NYT Op-Ed On Increased Ban On Cattle Slaughter In India

Today's New York Times carries an interesting Opinion piece by University of Maryland Mathematics Professor Manil Suri criticizing steps taken last month by the Indian state of Maharashtra (which includes Mumbai) to expand the ban on slaughter of cows. The ban was extended to slaughter of bulls and oxen and the sale of beef was made punishable by up to five years in prison. He says in part:

The laws have affected more than just restaurants. Thousands of butchers and vendors, their livelihood abruptly suspended, have protested in Mumbai. The leather industry is in turmoil. Beef is consumed not only by Indian Muslims and Christians, but also by many low-caste Hindus, for whom it is an essential source of affordable protein. The poorest waste nothing, from beef innards to coagulated blood, while their religion pragmatically turns a blind eye. Low-caste Dalit Hindu students, and others, have organized beef-eating festivals to protest the infringement on their culture and identity.

With the recent re-criminalization of gay sex, bans on controversial books and films and even an injunction against the use of the colonial-era name “Bombay” instead of “Mumbai” in a Bollywood song, the new laws join a growing list of restrictions on personal freedom in India. Already, the police in the city of Malegaon have arrested three Muslim men accused of calf slaughter, and ordered livestock owners to submit mug shots of cows and bulls to a cattle registry, to create a record in case any of them go missing.

Indian Court Says Child Marriage Act Trumps Muslim Personal Law

Z News reports that in India, the Madras High Court has held that the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 takes precedence over the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1937, upholding an order of a district child welfare officer preventing the marriage of a 17-year old girl.  The judge rejected the argument that Muslim personal law could be applied.  Under Shariat law, a girl may marry at age 15 when she is presumed to attain puberty. Meanwhile, a hearing is scheduled today in a public interest lawsuit filed in the Madras High Court in which petitioner is seeking an order to prevent state government officials from interfering in the marriage of Muslim girls.

India Supreme Court Upholds State Work Rule Barring Polygamy

In Khan v. State of U.P., (India Sup. Ct., Feb.9, 2015), a 2-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutionality of a rule of the government of the state of Uttar Pradesh barring employees from having more than one wife.  The court held that while Muslim personal law may permit up to four wives, the rule does not violate the provision of Art. 25 of India's Constitution that protects the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion. Quoting from an earlier decision, the Court said:

What is permitted or not prohibited by a religion does not become a religious practice or a positive tenet of a religion.... Assuming the practice of having more wives than one... is a practice followed by any community or group of people, the same can be regulated or prohibited by legislation in the interest of public order, morality and health or by any law providing for social welfare and reform which the impugned legislation clearly does.

The Economic Times reports on the decision.

Obama Promotes Religious Tolerance In Address To Indian People

On Tuesday, President Obama on his trip to India delivered a 34-minute address to the people of India (full text). His remarks included a lengthy plea for religious tolerance:

Our nations are strongest when we see that we are all God’s children -- all equal in His eyes and worthy of His love.  Across our two great countries we have Hindus and Muslims, Christians and Sikhs, and Jews and Buddhists and Jains and so many faiths.  And we remember the wisdom of Gandhiji, who said, “for me, the different religions are beautiful flowers from the same garden, or they are branches of the same majestic tree.”  (Applause.)    Branches of the same majestic tree.

 Our freedom of religion is written into our founding documents.  It’s part of America’s very first amendment.  Your Article 25 says that all people are “equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.”  In both our countries -- in all countries -- upholding this fundamental freedom is the responsibility of government, but it's also the responsibility of every person.

 In our lives, Michelle and I have been strengthened by our Christian faith.  But there have been times where my faith has been questioned -- by people who don’t know me -- or they’ve said that I adhere to a different religion, as if that were somehow a bad thing.  Around the world, we’ve seen intolerance and violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to be standing up for their faith, but, in fact, are betraying it.  No society is immune from the darkest impulses of man.  And too often religion has been used to tap into those darker impulses as opposed to the light of God.  Three years ago in our state of Wisconsin, back in the United States, a man went to a Sikh temple and, in a terrible act of violence, killed six innocent people -- Americans and Indians.  And in that moment of shared grief, our two countries reaffirmed a basic truth, as we must again today -- that every person has the right to practice their faith how they choose, or to practice no faith at all, and to do so free of persecution and fear and discrimination.  (Applause.) 

