Monday Nov 25, 2024
Monday Nov 25, 2024
Tuesday, 7 January 2014 00:01 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
Recognised for her efforts internationally, she served as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and the UN Human Rights Commission’s Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Arbitrary or Summary Executions. Like Malala, Jahangir was one of the 1,000 women nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005.
In Sri Lanka this week to address a Colloquium on Peaceful Co-existence, Religious Tolerance, Secularism and Plural Societies in South Asia organised by the South Asia Policy and Research Institute (SAPRI), Jahangir sat down with the Daily FT yesterday for a wide-ranging discussion on the state of religious freedom in this country.
Having once visited Sri Lanka in her capacity as UN Special Rapporteur on the Freedom of Religion, when the anti-conversion war was raging, Jahangir believes today’s anti-minority trend is a result of the agenda being hijacked by small sections of extremists. A non-believer in state patronage of religions, the Human Rights Lawyer explains that when a Government is no longer neutral or is seen to take sides, minority communities are left extremely vulnerable and insecure. It is people, and not religions, Jahangir says, that have rights, and must be protected by the state.
Following are excerpts of that discussion:
By Dharisha Bastians
Q: Have you visited before?
A: I have been to Sri Lanka many times. But I haven’t been for some time and I have missed being here, because it’s a country where there is education in South Asia. And you see intellectual giants in Sri Lanka but you also saw ethnic war which was very brutal. I have seen Sri Lanka when it was extremely peaceful and then Sri Lanka when it was very violent. I also have very good friends here and some are still here. Unfortunately, we lost a very good friend – Neelan Tiruchelvam – who was assassinated here.
Q: What would you say is the current state of the freedom of religion in Sri Lanka?
A: When you look at South Asia, it’s not worse than many other countries. The good side of Sri Lanka is that people understand it and try to address it. I remember that violence had started when there was a draft law on anti-conversion that was going to be presented to Parliament when I came here as Special Rapporteur for Religious Freedom. I was able to have a very open debate about it with your Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar – who was himself later assassinated. I must say that I was extremely impressed at the manner in which he gave me such a patient hearing and said: “What you say is correct and so we have to think about it.” And your high priests are so open-minded about reflecting. So people do listen, they have a debate without getting emotional about it. Not in the street, I would say, but when there is a meeting in a sincere manner, they will listen to each other.
Q: Asia has seen the rise of these anti-minority religious hardline movements in recent years, and in the case of both Sri Lanka and Myanmar, these movements have emerged among the ethno-religious group that is in the majority. What creates these groups and why do religious groups in the majority in a given country continue to feel marginalised or threatened?
A: There are two different aspects, to the conflicts in Myanmar and Sri Lanka, although the ethnic religious composition is almost exactly the same. You also have a strand of post conflict situation here. The loyalties of conflict make people prejudiced. In Sri Lanka it is oppression, complete and simple oppression against religious minorities – and especially the Muslims. It’s been going on for some time. Earlier people didn’t address it. But now that society is opening up, you see it much more, as there is reaction and counter reaction.
Q: Why do you think – taking these two societies in Asia as an example – Buddhists feel marginalised and feel the need to mobilise?
A: In Sri Lanka I think that somehow I felt it even earlier, when there were tensions between the Christian and Buddhist communities here, that the Buddhists have always felt insecure. It is not a question of Sri Lanka, but they give you historic examples of how the subcontinent would have been Buddhist had they not had a pacifist kind of approach! They find that they may be overtaken by the aggressive manner of proselytisation by the Christians and the Muslims. There is a difference, not only in Sri Lanka but everywhere – there are some religions that don’t have proselytisation as a duty, for example the Buddhists or the Hindus. But for the Muslims and the Christians, it is a duty as a Muslim and as a Christian, to go and do missionary work and proselytise as they do it. So conversion is a part of their religious duty. But those religions that don’t have it, find it very aggressive. I think this is an area that needs to be discussed, as to how this can be overcome. Then of course there is the issue of Islamic militancy that you see not only in Pakistan and other Muslim countries, but it has spread to other Central Asian countries like Chechnya and South China. There is a fear that these international linkages may destroy the peace of their societies. I have seen interviews with people who been in a way senselessly prejudiced, who say, ‘we are an island, where are we going to go?’ – there is such a sense of insecurity.
