Time to improve relations between police & minorities

SHASHI THAROOR
As the country copes with the aftermath of the horrors of Mumbai, the hard work of reconstruction, of rebuilding - of reimagining our country-has begun. One genuine cause of satisfaction must be that there was no demonization of our Muslim minority, which the terrorists must have hoped to provoke. The victims of the killers were from every faith, and Indians of every religion have stood united in their anger and determination. And yet it was just the weekend before the attacks that the PM had urged senior police officers not to widen "the fault lines in our society" and to act to "restore the faith of the people- especially those belonging to religious and ethnic minorities and the weaker sections - in the impartiality and effectiveness of the police." His words reflected a real conundrum: the general public feels it is not adequately protected against the random violence of terrorists, but every pro-active policing effort seriously alienates India's largest minority community. Young Muslim men have been picked up and brutalized for no reason other than their demographic profile, and yet the sneering triumphalism of the terrorists' Islamist propaganda seems to leave the authorities little choice. But if the efforts to stamp out the sources of terror merely incite the sullen resentment within which terrorism breeds, every crackdown will prove counter-productive. There has to be a better way. And there is. Indian dealt effectively with Sikh extremism by the skilful use of the talents of a pluralist state. The Khalistanis never succeeded in making their cause one of the Sikh community versus the Indian state. Instead, we saw the majority of Sikhs stay loyal to their country, as a largely Sikh police force, led by a charismatic Sikh officer, K.P.S. Gill, ably combated the minority of Sikh terrorists, while the Indian state orchestrated a democratic political process which brought elected Sikh leaders to power in Punjab. There is absolutely no reason why a similar approach cannot work with the Muslim community, the overwhelming majority of whom are proud and loyal Indians. To do so we must start by getting more Muslims into the security forces. There are well-known historical and sociological reasons that explain why Muslims are under-represented in the country's police forces, the Central Reserve Police and crucial gendarmeries like UP's Provincial Armed Constabulary. Obviously, we cannot infuse a significant number of Muslims into these forces overnight. But it's obvious that we need to enhance the recruitment and retention of minorities in the police forces and to conduct police outreach to minority communities. Such an approach would simultaneously reduce a major source of grievance in the Muslim community, increase the trust between the police and the people they are policing, and dramatically improve our own intelligence about currents within a community whose vulnerability to the blandishments of terror is high. We can learn some lessons from how other democracies have dealt with similar concerns. Despite the Sachar Commission report, few in India want to see an additional layer of reservations for minorities in state institutions. But Britain, which abjures quotas altogether, follows a policy of 'positive action' to help under-represented groups compete more effectively in the selection process for police jobs, and conducts extensive outreach work through mosques, black churches and community groups. We in India also need to recognize that if we want under-represented Muslims to compete effectively for police jobs, they need to feel the police is part of them, rather than an external entity. It's clear we need to: actively solicit applications from minorities for the police at all levels (including the Provincial Armed Constabulary and the Central Reserve Police); offer special catch-up courses open only to members of the minority communities that will prepare them for the entrance examinations; at the moment few feel qualified to take the exams, and fewer still pass; and require police officers to work with community organizations, mosques and madrasas to encourage minorities to apply. In other words, instead of more "reservations", with the resentment that breeds, let us make it easier for minorities to join the police. But let's not stop with recruitment: we also need to focus on the retention and progression of minority officers. Unless young people from minorities see that the police service offers real career opportunities and a good quality of life in the workplace, they will not overcome their negative perceptions. The fact that, in many Western countries, there are several officers from the visible minorities now at senior officer rank, sends a powerful message to these communities. In India, the promotion of minority police personnel at senior and middle levels and using them as visible symbols of the police force would constitute a powerful model to the minority community. We could also take a leaf out of Britain's book in what they do to combat racism within the police, as well as enhance cross-cultural knowledge, offering training courses to white officers that include a 'long weekend' spent living with a minority family. Britain is far from perfect - as the current discrimination case filed by Deputy Commissioner Tariq Ghafoor suggests - but many Hindu policemen, especially in Gujarat and the suburbs of Mumbai, would benefit immeasurably by spending a few days in a Muslim mohalla. Let's face it: if our police are not properly and continuously trained in minority relations, the current problems will continue. Of course India is not Britain, and no foreign ideas can simply be imported wholesale into our country. But we must acknowledge the grave risk to the national fabric of any community being alienated from the police. Our police forces must reflect the diversity of India. Such a policy would be the "other side of the coin" to a tough security policy which is indispensable to reassure the common urban resident, terrorized by the bomb blasts, that the Government can keep them safe.