 The peace we seek in the world begins in human hearts.  And it finds its glorious expression when we look beyond any differences in religion or tribe, and rejoice in the beauty of every soul.  And nowhere is that more important than India.  Nowhere is it going to be more necessary for that foundational value to be upheld.  India will succeed so long as it is not splintered along the lines of religious faith -- so long as it's not splintered along any lines -- and is unified as one nation.

And it’s when all Indians, whatever your faith, go to the movies and applaud actors like Shah Rukh Khan.  And when you celebrate athletes like Milkha Singh or Mary Kom.  And every Indian can take pride in the courage of a humanitarian who liberates boys and girls from forced labor and exploitation -- who is here today -- Kailash Satyarthi.  (Applause.)  Our most recent winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace.  (Applause.)

 So that's what unifies us:  Do we act with compassion and empathy.  Are we measured by our efforts -- by what Dr. King called “the content of our character” rather than the color of our skin or the manner in which we worship our God.  In both our countries, in India and in America, our diversity is our strength.  And we have to guard against any efforts to divide ourselves along sectarian lines or any other lines.  And if we do that well, if America shows itself as an example of its diversity and yet the capacity to live together and work together in common effort, in common purpose; if India, as massive as it is, with so much diversity, so many differences is able to continually affirm its democracy, that is an example for every other country on Earth.  That's what makes us world leaders -- not just the size of our economy or the number of weapons we have, but our ability to show the way in how we work together, and how much respect we show each other.

DNA India reported on the President's address.

Suit Seeks To Require Foreign Terrorist Designation For Hindu Nationalist Group

The Hindu reports that Sikhs for Justice filed a declaratory judgment action in a New York federal district court last week seeking to require Secretary of State John Kerry to designate an Indian Hindu nationalist group as a "foreign terrorist organization."  The lawsuit claims that Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has targeted Muslim, Sikh and Christian minorities in an attempt to turn India into a homogeneous Hindu nation. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party has ties to RSS. Last week a New York federal district court dismissed on immunity grounds a suit brought directly against Modi for his alleged role in Gujarat anti-Muslim rioting in 2002. (See prior posting.)

Suit Against India's PM Over Role In Anti-Muslim Riots Dismissed

In American Justice Center (AJC), Inc. v. Modi, (SD NY, Jan. 14, 2015), a New York federal district court dismissed on immunity grounds a suit that was brought against the current prime minister of India over his actions as Chief Minister of Gujarat during anti-Muslim rioting in 2002. The suit was brought under the Torture Victim Protection Act and the Alien Tort Statute.  (See prior posting.) The court accepted the U.S. government's contention that Modi enjoys immunity from suit as a sitting head of a foreign government. The Hindu reports on the decision.

Indian State of Goa Plans Program To "Treat" LGBT Youths

The New York Times reported this week that the Indian state of Goa is planning to set up "camps" to treat gay, bisexual and transgender young people to rid them of their sexual orientations.  Ramesh Tawadkar, the state's Minister for Sports and Youth Affairs, says the program, which will involve a well-known yoga guru, will teach LGBT youths how to experience "the true pleasures and bliss of life." Same-sex relations are illegal in India.

India Considering Anti-Conversion Law

According to a report from AFP on Saturday, in India, Parliament is paralyzed over a proposed law against "forced conversion." The term is used in India to describe not just conversion under threat of violence, but also conversion through inducements such as offers of free food or education.  Hindu nationalists connected to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have become more aggressive in their conversion efforts. The Daily Times reports

The Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP’s) militant wing, the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) has started a forced conversion movement called homecoming. The RSS believes that these Muslims and Christian were originally Hindus and the homecoming movement is simply an attempt to bring them back to where they belong.

