgement of conviction, greed or fear.

Reply->

Jagdish N. Singh

Shri Durai • Jul 15, 2020 at 20:10

Fine, if it was no abuse or none intended. The human judgement of heart can be objective if the judge is what he or she is supposed to be: scientific and fair . The central submission in my current piece is the judge (that is, the US Commission for International Religious Freedom, in the case) is not fair. The Commission did not visit India to see all sides of stories. It listened to one-sided versions in the matter . It relied on all secondary sources . Any media editor worth his/ her salt would prefer to consign such a crap to the dustbin.

Reply->

Shri Durai • Jul 2, 2020 at 14:53

The author does not honor the Human Rights of speech and conscience (to exercises religious conversion). Therefore he complains that crimes of missionaries converting Indians are overlooked by the USCIRF. Conversion is not a crime; it is a foundational Human Right; and it is enshrined in the Indian Constitution as it should be in any just nation's constitution. The author finds it hard to believe that the Modi government allows any campaign of harassment and violence against Muslims and other religious minorities. News reports and statistics during Modi's rule should cure the unbelief. USCIRF report should be accepted and should force correction by Modi's government.

Reply->

Jagdish N Singh

Shri Durai • Jul 2, 2020 at 22:23

I wish Mr Durai had read the relevant sentences carefully. I have not said conversion is a crime. I have referred to an allegation in this regard. Mr Durai ought to know what the existence of conversions in India indicates as to the nature of the country.

Reply->

Shri Durai

Jagdish N Singh • Jul 7, 2020 at 19:10

Existence of conversions in India indicates the power of the heart's conviction despite religious persecution. And less about the current regime. Conversions happens in Pakistan and Iran with worse persecution than in India. Indians are tolerant, yet a troublesome intolerant fringe was always present in all religious groups. The intolerance is blatant and growing in the recent past tracking the rise to power of BJP and Modi. I hope vibrant India does not degenerate to Hindustan, mirroring Pakistan the terror of its Hindu, Sikh and Christian minority citizens. If the USCIRF report brings about any positive change, it will be a relief to many.

Reply->

Jagdish N. Singh

Shri Durai • Jul 8, 2020 at 08:22

Sorry, I am not referring to the existence of the conversions based on any persecution. The intolerant gangs are there in every part of the world . The governments concerned must deal with them properly.

Reply->

Anthony Maduekwe • Jul 2, 2020 at 06:16

Mr. Singh's advice that the Trump administration needs to call upon other nations vastly more abusive than India is to "end religious persecution" just tells me he knows the truth about the deteriorating lack of religious freedom for Christians especially. He had better face the truth and ask the Indian Government to act fast or else risk losing the sympathy of many of its admirers especially as they face off with China as they both would be viewed with the same lens. The recent murder of Mr. Kande Mudu in the Khunti district of India's Jharkhand state on June 7 shows just how seriously the masses have been indoctrinated by the Bill against religious conversion in about nine states so far. I tend to be sympathetic to India in most issues but not this one.

Reply->

Jonathan Tripp • Jul 2, 2020 at 05:34

There should be no problem with the Nation State element of Modis India and the Indian super majority, this gives stability and security; but the author gives his leanings away when he complains of Hindu conversions to Christianity or even Islam. The political element of Islam is extremely concerning but there is nothing of this in Christianity which does nothing but wish for a Heavenly Kingdom and to be able to worship and live freely and express itself freely. Indeed Christians in India have been horrendously persecuted and murdered in the last 10 years, all a result of a Modi style Gov. We know Islamists cause violence and are a problem in India, but Christians do not and are not.