Religion, politics: Potent mix, potential threat

CNN-IBN

The investigation into the September 29 Malegaon bomb blast case has revealed that Hindu groups may have been indulging in terror acts. Some Hindu religious leaders including Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur have been arrested in the case.
A serving Army officer, Lieutenant Colonel Srikant Prasad Purohit, is now being questioned not just for the Malegaon blast but also for the February 2007 Samjhauta Express blast in which 66 people died as well as the Hyderabad Mecca Masjid blast of 2007 in which 42 died.
Now Hindu religious leaders are uniting and some of then met in Panipat on Sunday to form a Dharam Sangrakshan Samiti to defend the blast accused from the allegations levelled by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad.
In Panipat, the Sangh Parivar demonstrated its united resolve to fight for those accused of terrorism. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) now plans to hold a massive rally of religious leaders on November 26 to demonstrate their support for the blast accused.
With the Malegaon blast investigation forcing Hindu leaders to speak in a united voice CNN-IBN show Face the Nation debated: Should Hindu religious leaders stay out of politics? The panel included former Bharatiya Janata Party leader KN Govindacharya, Professor of Sociology in Jawaharlal Nehru University Dipankar Gupta and BJP National Executive Member Siddharth Nath Singh. The discussion was moderated by senior editor Sagarika Ghose.
When Hindu leaders are accused of killing innocent people and indulging in terror acts isn't it time to do aatmachintan (introspection) just as they want the Muslin leaders to do when Muslim youths are accused of being involved in terror acts.
Govindacharya set the ball rolling by claiming that the government has been ignoring the Hindus and such terror acts only reflect the frustration in the society.
"Hindu Samaj has definitely done the aatmachintan and this kind of emotional outburst are the result of such aatmachintan. There are two reasons: First when Hindu samaj (society) feels that there is no government that takes care of their interests and feelings then such outburst are a natural consequence though undesirable. Similarly when the legitimate established organisations espousing the cause of Hindu society apply double standards to their own convictions and they are not honest about their concern of large section of Hindu society, then definitely the Hindus do the aatmachintan and the result is mushrooming of such outfits," Govindacharya said.
Tit-for-tat?
When asked if he was justifying terrorism, Govindacharya replied, "Not at all. I don't justify but just condemning won't do anything. One has to be quite dispassionately honest about the state of situation and responsibly find the solutions. If solutions are not there we may go on indulging in blame game against each other just as it was on December 6, 1992. But lessons were to be learnt from December 6, 1992 by politicians, judiciary and executive also but none of them have learnt lessons. Politicians have indulged in duplicity, double talk. Bureaucrats as always are lack lustre and irresponsible. For example, ATS is leaking news. What good does it do to the society or to the nation? There are inordinate delays in the judiciary. If anybody has committed crime let the law take it own course, let them punish the guilty but they should not go through such untoward publicity like leaking sources of ATS."
BJP President Rajnath Singh has said that Hindu saints are being maligned and VHP's Praveen Togadia says a Hindu can never be a terrorist so isn't it the same politics as what BJP accuses the Muslim politicians of.
BJP's Siddharth Nath Singh justified his party's stand by invoking Mahatma Gandhi.
"There is a difference. In Batla House the issue was they were supporting those who acted against the nation and condemning those who fought and died for the nation. So there is the difference. I think the basic thing which we all are forgetting is when you say religion or Hindu being into politics, I think we must also understand it is not just a religion which you are talking. Gandhiji also said ‘politics without religious values is of no use to me'. He meant the Dharma. Dharma needs to be in politics otherwise it will become immoral. When you take religion which you mention as Hindu religious people should not be into politics, it is the Congress and others so called secular parties which bring religion into politics. For example; the Dharma of any political party which is religious values is that there should be a uniform civil code. Now the Congress doesn't want that. They bring in religion at that stage," Singh argued.
But India today is a very different country from the early 1990s when rath yatras were taken out and when Babri Masjid was demolished. So if the BJP does return to the hardcore Hindu agenda can it win votes?
BJP's way to votes
Dipankar Gupta argued that BJP can never every rid itself of its Hindutva agenda.
"When you come down to the wire, the defining characteristic of the BJP is Hindutva. It can occasionally take on other issues as well like economic regeneration but everybody is talking about that. So what's different about the BJP? The difference is Hindutva. So when push comes to shove, its Hindutva colours come out. I don't have a very strong position on whether Hindu religious leaders or Muslim religious leaders should be in politics or not but I have a strong position on one subject which is this that character certificates cannot stand in for the law. You can't have faith saying that this is more important than law and legal procedure should be suspended because Rajnath Singh says so and to say ‘we believe so and so to be above reproach. Why should the law come into the picture? How dare the law come into the picture?' This is exactly what the people are talking about. This is what I think is most unconstitutional and dreadful for the democratic structure of the society. It is something reprehensible and there is no way by which one can condone such statements made by a national leader like Rajnath Singh and the fact that the rest of the BJP is standing by him," Gupta said.