RSS was accused of converting some 50 poor Muslim families a week ago, promising the converts ration cards and other financial incentives.  A larger planned conversion of Christians and Muslims on Christmas day has been called off.  Amit Shah, leader of BJP, says the party favors a new law.

Indian Court Orders Frozen Body of Spiritual Leader Released For Last Rites; Appeal Is Filed

In Chandigarh, India, officials of the spiritual organization Divya Jyoti Jagriti Sansthan petitioned the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for review by a Division Bench of a single judge's order issued on December 1 requiring last rites to be performed on the organization's leader Ashutosh Maharaj by December 15.  As reported by the Economic Times, Ashutosh was declared clinically dead by doctors last January. However some of his followers placed his body inside a deep freezer claiming that he had merely gone into a deep state of meditation (samadhi). Another follower, Dalip Kumar Jha, last April petitioned the High Court to release Ashutosh's body to him for last rites and also investigate the cause of Ashutosh's mysterious death.

UPDATE: On Dec. 15, a Division Bench of the High Court stayed the single judge's order, at least unitl the next hearing on Feb. 9. (AFP).

Extremist Hindu Groups In India Using Violence To Prevent Hindu-Muslim Marriages

Today's New York Times carries an opinion piece on right-wing extremist Hindu groups in India that are using violence to stop marriages between Hindu women and Muslim men, saying in part:

right-wing politicians have used the boogeyman of love jihad in states with sizable Muslim populations like Gujarat and Maharashtra to present themselves as the protectors of Hindu virtue and win Hindu votes. Their behavior fit the descriptions of a hate crime, although no charges have ever been filed against them. 

Suit Filed In US Court Against Indian Primie Minister Over 2002 Anti-Muslim Riots

Reuters reports on a lawsuit filed last Thursday in the Southern District of New York federal district court against Indian Prime Minister Narenda Modi over his alleged lack of action as Chief Minister of Gujarat during anti-Muslim rioting in 2002. Modi is a member of the Hindu nationalist BJP Party.  The person behind the lawsuit is 70-year old Joseph Whittington, a member of the Harvey, Illinois City Council. Whittington, who is African-American, says some of his constituents or their families were victims of the Gujarat riots, which reminded him of the U.S. civil rights movement. Whittington worked with a group of New York lawyers to found a non-profit, American Justice Center, which filed the suit against Modi. AP reports that American Justice Center is offering a $10,000 reward to anyone who can serve process on Modi while he is in the United States for a visit. Normally sitting heads of state enjoy immunity from lawsuits in American courts and cannot be served.

India's Former Prime Minister Immune In U.S. Courts As To Some Charges Of Participation In Killing of Sikhs

In Sikhs For Justice v. Singh,(D DC, Aug. 19, 2014), the D.C. federal district court dismissed on immunity grounds most, but not all of the claims against India's former Prime Minister for his role in the torture and killing of Indian Sikhs. The court summaried its decision:

Defendant Manmohan Singh was, until very recently, the Prime Minister of India. Plaintiffs ... have brought this suit alleging that the former Prime Minister tortured and killed Indian Sikhs during his time at the helm of that country’s government and, before then, as Finance Minister. The United States, a non-party in this litigation, has filed a Suggestion of Immunity claiming that Singh, as the sitting Prime Minister, is entitled to head-of-state immunity. Although at the time of that filing, Singh was indeed Prime Minister, he left office three weeks later. Plaintiffs, consequently, counter that Singh is no longer entitled to such immunity. They are only partly correct. Although he is no longer a head of state, Singh is entitled to residual immunity for acts taken in his official capacity as Prime Minister. Because such residual immunity does not cover actions Singh pursued before taking office, however, the allegations stemming from his time as Finance Minister survive.

Reuters reports on the decision and has more on the substantive allegations in the case.

