HMR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND

MANAGEMENT

Human Values and Professional Ethics

Project on
Religious Intolerance in India

Submitted by:

Dikshant Yadav ECE 40513302815

Shashank Aggarwal ECE 43413302815

Inderpal ECE 43513302815

Sagar Dabas ECE 44013302815

India: Religious Freedom Issues

To tolerate is to bear with patience the existence of others. It is to put up with

the views and actions of other people. It consists in permitting other persons to
express their views freely and implement them into activity. Tolerance is
essentially a state of mind. For these is the positive action of non- interference
in activity of other persons.

India is the world’s second-most populous country with more than 1.3 billion
people and is the birthplace of four major world religions: Hinduism, Buddhism,
Sikhism, and Jainism. An officially secular nation with thousands of ethnic
groups and 22 official languages, independent India has a long tradition of
religious tolerance (with periodic and sometimes serious lapses). Religious
freedom is explicitly protected under its constitution. Hindus account for a vast
majority (nearly four-fifths) of the country’s populace. Hindu nationalism has
been a rising political force in recent decades, by many accounts eroding India’s
secular nature and leading to new assaults on the country’s religious freedoms.

And the constitution of India provides for freedom of conscience and the right
of all individuals to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion; mandates a
secular state; requires the state to treat all religions impartially; and prohibits
discrimination based on religion. It also states citizens must practice their faith
in a way that does not adversely affect public order, morality, or health. Out of
29 states, eight have legislation restricting religious conversion, with laws in
force in five of those states. Authorities often did not prosecute violence by
vigilantes against persons, mostly Muslims, suspected of slaughtering or illegally
transporting cows or trading in or consuming beef. Members of civil society and
religious minorities stated that under the current government, religious
minority communities felt increasingly vulnerable due to Hindu nationalist
groups engaging in violence against non-Hindu individuals and their places of
worship.

The 2014 national election victory of the Bharatiya Janata Party (Indian Peoples’
Party or BJP) brought newly acute attention to the issue of religious freedom in
India. Tracing its origins to a political party created in 1951 in collaboration with
the Hindu nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (National Volunteer
Organization or RSS).
Status of Government Respect for Religious Freedom

Legal Framework

Subject to considerations of public order, morality, and health, the constitution

provides for freedom of conscience and the right of all individuals to profess,
practice, and propagate religion freely, and mandates a secular state. It
prohibits government discrimination based on religion, including with regard to
employment, as well as any religion-based restrictions on individuals’ access to
public or private facilities or establishments open to the general public. The
constitution states religious groups have the right to establish and maintain
institutions for religious and charitable purposes, manage their own affairs in
religious matters, and own, acquire, and administer property. It prohibits
compelling anyone to pay taxes to promote or maintain any specific religion.
National and state laws make freedom of religion “subject to public order,
morality, and health.” The constitution stipulates the state shall endeavor to
create a uniform civil code applicable to members of all religions across the
country.

Government Practices

Authorities often did not prosecute violence by vigilantes against persons,

mostly Muslims, suspected of slaughtering or illegally transporting cows or
trading in or consuming beef.

1. Beef ban controversy in India

The country is embroiled in a controversy regarding a ban on slaughter of cows

and the sale and consumption of beef. In retrospect, this controversy has
existed for many decades now. The reason is apparently simple. Hindus, who
form the majority of the populace, consider the cow sacred. The cow, according
to Hindu religious scriptures, is the embodiment of the Feminine Divine and
motherhood. Slaughter of cows brings the greatest misfortune; Hindu religious
leaders claim. An average Hindu, though far from being vegetarian, will abstain
from consumption of beef. On the other hand, the Muslim and Christian
minorities consume beef extensively. Since India gained independence from the
British, there has been a demand for banning cow slaughter in the country and
on consumption of beef. Successive governments have resisted any attempt to
impose such a ban at a central level due to the secular nature of the country
and its constitution. Some states, however, have succeeded in implementing
local legislation banning cow slaughter. While this does not automatically
translate into a beef consumption ban, it makes it difficult to legitimately source
beef and beef products. The entire situation seems to be in stark contrast to
one economic reality – India is the world’s second largest beef exporter, though
most of the beef exported is buffalo meat.
If the debate surrounding beef ban has been raging for many decades now, why
has it been fueled now? The controversy has been rekindled by two states –
Maharashtra and Jammu and Kashmir. Over seven months ago, the
Maharashtra state legislature passed a law banning the possession and import
of been, apart from slaughter itself. This outraged the Muslim community in the
state which has been traditionally dealing with beef trade and is the largest
consumer of beef in the region as well. Allegations are that the ruling party in
the state, BJP, was pushed to ban beef by the right-wing organization, Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a staunchly Hindu group. The RSS has also been
accused of fanning mob sentiments in the Dadri lynching incident, though RSS
activists staunchly deny any involvement.