Govindacharya too tried to buttress the point the hardcore Hindutva may not yield the desired results and pointed out the states elections held just after the 1992 Babri Masjid demolition as an example.
"I want to say that after 1992 demolition BJP lost all the states in the 1993 elections. Therefore such acts need not end up in increasing the votes. Secondly I want to say that BJP President who was today roaring on behalf of Pragya just 15 days back his statement was that he feels ashamed of his association with Pragya. Incidentally he had met Pragya just once. Therefore I say that such kind of double talk is also remembered by the people and their memory is not so short. The lost credibility of the last 15 years of BJP will also have some impact on the mind of the people," he said.
Is not the BJP by brining in religious leaders into politics actually ruining the moral symbolism of Hinduism?
"I feel political leaders should keep distance from the religious programmes and activities publicly. If Advaniji had not led the rath yatra then perhaps the discourse on validity of the civilisational aspect of Lord Ram would have been brought forth," Govindacharya said.
Singh quipped, "Probably Govindacharyaji is forgetting that he was part of the BJP at that stage."
The Hindutva agenda
When the NDA was in power, it seemed that the BJP was moving away from it core agenda and forging a new identity. Now it seems with BJP party president back with sadhus and sants (religious leaders), the party is back to the hardcore Hindutva position and is not going to alienate allies who have secular positions.
Singh did not buy the argument and instead said that Rajnath meeting religious leaders should not be made into a big news.
"Firstly all the allies are free to follow their own policies. Secondly, I don't really understand why to Rajnath going and attending the meeting of sadhus and sants is becoming a big issue. Why only Rajnath Singh, there are so many political leaders who carry some religious leaders to catch certain votebanks. Here it was a get together of various saints of India. The Dharam Sangrakshan Samiti is for Congress and others are maligning Hindus. They are maligning Hindus and the terms being used. The news says Hindu terror and a newsweekly says saffron in uniform. This needs to be criticised by all of us not just the BJP," Singh said.
However, Gupta cut him short. "It shows that the BJP lacks moral fibre and that it indulges in double talk. As you mentioned a little while back when it comes to Muslims they are more than happy to condemn them even before a case is tried out and even after an alleged SIMI activist has been released they say the court has been very lenient."
Singh was not to be left behind and retorted, "We as a political party have never said ‘a Muslim terrorist’. We have said the Congress doesn't want to hang Afzal (Mohammed Afzal Guru who has been given death sentence in Parliament attack case) because it relates to a votebank. We criticise that, we condemn that."
Gupta continued to argue that the BJP was trying to circumvent legal process.
"Not getting the sants or whoever they are when they are allegedly being charged for explosions is a violation of our democratic principles and laws of land. This is a police case and they have filed a case. At this point of time for Rajnath Singh to say that I know these people are innocent and that the case and any action taken against them is political vendetta is completely anti-democratic and should not be allowed at all. Why is the BJP doing it? It is simply because the Congress has stolen its thunder when it comes to the atom bomb, on economic policies and almost everything. The only thing left with the BJP right now is Hindutva and they are falling back on it," Gupta said.
Singh once again harped that Hindutva should not be seen as one-dimensional. "Dipankar perhaps doesn't understand that Hindutva is perhaps a progressive way of leading the country, it means development also."
But Gupta did not backtrack. "I don't see anything progressive when the BJP President says the law is not important but my character certificate is? I see everything regressive in that and it is the worst thing the BJP can do."
Singh continued to defend his party's stand and said, "Rajnath Singh going and attending a function is not wrong and the party stands with him. Secondly Rajnathji has not gone and defended anybody. He has always maintained that the law should take it own course. But Congress should not use the ATS and selectively leak information. Now Lt Col Purohit is not linked to Samjhauta blast but two days back it was being said that 60 kgs of RDX was used in the Samjhauta blast."
Should not the leaders come out and say that there is something wrong when Hindu youths indulge in violence?
Govindacharya concluded the debate saying, "If established organisations indulge in double talks then this is the result which is totally undesirable for the nation. They have failed in their duties."
Final Web/ SMS poll: Should Hindu religious leaders stay out of politics?
Yes: 61 per cent
No: 39 per cent.