It is sad because after 9/11 Muslims all over the world have felt the prejudice and the stigmatisation. Particularly this region, which has been pluralistic by nature, should not react in the same manner as very homogenous societies who have not been exposed to colour and race and religion do.
Q: As you say the issue of unethical conversions has been raging in Sri Lanka for some time. How ethical in your view is an unethical conversions bill? Can you really legislate against conversions?
A: I don’t think it is very wise to have a law against conversions. I will give you my reasons for it. If you look at India, in every state where there is an anti conversion law there have been more communal riots and killings there. Secondly, I learnt this very much in this country, where there is so much talk about people getting converted, when you really ask for hard data, the numbers are very very few. Thirdly, if conversion was that easy – everyone’s faith and spirituality is very dear to them – all of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh would have become Christians by now. It is not easy. Lastly, there are allegations that people are induced into converting. What is inducement? For instance, when I ask someone to become a good Muslim, because you will go to heaven, is that not inducement as well? It is for the convert to judge what constitutes inducement. For instance, after the tsunami I came here, and there was an allegation against a person that he had converted to Christianity because he had been given two bicycles. I asked him did you convert because you were offered two bicycles? And he said: “No that’s not true. I was so desperate and these two bicycles came my way and I thought, maybe God is telling me something.” So it’s to each person. And frankly religion is so personal, if people want to change it, it’s up to them to change it. You can’t force people into a religion and out of it.
Q: Not with conviction anyway.
A: Not with conviction, exactly. I mean where there is a use of violence or intimidation or threat – that’s there and I am sure that is there in Sri Lanka too. But it is for the person being intimidated to go and file a complaint not for the others.
Q: There is a growing argument with regard to Asian societies in general that they have always prized the common good vs. the rights and freedoms of the single citizen. This is an argument being made in the Human Rights context, but also with regard to the freedom of religion issue – that the protection and fostering of a particular traditional religion as being the duty of a state. Is religious freedom a Western notion?
A: I don’t believe in this cultural theory. I grew up and studied in Pakistan and nobody had to teach me what dignity was about. I don’t think a Westerner could have taught me any better than my own atmosphere at home. You have so many role models in our own society, that have lived very dignified lives, that have fought for freedoms despite all odds with no influence of the West at all. It comes from within. I think in our societies it is very much there. Look at the movement that we had against colonialism. Surely the colonialists didn’t teach us to fight them. I think that’s a good pretext to not uphold human rights.
"When you look at South Asia, it’s not worse than many other countries. The good side of Sri Lanka is that people understand it and try to address it… And your high priests are so open-minded about reflecting. So people do listen, they have a debate without getting emotional about it. Not in the street, I would say, but when there is a meeting in a sincere manner, they will listen to each other
I don’t think it is very wise to have a law against conversions. I will give you my reasons for it. If you look at India, in every state where there is an anti conversion law there have been more communal riots and killings there. Secondly, I learnt this 
very much in this country, where there is so much talk about people getting converted, when you really ask for hard data, the numbers are very, very few. Thirdly, if conversion was that easy – everyone’s faith and spirituality is very dear to them – all of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh would have become Christians by now. It is not easy. Lastly, there are allegations that people are induced into converting. What is inducement? For instance, when I ask someone to become a good Muslim, because you will go to heaven, is that not inducement as well? It is for the convert to judge what constitutes inducement
As far as religious rights are concerned, there have been riots and killings and murders and lootings over religion in this part of the world. People have been jealously guarding their religious rights. So it has not come from the West, it has always been there. Unfortunately history is full of violence to spread religion in South Asia. But we have to now give ourselves a wakeup call. We are not living in the last 20 centuries
Religions don’t have any rights. And so it is not the obligation of the state to protect any religion. But it is the obligation of the state to protect individuals. And that means protecting people from persecution on the basis of religion. So it has to be people based rather than religion based
By and large there are a few extremists but they managed to carry the agenda because they managed to create the hype and managed to predict gloom and doom if preventive action was not taken. And that preventive action was a very unfair preventive action
I think Halal logos are used to attract Muslim consumers. I don’t see why you can’t write it, what difference does it make? Why should the Government have defended it? I think that once a Government begins to take sides and stops being neutral, it will make the minorities insecure"
As far as religious rights are concerned, there have been riots and killings and murders and lootings over religion in this part of the world. People have been jealously guarding their religious rights. So it has not come from the West, it has always been there. Unfortunately history is full of violence to spread religion in South Asia. But we have to now give ourselves a wakeup call. We are not living in the last 20 centuries.
