Placing the violence of
Kandhamal in Odisha as one of the worst of its kind in the country and listing
it among three major instances of violence like the Gujarat violence of 2002
and the Anti-Sikh riots of 1984, the commission’s report mentions that, “In December
2007, in Kandhamal, Orissa, violence between Christians and Hindus resulted in
several deaths, dozens of injuries, churches and homes destroyed and
displacement. The murder of an influential Hindu political leader in August
2008 sparked a further violent campaign targeting Christians, even though
Maoist extremists claimed responsibility.
While 2012 US Commission on
International Religious Freedom has not mentioned India in the list of
countries of special concern regarding religious freedom, it featured among the
nations in the watch list for slow or delaying justice to the victims of
communal violence with a special reference to the violence of 2007 and 2008 in
Kandhamal of Odisha.
Expressing its concern over
the delay in providing justice, the report mentions that, “Progress in
achieving justice for victims of past large-scale incidents of communal
violence in India continued to be slow and ineffective. In addition,
intimidation, harassment, and occasional small-scale violence against members
of religious minority groups continued, particularly against Christians in
states with anti-conversion laws.
While there has been no
large-scale communal violence against religious minorities since 2008, and
despite the Indian government‘s recognition of past communal violence and the
creation of some structures at various levels to address these issues, the
deleterious pace of the judicial responses and the adopted anti-conversion laws
enable impunity. Based on these concerns, USCIRF again places India on its
Watch List for 2012”.
Placing the violence of
Kandhamal as one of the worst in the country and listing it among three major
instances of violence like the Gujarat violence of 2002 and the Anti-Sikh riots
of 1984, the commission’s report mentions that, “In December 2007, in
Kandhamal, Orissa, violence between Christians and Hindus resulted in several
deaths, dozens of injuries, churches and homes destroyed and displacement. The
murder of an influential Hindu political leader in August 2008 sparked a
further violent campaign targeting Christians, even though Maoist extremists
claimed responsibility. The State Department reported 40 deaths, 134 injuries,
the destruction of churches and homes, and over 10,000 fleeing the state. There
was no immediate police or state government reaction. Religious leaders and aid
agencies were denied access. According to the non-governmental organization All
India Christian Council, state police documented an estimated 3,500 complaints
related to the violence and registered 827 cases with the local and state court
system. Of these, approximately 300 cases have now been heard, with 68
individuals found guilty and incarcerated and 412 individuals given minor
punishments such as monetary fines. Around 200 cases were dismissed for lack of
evidence, and reportedly over 300 cases are pending. Shortcomings in the system
are evident in the case of Manoj Pradhan, a leader in the Hindu-nationalist BJP
party. In September 2010, he was charged for the murder of 11 individuals,
however, the state‘s high court convicted him only for the culpable homicide of
one person and ordered him to pay a small fine. Despite that conviction and
pending charges for seven other crimes associated with the 2007-08 violence,
Pradhan was released on bail and remains a member of the Orissa state
legislature.”
However, in view of the steps
taken by Odisha Government and the Union government of India for ensuring
religious freedom, Commissioner Felice D. Gaer has registered his dissent
commenting that, “I respectfully dissent from the decision to recommend that
India be placed on the Commission‘s Watch List of countries with egregious,
severe violations of religious freedom. I also continue to be deeply concerned
over past and present religiously-motivated violence in India, when it occurs,
and the need to pursue accountability.
As the Commission notes, India
is world‘s largest democracy and has a deeply religious plural society and, in
recent years, the national and several state governments have taken positive
steps to improve religious freedom. In identifying India for Watch List status
this year, the Commission has cited concerns that justice for past communal
violence continues to be slow and ineffective and that there is harassment of
members of minority groups, particularly Christians in states with
anti-conversion laws. Yet it is widely acknowledged that special structures for
investigating and prosecuting past religiously motivated violence have been
created by Indian governmental actors at the federal and state levels. Data
reveals hundreds of persons have been convicted, although many more remain to
be processed through India‘s slow moving but highly regarded courts. India‘s
judiciary can work effectively to hold the perpetrators responsible and this is
in progress.”
Even though Commissioner
Gaer’s dissent comes as a relief to the Indian Government and the Naveen
Patnaik government in Odisha, the 2012 annual report clearly indicates that US
wants to see India as a more secular country than what it is today.
Not fully convinced by the
remarks in the report, Social and Rights activist Lenin Raghuvanshi shifts the
focus to practical steps to promote peace and to guarantee religious freedom.
In this regard, he calls for the creation of movements and local initiatives,
which could help to revive the goal of harmony and peaceful coexistence. He
spares no criticism of the United States, which instead of processing documents
should "raise funds through various agencies" to support projects and
peace initiatives. He also calls upon Washington to "support secularism
and interfaith harmony while ensuring the supremacy of the rule of law."
The recent USCIRF report
reminds the governments at the centre and the States, where violence of
communal nature has occurred before, to come out as more secular than now. This
is perhaps the reason why Naveen Patnaik advised his Members of both the houses
in the Parliament not to vote for the BJP supported Vice-President Candidate
but to completely abstain from voting.
This piece was first published
on August 7, 2012, at HotnHitNews.