Needed: a black Elton John

Steve Lopez:

It was a point I hadn't considered.But just before the Nov. 4 election, a black friend told me his theory: The attitude toward homosexuality and gay marriage won't change dramatically in the African American community until someone comes out of the closet and makes it more socially acceptable.

"There's no Elton John or David Geffen in the black community," said my friend, an AIDS-prevention activist.I suspected this had to be wrong, so I began racking my brain to come up with such a person.Well, there's . . .Hmmmmmm.Outside of RuPaul, I was stumped. Rumors and speculation throw a couple of names on the table, but no one of the stature of John, Geffen or Ellen DeGeneres is front and center.Does that mean there are no prominent African Americans who happen to be gay?"I think in the black community we have a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, where everybody knows there are gay folks, but if it's not said, it's easier," said state Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, who along with dozens of other legislators, opposed Proposition 8 and is now supporting legal challenges to the measure.Proposition 8 narrowly succeeded, amending the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. The Yes on 8 campaign got huge support from white voters and religious institutions, including the Mormon and Catholic churches. But the overwhelming African American turnout for Barack Obama also helped Proposition 8, which was supported by a large majority of black voters, as well as Latinos.It's the black support that seems to have surprised and upset Proposition 8 supporters the most. Blacks are such a reliable liberal vote, a lot of Californians just assumed they were simpatico. I've had gay white friends ask me how blacks, of all people, could help beat back what many people saw as a clear civil rights struggle.Jasmyne A. Cannick, a black lesbian, had an answer Saturday in a provocative opinion piece in The Times. The black community has more important matters to tackle than gay marriage, she argued, saying the clumsy No on 8 strategists failed to understand the link between Christianity and civil rights and were clueless in taking support for granted.I thought Cannick scored a few smart points but failed to call bigots and hypocritical ministers to account.I don't care who does it -- white, black or brown -- but someone needs to tell ministers and all true believers that their literal interpretation of the Bible is dividing people, driving gays underground and killing them.HIV rates among blacks are staggeringly higher than among white people, and silence makes for a crowded morgue.The Rev. Eric Lee of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference opposed Proposition 8. But he understands why some black congregations endorsed it: "The African American community, for all intents and purposes, embraces Scripture as a literal message from God," Lee said. The obvious problem with that, he added, is that the Bible also endorses slavery, the subjugation of women and the beating of children.Lee appeared at a pre-election No on 8 rally with a black actor named Douglas Spearman. When I asked Spearman if he thought it would help to have a high-profile openly gay black person stand up for the cause, he raised his hand.I was thinking of a slightly higher profile, I told him. But to his credit, Spearman has been doing his own part since 2003, when he and other gay black professionals, including doctors and elected officials, attended a retreat in Miami to discuss strategies for beginning a national conversation.At 46, Spearman is one of the stars of a TV series called "Noah's Arc" and the recently released movie version, "Noah's Arc: Jumping the Broom." Both are about gay black men."None of the issues have anything to do with color or race," said Spearman, who plays a gay college professor. "Never do we talk about that, but this is the first time gay black people get to see themselves in three-dimensional roles doing normal things. We see a part of our lives on the biggest screen our culture can provide."Spearman sounded a little like President-elect Barack Obama when he said it was time to push harder for an honest conversation in the black community on the costs of homophobia, and to engage the opposition, including socially conservative ministers. It's something the Black AIDS Institute and other groups have begun, but there's a long way to go."When I came out, I had an extraordinary set of parents who didn't give a crap and loved me, and I was never told I was going to hell," said Spearman, who grew up in the Washington, D.C., area, and came out at 17. "They had a sense of God that was larger than a chapter in Leviticus."When DeGeneres came out 11 years ago, he said, "it was huge. I thought it was pretty amazing and incredibly brave on her part . . . But it's easier for a white lesbian to come out than for anybody else."Everyone has rumors about which prominent black people are gay, Spearman said."It would help if somebody major came out, but it would have to be somebody that sort of goes against all stereotypes," Spearman said. "There'd have to be some shock and awe, and then people would have to get used to it."And, over time, they would.