Q: Are collective rights – in this sense culturally – more important than the rights of the individual?
A: How can you have collective rights without any thought to individual rights? For instance take labour rights. Even amongst labourers there are those who are more vulnerable. Women will be more vulnerable, children will be more vulnerable. People from religious minorities will be more vulnerable. So you can’t say forget about the rights of the child among labour rights, because it’s good for the economy or the common good of the people. You have to consider them as well. Amongst those children will be individuals who are even more challenged. So the whole premise behind human rights is individual rights, is individual dignity. Collective rights take a secondary place to individual rights in my view. What is national security’s collective right and how it is being abused all over the world not just in our part, to protect certain class of people who want a certain ideology to be followed and a status quo to remain.
Q: Should the state have a role to foster one or many religions or is it better for the state not to be involved in matters of religion at all?
A: Let me put it in this way. Religions don’t have any rights. And so it is not the obligation of the state to protect any religion. But it is the obligation of the state to protect individuals. And that means protecting people from persecution on the basis of religion. So it has to be people based rather than religion based.
Q: Do you think that what is happening in Sri Lanka is typical for a country that is coming out of protracted ethnic conflict to see an upsurge of anti-minority violence? Could something have been done as soon as the war ended to prevent this?
A: It’s not easy to strategise conflict and how post conflict will come. It’s a difficult thing. Naturally if it was done with state of the art, then there would have been more inter-faith dialogues even during conflict, so that it wouldn’t carry on after conflict. But people retain unfortunately huge memories when they feel that a decision was taken en bloc on the basis of religion in their loyalty towards one or the other party during conflict and that mindset prevails even post-conflict. Secondly I think that the acceptability that this is a state that is not for one religion has not come to everybody in Sri Lanka. The accommodation to pluralistic values and habits, it is there in your constitution, but it also has to be there intellectually, not just in a particular class of people but respected also by a larger majority. That way the few extremists that are in every society do not carry the agenda.
Q: Do you think that is what is happening in Sri Lanka today – that extremists are carrying the agenda?
A: I absolutely think that is what is happening. By and large there are a few extremists but they managed to carry the agenda because they managed to create the hype and managed to predict gloom and doom if preventive action was not taken. And that preventive action was a very unfair preventive action. I think that if these extremist lobbyists are set aside and other people begin to talk, there is a way out of it. By and large this is a very educated society, where people can begin to put the past behind them. Because it is all related to the past and there have been mistakes made on all sides.
Q: Certain hardline Buddhist movements in Sri Lanka recently launched a campaign against Halal certification of foods. Today the Halal label no longer appears on any consumer products in our market. How do you believe a government should react to such a dispute that involves different religious groups?
A: I think Halal logos are used to attract Muslim consumers. I don’t see why you can’t write it, what difference does it make? Why should the Government have defended it? I think that once a Government begins to take sides and stops being neutral, it will make the minorities insecure. Minority rights have to be taken very sensibly. It is critical that you don’t make them feel that they don’t have anyone who will protect them against the onslaught of majority.
People will react if you give them space to react. On the other hand, I would like to say that every minority has a right to practice their religion as they wish and must be protected, regardless of public opinion. At the same time, minorities or majorities should not force their ideas on other people, because it will irritate them. I am not saying you should criminalise it, because the threshold of tolerance must be high enough in society, that it should be above irritation. But somehow in the past two decades, Muslims have become very clannish in their own way, whether they are in the majority or the minority. Look at Pakistan, where 95% Muslims and they still feel threatened and they wear their religion on their sleeve as if there is such a risk to religion – I find it so ironic sometimes living there.
Q: These hardline movements also actively campaigned against Muslim enterprises being patronised and in some cases Muslim owned businesses were attacked. What impact does this chain of events have on the national economy?
A: Obviously it will affect the economy. But more than that, it affects the entire national psyche. You are moving away from being a pluralistic society. You are becoming a society that condones violence against minority and stigmatisation of minority, which is the worst thing that any society can do.