Jammu and Kashmir is another state where a ban on cow slaughter and sale of
beef has been the matter of a raging controversy, given that the state has a
considerable Muslim population. Much disruption of the state assembly’s
autumn session proceedings can be attributed to the differences between
politicians regarding the beef ban. Following the terrible controversy in the
state, the assembly, and in the media, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
constituted a 3-member Bench to hear a petition against the beef ban in the
state on 16 October 2015. Ultimately the matter boils down to the politicizing
of a ban that should be tackled on more sensitive notes.

2. Triple Talaq

In recent times, the practice was spread to social media platforms like
Facebook, WhatsApp and other messenger tools. The wife has no say in the
matter and the only option left for her is to accept the divorce quietly. The
husband was not even required to state any reasons for calling off the marriage
and in fact the wife’s presence were also not required at the time he decides to
verbalize the T word three times. The wife was allowed the custody of kids until
she remarries and after that, the guardianship automatically gets transferred to
the husband.

The law is far from preaching equality. If the wife wants to end the marriage but
does not have her husband’s approval, she would have to seek the proceedings
under Dissolution of the Muslim Marriages Act. She does not have the right to
use Triple Talaq at all.
All India Muslim Women Personal Law Board raised voice against the

horrendous practice with claims like it is unacceptable since it is against the

Quran and the constitution. Other Muslim women bodies too were opposing
the bill, citing it does not give any chance to save the marriage.

3. Ayodhya dispute

The Ayodhya dispute is a political, historical and socio-religious debate in India,

centred on a plot of land in the city of Ayodhya, located in Ayodhya
District, Uttar Pradesh. The main issues revolve around access to a site
traditionally regarded among Hindus to be the birthplace of the Hindu
deity Rama,[1] the history and location of the Babri Masjid at the site, and
whether a previous Hindu temple was demolished or modified to create the
mosque.
The Babri Masjid was destroyed during a political rally which turned into a riot
on 6 December 1992. A subsequent land title case was lodged in the Allahabad
High Court, the verdict of which was pronounced on 30 September 2010. In the
landmark hearing, the three judges of The Allahabad High Court ruled that the
2.77 acres (1.12 ha) of Ayodhya land be divided into 3 parts, with 1/3 going to
the Ram Lalla or Infant Rama represented by the Hindu Maha Sabha for the
construction of the Ram temple, 1/3 going to the Islamic Sunni Waqf Board and
the remaining 1/3 going to a Hindu religious denomination Nirmohi Akhara.
While the three-judge bench was not unanimous that the disputed structure
was constructed after demolition of a temple, it did agree that a temple or a
temple structure predated the mosque at the same site. The excavations by
the Archaeological Survey of India were heavily used as evidence by the court
that the predating structure was a massive Hindu religious building.

4. Religion converting in Madhya Pradesh

On May 21, Madhya Pradesh police arrested six Christians for allegedly
kidnapping 72 minors with the intention of forcibly converting them to
Christianity. The children’s parents stated they were already Protestants and
had given consent for their children to attend a summer Vacation Bible School
(VBS) camp in Nagpur under the care of the arrested Christians. Police stated
the children’s families had not provided proof they had already converted to
Christianity. According to the Christian NGO Morning Star News (MSN), on June
12, the state high court denied bail to the six VBS volunteers: Ameya Jaal,
Alkesh Ganava, Pandu Singh Vasuniya, Nitin Mandod, Lalu Babore, and Vijay
Meda, a 17-year-old minor. Authorities reportedly held one of the VBS
attendees, 15-yearold Akash Gundia, in juvenile detention center for nearly a
month before releasing him on June 20. Gundia said children as young as six
years old were also in police custody until police released them when their
parents arrived. His father, Singh Gundia, told MSN, “I got to know from the
police station that police had not intended to file the case, but that there was
pressure from RSS [a self-defined Hindu nationalist group] and Bajrang Dal
activists, because of whom my child spent 25 days in judicial custody.” NGO
Human Rights Without Frontiers (HRWF)’s Prisoners List 2017 stated, although
it was reported police released the children to their parents, there was no
precise information on the status of the 71 children besides Gundia.
Media reported police arrested seven Christian pastors – Stanley Jacob, Vijay
Kumar, Sumit Varghese, David from New Delhi, Amit from Mathura, Anita from
Hathras, and Dinesh from Rajasthan – on December 4 while they were holding a
prayer meeting in a private home. The following day a court sentenced them to
14 days in judicial custody for carrying out a forcible conversion campaign.
Family members of the seven pastors said local residents were upset because
some individuals were converting to Christianity.

Members of civil society and religious minorities said, under the current
government, religious minority communities felt more vulnerable to Hindu
nationalist groups engaging in violence against non-Hindu individuals and places
of worship. Religious minority communities stated, while the national
government sometimes spoke out against incidents of violence, local political
leaders often did not, and at times made public remarks that individuals could
interpret as condoning violence. Some longstanding legal cases involving
religiously motivated violence and riots continued to advance slowly. In May the
Kerala High Court annulled a marriage between a Hindu woman and a Muslim
man based on third-party allegations the woman was forcibly converted to
Islam, despite her denial she was forced to do so. On August 22, the Supreme
Court ruled the practice through which a Muslim man could divorce his wife
instantly by saying the word “talaq” (Arabic for divorce) three times was
unconstitutional. On May 23, the government banned the sale of cattle for
slaughter through animal markets. In July the Supreme Court stayed the
implementation of the order across the country for three months; the
government was expected to withdraw the ban after receiving negative
feedback from state- level agricultural sectors but had not done so by year’s
end. The government continued its challenge to the minority status of Muslim
educational institutions in the Supreme Court. Minority status afforded these
institutions independence in hiring and curriculum decisions.