mailto:would.steve.lopez@latimes.com

Mr. Obama's Promise

T he election of Barack Obama as the 44th president of the United States affords our country a chance to reverse its dismal standing in the world. The opportunity comes not a moment too soon. A recent opinion survey of America’s most trusted allies, carried out by eight leading international newspapers, revealed that after eight years of the George W. Bush presidency, America can no longer count on the friendship of even its closest neighbors. Only a minority of citizens in the countries surveyed, which included Canada, Britain, Mexico and France, described their country’s relations with the United States as “friendly.” In Britain, arguably America’s closest ally, over 65 percent of those surveyed said their view of the United States is worse or much worse since President Bush took office in 2001. In France and Canada, that number is more than 70 percent.
During the campaign Senator Obama acknowledged this global discontent, saying, “These are not the best of times for America’s reputation in the world,” while promising the American people and the world that the intransigent, America-first foreign policy of the Bush years would give way to a new approach based on “real strength and vision.” If Mr. Obama is to make that vision a reality, he must overcome a daunting set of challenges: two wars (one nearly universally unpopular, both draining the United States and its allies of blood and treasure), a global economic crisis and a planet in ecological peril. Yet Mr. Obama can take some dramatic steps in the next several months that would help to meet these challenges and reverse world opinion.
Mr. Obama’s choices for secretary of state and a new ambassadorial corps should signal a renewed commitment to engagement and public diplomacy and should indicate that the inflexibly ideological and self-interested policies of the current administration are relegated to the recycling bin of history. His selections for these posts should be men and women of ability and standing, professionals with the expertise in global diplomacy that the times require and who are not chosen simply to appease a wing of the party or to reward a generous political donor. This was too often the approach of the Clinton administration, which generally regarded foreign affairs as an afterthought. Mr. Obama took pains to say during the campaign that Mr. McCain’s election would amount to a third term for President Bush. Mr. Obama should ensure that his administration does not resemble a third term for Mr. Clinton.
Though Mr. Obama’s inaugural address will likely and appropriately focus on domestic concerns, he should not ignore foreign affairs. In fact, he should use the address to renounce unambiguously the Bush doctrine of preventive war. He should also unequivocally state that the United States will never again engage in the torture of its enemies, nor in semantic gymnastics in order to avoid illegality. An executive order closing the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, which has become a notorious stain on the nation’s honor, should quickly follow. Mr. Obama should also revive national support for a stronger, reformed United Nations system that can respond more effectively to the “duty to protect” crises that increasingly occupy global diplomacy in the 21st century—for example, in Myanmar, Darfur and eastern Congo.
Above all, the United States requires new approaches to the world’s seemingly intractable problems. Mr. Obama indicated during the campaign that he would meet with the leaders of some of the world’s authoritarian regimes without preconditions. This approach involves the kind of inventive thinking America’s diplomacy now requires. Yet Mr. Obama must be careful to balance engagement with realism. The Iranian nuclear standoff, relations with neo-imperial Russia, balancing economic and environmental concerns in our relations with China, facing down the warlords and endemic poverty in Africa, rebuilding the nuclear nonproliferation regime, kick-starting the Mideast peace process and redesigning international financial institutions will require sustained, multilateral and multidimensional solutions. Success will depend on coalitions built in a true spirit of strategic partnership, an uncommon occurrence in world affairs, and one that will also demand sacrifice.

Mr. Obama claimed during the campaign that he was the best choice because of his experience and expertise in bringing people together, raising not only our hopes but also the hopes of the world. “Obama represents something different,” Klas Bergman, an official at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, recently told The Guardian newspaper. “He seems ready to listen rather than dictate. That he’s African-American only adds to the mystique.” Long after the mystique has faded, as it inevitably will, let us hope that Mr. Obama’s potential has been fulfilled and the new era of international cooperation he has promised will have begun.
(The America)