Indian Court Upholds National Commission For Minorities Act

The Times of India reports today that a 2-judge panel of the Allahabad high court has upheld the constitutionality of India's National Commission for Minorities Act. Rejecting claims that the Act discriminates on the basis of religion, the court said in part:

The commission cannot be regarded as a body which is constituted as an institution in aid of or for the protection of a religion but it is an institution which has been created by the Act of Parliament to ensure that minorities are able to realise their rights to development and freedom.

Court In India Says Enforcing Wildlife Protection Against Cobra Worship Is Constitutional

According to Pune Mirror, in India yesterday a 2-judge panel of the Bombay High Court rejected claims by residents of a village in Sangli that their constitutional right to freely practice their religion is being violated by enforcing the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 against them.  The villagers are known for observing Nag Panchami by capturing wild King Cobras in the forest, worshiping them and then releasing them back into the wild.  A public interest lawsuit filed last year has been attempting to stop the practice. A 2-judge bench of the Bombay High Court rejected villagers free exercise assertions, saying:

The capture and worship of live snakes for worship is not an essential part of the Hindu religion. Capturing live snakes and later releasing them back into the wild could cause them harm, which is against the law. Under the Constitution, citizens are duty-bound to protect these creatures.

India's Supreme Court Rules Sharia Courts Legal As Advisory Bodies, But Should Not Issue Rulings Unless Requested By Party Affected

In Madan v. Union of India, (India Sup. Ct., July 7, 2014), petitioner challenged the legality of Muslim Sharia Courts set up around the country and supported by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board.  The suit was filed after publicity about a case in which a Muslim Court ruled that a married woman who was raped by her father-in-law could no longer remain married to the son. The Fatwah in the case was apparently issued without its being requested by any of the parties immediately involved.  A 2-judge panel of India's Supreme Court refused to order Muslim courts dissolved, saying:

A Qazi or Mufti has no authority or powers to impose his opinion and enforce his Fatwa on any one by any coercive method.... It has no legal sanction and can not be enforced by any legal process.... The person or the body concerned may ignore it ....

However the court was troubled by Fatwas issued at the behest of third parties, saying that they create "serious psychological impact" on the person who chooses to ignore them.  Therefore, it ruled that Muslim courts should not issue Fatwas affecting the rights, status or obligation of an individual unless that person has asked for a ruling. AP reports on the decision.

Court In India Says State Government Must Enforce Ritual Decision of Temple Managing Committee

In Bhabani PR. Mishra v State, (Orissa High Ct., June 20, 2014), the High Court of the Indian state of Orissa held that the state government must abide by the decision of the Managing Committee of the Jagnnath Temple in maintaining law and order during Rath Yatra (Car Festival).  The Temple Managing Committee made a controversial decision that devotees are not permitted to climb on top of the chariots that carry the deities to the Shri Gundicha Temple. According to the Business Standard, the state government had found itself in the middle of a dispute between priests who wanted the tradition of devotees climbing on the chariots to continue, and the Managing Committee that wanted the tradition ended in conformity with the opinion of HH Shankaracharya, Puri.  The state government had appointed a high level committee to resolve the dispute, but now the state law minister says that the government will merely abide by the decision of the High Court.

Concerns Over Religious Tolerance In India Raised As BJP's Modi Is Elected Prime Minister

Reuters this morning reports that in India, markets are soaring as Narendra Modi's pro-Hindu Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) appears to have won a landslide Parliamentary majority. Modi has been Chief Minister of Gujarat state since 2001. Writing at CNN, journalist Sunny Hundal however raises the question of whether Modi as prime minister will threaten India's liberal secular tradition. He writes in part:

Established as a secular and liberal nation in 1950, India will find itself in uncharted territory as it has never before had a hardline Hindu nationalist at the helm.

This raises an important question: what will Modi the prime minister be like? Will he sweep away the corruption scandals blighting the country's reputation and do a better job of rejuvenating India, or will he inflame religious tensions as some fear?