Status of Societal Respect for Religious Freedom

There were reports of hundreds of religiously motivated killings, assaults, riots,

restrictions on the right to practice religion and proselytize, discrimination, and
attacks on property.
 1. Bollywood

The multi-million-dollar Hindi film industry, popularly known as Bollywood, has

been troubled of late. Not by falling footfalls or depleting budgets or any of
those typical concerns that plague showbiz. But by a rising 'intolerance' towards
its stories and subjects and also the people behind them

i. National Award winner Sanjay Leela Bhansali, who reportedly invited

the ire of fringe religious groups in northern India for having touched
upon a subject considered sacrosanct.

The attackers claimed that

he was "distorting history"
in his upcoming
film Padmavati, which
narrates the story of a
14th century Rajput
queen. Without any
access whatsoever to the
yet-unreleased film's
script, it was perceived
that it showcases an illicit romance between the pious Hindu queen
Padmavati and a menacing Muslim invader Alauddin Khilji.

And that, by India's orthodox moral standards, is a strict no-no. The

film's lead actors have denied any such "distortion".

ii. In November 2015, another megastar Aamir Khan invited the wrath
of the masses for voicing his concerns about the security situation in
the country. While talking at a public event, he confessed that his wife
and family were "alarmed" and wanted "to move out" of India at one
point. He was lambasted on social media for his "unpatriotic"
comments, and people threatened to boycott his films. Some even
asked him to go to Pakistan, the usual right-wing barb on Twitter.
Khan later clarified his statement and said that he "was born here...
will die here."

iii. Aamir's peer, Shah Rukh Khan, wasn't as fortunate though.

 It is believed that his statements on "religious intolerance" adversely
impacted the collections of his 2015 film Dilwale. Angered by Khan's
comments, several political groups and activists opposed the film’s
screenings in Patna, Ghaziabad, Varanasi, Jabalpur and many places in
Rajasthan.

Khan later went on to admit, "At some point of time, I do regret

people could not understand what I said. It was not represented
properly. If anybody feels bad about it, I regret it completely." But he
also added, "I have not said anything that I should apologize (for). I will
fall in my own eyes if I do that."

iv. In December 2014,

another Aamir Khan
film PK was
branded "anti-
Hindu" for its
satirical take on
Gods and
Goddesses, blind
faith, customs and
rituals. Several
theaters were vandalized by Hindutva outfits and they demanded a
boycott of the film for allegedly hurting religious sentiments.

2. Reservation Riots by Jats

The Reservation Riots by

Jats was a series of violent
protests in February 2016
by Jat people of North
India, especially those in
the state of Haryana, which
"paralysed the State for 10
days." The rioters sought
inclusion of their caste in
the Other Backward
Class (OBC) category, which would make them eligible for affirmative
action benefits. Besides Haryana, the protests also spread to the neighboring
states, such as Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and also the National Capital Region.
Police and onlookers describe the initial phase of the protests as "peaceful" but
it later transformed into violent riots lead by Jat community, especially in the
city of Rohtak. Starting on 12 February, the Jats organized non-violent protests
for reservation by blocking railway lines and roads, while non-Jats opposed to
their demands organized counter-protests. On 18 February, a group of non-Jats
protesters clashed violently with a group of lawyers protesting against 2016 JNU
sedition controversy, mistaking the lawyers for Jats. Later on, they also came
into conflict with the Jat students. On the same day, the police allegedly beat
up some Jat students in Rohtak, while trying to open a blockade. Police also
raided a Boy's hostel, and reportedly assaulted the Jat students, an occurrence
which was "captured on camera and circulated over social media". Following
these incidents, several incidents of inter-caste violence took place across
Haryana.
By 25 February, the riots were estimated to have caused a loss of ₹340
billion (US$4.7 billion) in northern India. Railway Minister told in Lok Sabha "The
total loss suffered by Railways on account of damage to property and
cancellation of tickets during the agitation is about Rs 55.92 crore By 26
February, 30 people had been killed in the violence.

Conclusions

This study has demonstrated that compromises from secular and non-secular
citizens are required for a peaceful multicultural society, particularly in an
Indian context. In order to accommodate differences and radical point of views,
society as well as the state needs to be tolerant; thus, contextual secular-
multiculturalism could be an answer in the mitigation of multicultural conflict,
particularly between free expression and religion. However, this concept has
certain limitations as it still leaves leeway for religious polarization, communal
violence and silencing of secular minded people.