Reply->

Govind

Jonathan Tripp • Jul 3, 2020 at 01:51

Can you give me specific instances of horrendous persecution and murder of Christians in the last ten years in India? Please also note that conversion by bribery, force , luring females with false identities etc. are banned, but not those which are voluntary and with full awareness of the merits of other religions. When preachers from other religions proclaim openly that Hinduism is a false religion and denigrate and ridicule their Gods and Goddesses, that is an invitation to respond in kind from the Hindus.It only creates animosity and disharmony in the communities. Muslims and Christians are free to practice their religions; the number of Mosques and Churches is increasing day by day and unlike in western nations you will find a Mosque or Church even in Hindu majority areas and by the side of temples. So to maintain peace and harmony these religions should desist from aggressive and unethical proselytization. In a country of one and a quarter billion people there is bound to be some frictions, but every crime involving two religious communities is made into a communal one if the victim is a Muslim or Christian by the anti-Indian media. If a Hindu is the victim and the accused belongs to the other religions it is either not reported or reported as an ordinary crime.So get objective data before accusing India. In no country in the world will you find minorities enjoying privileges while the majority is discriminated against (the Hindus experienced it only during Islamic and western colonial conquests and rule).

Reply->

Govind Nair

Jonathan Tripp • Jul 4, 2020 at 02:08

Evidence for "horrendously persecuted and murdered in the last ten years"? Unethical ways of proselytization by Islam and Christianity should stop for peace and harmony. Followers of all religions should respect the forms of worship of other religions and desist from denigrating others.

Reply->

Jonathan Tripp

Govind • Jul 6, 2020 at 06:48

Your comments are incredulous, you obviously haven't spent any time in Britain!
I suggest you visit or read the recent works of Douglas Murray, for one.

Reply->

Jonathan Tripp

Govind • Jul 6, 2020 at 10:25

What you are opting for is a Hindu totalitarianism. In effect a Hindu totalitarian state. The natural rights of man are to a free conscience to speak thoughts of faith freely and politely, and to receive those too and live ones own life based on ones own decisions, even if this means converting and telling neighbours that you have found new meaning. Is Hinduism so insecure it cant cope with this? Evidently it is. What you are aspiring to achieve is a totalitarian Hindu identity for the whole of India so as to create a binder. You could bind India together with a shared patriotism for India. Christians and Sikhs and Jains would join you in that. They are patriotic. I accept your specific problem with Islam which wants the Nation Islam and an Islamic state wherever it is, whatever the make up of the nation state it sits in -that being one of its core values and ambitions. It is the proverbial cuckoo in the nest of chicks.

Reply->

Govind Nair

Jonathan Tripp • Jul 7, 2020 at 03:37

No, I haven't spent any time in Britain or read Murray. I understand he is a Christian atheist, whatever that means. But these are not relevant for the present discussion.
Obviously, you did not read my post carefully; I pointed out the danger in fraudulent and forced conversion in a multi-religious society. When preachers openly speak of Hinduism in an obnoxious manner, that disturbs communal harmony. Even inside a Church or Mosque, why trash the Gods of other regions? Praise your own God and the merits of your religion, no one objects to that. Even in a public space that is acceptable and will not attract criticism. In a multi-religious society, mutual respect is very important.

Hinduism has survived more than seven thousand years, the horrible attacks by invaders, and yet the vast majority of Hindus respect other religions. Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs do not indulge in fraudulent and forced conversions. Historically, Hindus have welcomed persecuted members from other religions, given them shelter, freedom to worship and even convert in an ethical manner. So a Hindu state will never be totalitarian nor insecure, otherwise it would not survived the barbarity of several hundred years. Yes, Islam is more dangerous but Christian proselytizers are not far behind. But I do agree that Indian Christians are by and large patriotic. You should read the famous American Historian Will Durant's account of India in his book "Our Oriental Heritage", also the well documented narratives in "Breaking India" by Malhotra and Neelakandan.

Reply->

Jagdish N. Singh

Jonathan Tripp • Jul 7, 2020 at 08:03

Could you please care to define "Hindu totalitarianism," or "Hindu totalitarian state." You seem to know very little about what is known as Hinduism. Whoever is born in this community can exercise his or her right to free conscience and logical expression. That person is also supposed to respect others' conscience and expression. There is absolutely no space for any kind of totalitarianism in Hinduism.

Reply->