The news about the Indian protest in Pakistan, in a written communication, the destruction of a temple in the Teri village of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa aroused some public interest. But my tweet went viral when I posed the obvious question:
“What kind of unilateralism is this? India questions the destruction of the temple by the mafia in Pakistan. In fact, the Pakistani authorities quickly arrested the culprits. But when the mafia destroys / damages the mosque in India, any nation asking questions violates Indian sovereignty. I can’t have both. “
People on both sides of the India-Pakistan border shared my tweet, confirming that healthy interest in both nations survives in civilized discussion of their dilemmas, despite frozen bilateral ties.
The simple point is, if India can talk about the danger to freedom of religion in Pakistan, why can’t other nations raise questions about the treatment of minorities, especially Muslims, in India? Successive Indian governments, but particularly the current one, go crazy when asked about it.
Of course, there is a difference between the pre-Modi era and the present when it comes to free commentary from Pakistan on events affecting Muslims in India. In the past, India argued that the Indian constitution provides adequate guarantees for minorities to seek redress. Therefore, the Islamabad remarks were dismissed as unnecessary interference in the internal affairs of India and a violation of Indian sovereignty. But that argument has been running out since Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s re-election in 2019. The amended citizenship law officially created discrimination based on religion, with Muslims entering India without valid documents or staying longer unable to regularize. their stay, unlike fans from other countries. Religions of South Asia.
The Indian protest over the damage to the temple in Pakistan reaffirms the principle of universal protection for followers of the Hindu faith. In the past, India used to tackle such cases involving historical Sikh Gurudwaras or important temples when Pakistan was reluctant to fix things. This time, Pakistan had shown great zeal to remedy the evil by swiftly arresting nearly 45 people, including a Muslim cleric.
However, India chose to make its point. This is a new affirmation of unity among all Hindus, regardless of their citizenship, and thus a mirror image of the Muslim concept of Umma – the universal brotherhood of a community that transcends political boundaries. Therefore, it was not only about protecting historical religious places of importance to Indians in India, but even a religious place that Hindus in Pakistan valued. If India only evangelistically pushed article 18 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights on freedom of religion, one would be proud of the nation. After all, those values and other human rights were enshrined in the Indian constitution, indirectly reflecting the 1948 Declaration. However, this cannot have been the impetus behind the Indian declaration, given that the government’s increasingly majority stance of the Union is progressively violating the Universal Declaration.
Unfortunately, the implications of these accusations against Pakistan may not have been fully assimilated by a southern saffron bloc.
What defense will India have when the Democratic administration of President Joe Biden, after taking office on January 20, begins to turn its attention to the BJP-ruled states that are stepping up their anti-Muslim agenda with new pretexts like ‘love jihad? ‘? Saudi Arabia may be neutralized today after the Modi government’s alignment with the pro-US and pro-Israel parts of the Arab world. But these are transitory alliances that will be put to the test as Washington tries to heal the fractures that President Donald Trump has exacerbated in the Islamic world. Concern for human rights is a two-way street and India may find its majority under increased scrutiny in the near future.
The role model for Hindu Rashtra devotees is Israel, where a controversial law was passed in 2018, under the guise of a Basic Law, declaring Israel the nation-state of the Jews. Its higher court is examining its constitutionality. Benny Gantz, who until recently shared power with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, calls the latter’s aggressive defense of the law a threat to the courts and democracy. Israeli President Reuven Rivlin bravely warned that the law (and especially a provision since removed that legalizes discrimination in housing) “could harm the Jewish people around the world” as well as being used as a weapon against Israel. Even associations of American Jews objected. Everyone understood that turning Christians, Arabs and other Muslims into second-class citizens can be very beneficial at the national level, but will stir up the animosity of their followers.
This wisdom may not yet be realized by the Indian government, but it is expected that, as in Israel, advocates of universal values will speak up, including the highest courts in India. Otherwise, domestic politics and foreign policy will become entangled in a bigger mess.
KC Singh is a retired Indian civil servant and former Indian Ambassador to Iran.
.