Much of the criticism aimed at Modi has focused on the riots of 2002 when hundreds, possibly thousands, of Muslims were butchered by Hindu mobs, while his government was accused of standing by and watching. But if a Prime Minister Modi carries on like he did as Chief Minister of Gujarat state and as the candidate for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) during campaigning, there are plenty of reasons to be worried about the future. The future Modi is a terrifying prospect if he is based on the past Modi.

India's Supreme Court Says Country's Adoption Law Applies To Muslims

In Hashmi v. Union of India, (Sup. Ct. India, Feb. 19, 2014), a 3-judge panel of the Supreme Court of India held that the Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (background), allows a parent of any religion to adopt an eligible child. The Court described the Juvenile Justice Act as a "small step" toward a uniform Civil Code envisioned by Art. 44 of the Indian Constitution. The Court rejected the argument of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board that Child Welfare Committees should follow the principles of Islamic law before declaring a Muslim child available for adoption. Islamic law recognizes the Kafala system under which a child in need remains a descendant of its biological parents even though it is placed under the care of others. Because of these differing views on adoption, however, the court refused to declare adoption a fundamental right under Art. 21 of the Indian Constitution. Calcutta's The Telegraph reports on the decision.

India Supreme Court Orders Stop To Imminent Devadasi Ceremony That Often Exploits Young Girls

The Calcutta Telegraph reports that India's Supreme Court yesterday took quick action in response to a recently filed Public Interest Lawsuit to try to prevent exploitation of young girls in a ceremony scheduled for the night of February 13-14 in front of the Uttangi Durga Hindu temple in the city of Davangere in India's Karnataka state. According to the report:

Under the devadasi system, girls on attaining puberty are married off to the local temple’s female deity at a ceremony willingly consented to by the parents in most cases, though in some cases local panchayats have been known to use a certain degree of coercion.

After being “married” off and “dedicated” to the deity, the girls are forced to sing and dance before their village chiefs, rich landlords and other influential persons and have often been sexually exploited.

The PIL cited newspaper reports that said that despite the Karnataka Devadasis (Prohibition of Dedication) Act, 1982, the practice continued.... The petition alleged that many devadasis, exploited by local landlords and influential men, had been left to fend for themselves and were dying of poverty or sexually transmitted diseases.

The court told counsel for the non-profit foundation filing the suit that they should have come to the court sooner.  As an interim measure, the court yesterday faxed an order to the chief secretary of the state of Karnataka ordering him to take steps to prevent unmarried girls from being forced to become devadasis at the February 13-14 religious event.

Random House Affiliate Agrees To Withdraw Scholar's Book On Hinduism To Settle Lawsuit In India

The New York Times and the Financial Times report that in India, the publisher  Penguin India (an affiliate of US publisher Penguin Random House) has agreed to settle a lawsuit brought against it by a Hindu activist group by withdrawing all unsold copies of The Hindus: An Alternative History.  The book, authored by University of Chicago Professor Wendy Doniger and published in 2009, was  criticized by a reviewer as over-eroticizing the religion.  In 2010, Dina Nath Batra, the head of Shiksha Bacho Andolan (Save Education Movement), filed a lengthy notice (full text) with the author detailing passages he found to be "shallow," "distorted" and "riddled with heresies and factual inaccuracies." The notice threatened legal action under Section 153, 153A, 295A, 298, 505(2) of Indian Penal Code. These provisions, among other things, bar insulting religious beliefs and promoting ill-will between religious groups. A lawsuit was filed in 2011, and apparently complaints were also filed with prosecutors.

Under the settlement (full text), Penguin will "recall and withdraw all copies of the book" and no longer "sell, publish or distribute" it.  The recalled copies will be "pulped" by Penguin. In exchange, plaintiffs will withdraw all "civil and criminal cases/ complaints." Currently the book remains listed on Penguin India's website.  Apparently the book will remain available in India on Kindle.  In a statement reacting to developments, Prof. Doniger criticized "Indian law, which makes it a criminal rather than civil offence to publish a book that offends any Hindu, a law that jeopardises the physical safety of any publisher, no matter how ludicrous the accusation."