The harsh treatment of Tibetan activists in Beijing on the eve of opening of the Olympics has drawn world criticism, and very rightly so, yet a criticism from George W. Bush seems to be nothing but comical. Here is a person who is guilty of gross violations of human rights both at home and abroad. Had America been a lesser country, he would most certainly be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity and with overwhelming evidence against him, possibly convicted. His intervention is patently surreal also because he does not seem to realise that the American record of human transgressions is no less sordid than the Chinese, particularly, if one takes account of American human right transgressions outside America. Of course, George W. Bush has made the record decidedly worse. He is possibly the greatest living epitome of human rights violations in the present day world.
As Kenneth Roth, the president of the Human Rights Watch (HRW) pointed out, ‘Quite apart from the fall out of its ill-fated Iraq invasion, its (US) credibility as a proponent of human rights has been n tarnished by the abuses it practices in the name of fighting terrorism. Few ambassadors dare to protest another government’s harsh interrogations, detention without trial, or even “disappearances” knowing how easily an interlocutor could turn the tables and cite U.S. misconduct as an excuse for his government’s own abuses.’
He further added:
‘…the last year dispelled any doubt that the Bush administration’s use of torture and other mistreatment was a matter of policy dictated at the top rather than the aberrant misconduct of a few low level interrogators. The administration claimed to foreswear torture but refused to classify mock execution by drowning—the classic torture technique now known as water boarding—as prohibited torture. Despite the absolute treaty prohibition on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, the administration claimed it could impose such abuse so long as the victim was a non-American held outside the United States—a position it abandoned only after the US Congress adopted the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 by a veto-proof majority.…
When the news of atrocities committed by the US armed forces in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq became public, the administration claimed such incidents as aberrations. However, it is commonly known that such techniques have been part and parcel of military interrogation in America and was part of the training program of the school of Americas, a training school funded by Congress for Latin American military personnel. Some of the military personnel trained in this school turned to be the worst human rights violators in Latin America.
Unfortunately, it is not commonly recognized either within America or outside that in spite of legal and constitutional safeguards, a vibrant media and numerous public interest groups monitoring and exposing human rights violations, torture, inhuman and degrading treatment of convicts, including women and children, are daily occurrences in American prisons. In this web log, an attempt is made to highlight some of the major human rights abuses practiced within America. This section draws extensively on the reports of the Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch (HRW). However, one of the most instructive documents is the State Department’s Initial Report submitted to the UN Committee against Torture in
October 1999. This report candidly concedes that ‘there continue to be areas of concern, contention, and criticism. These include instances of police abuse, excessive use of force and even brutality, and death of prisoners in custody. Overcrowding in the prison system, physical and sexual abuse of inmates, and lack of adequate training and oversight for police and prison guards are also cause for concern.’
The Amnesty International’s Report 2001 covering the year 2000 pointed out that the, police brutality continues. In 2000, police shot unarmed suspects at the end of vehicle pursuits, during traffic stops, or during police street patrols. A disproportionate number of the victims came from ethnic minorities, the Afro-Americans and the Latinos. As one example of excessive use of force by the police, Amnesty International quoted the highly publicized case of Amadou Diallo, an unarmed West African immigrant, who in 1999 was shot forty-one times outside his home. The four New York Police Department (NYPD) officers were acquitted of all criminal charges.92 According to the Human Rights Watch (HRW) most police officers violating departmental rules or the law go without punishment for lack of adequate investigative and disciplinary arrangements. Victims
who complain are subjected to overt intimidation. During the fiscal year 1999, of nearly 12,000 civil rights complaints brought to the Department of Justice, only thirty-one officers were either convicted or pleaded guilty to crimes under the civil rights statute. The Amnesty International Annual Report 2006,mentions continued reports of ill treatment and death in police custody as a result of excessive use of force by the police. It reported sixty-one deaths resulting from the police use of lasers;
as many as 142 people died as a result of the use of lasers by the police between 2001 and 2005.
Death Penalty
According to the AI Report 2006, in 2005 as many as 60
convicts were executed in the United States. Since 1976 when the Supreme Court lifted a moratorium on executions, a total of 1006 convicts have been executed. In March 2006, the Supreme Court banned the execution of Child offenders under 18 at the time of committing the crime. But the execution of convicts with mental disorders still continues. This is in violation of international standards.
The death penalty is permissible in 38 states of which 29 have conducted executions since 1977; the majority of death penalties have been given in the states of
Texas,Virginia, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, and Georgia. In fourteen states, offenders aged less than 18 at the time of committing the capital offense cannot be subjected to the death, penalty. Twenty states allow the death penalty if a prisoner convicted of a capital crime has reached the age of 16; in four others, the age is 17. Although U.S. law prohibits the execution of the legally insane, the standard for judging mental competence varies among states. Only twelve states and the federal government specifically prohibit the execution of the mentally retarded.
Cruelty in Prisons
Both Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch
report on cases of torture and ill treatment, of both adults and juveniles, in prisons and in juvenile detention facilities. Such cases include beatings, use of excessive force, sexual misconduct, misuse of electro-shock weapons and chemical sprays, and the cruel use of mechanical restraints, including holding prisoners for prolonged periods in a four-point restraint. The conditions are particularly cruel in super-maximum security (supermax) prisons, where prisoners are kept in prolonged isolation. Most prisons in the United States use electro-shock weapons, including stun belts, stun shields, and stun guns. Contrary to the claims of manufacturers of such weapons, experts suggest that such weapons ‘can be harmful, even lethal, for people with high blood pressure, for pregnant women and for those suffering epilepsy and some other conditions. In light of this, stun weapons have been banned for law enforcement use by a number of countries, including Canada and most West European countries, as well as some U.S. states.’ One of the devices, remote controlled electro-shock stun belts for use on U.S. prisoners, is of particular concern. Pushing a button from a distance activates this belt, causing severe pain and instant incapacitation; when activated it
can cause the person to defecate or urinate. This belt is being used by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshall’s service, and more than 100 county agencies and 16 state correctional agencies. It is also used on prisoners during judicial hearings, which is a contravention of international standards on the treatment of prisoners.
The AI Report 2001 also notes that the use of excessive force, restraint devices and stun-devices has led to deaths of prison inmates. The AI Report 2006 mentions that as many as 7000 police and correctional agencies used electro-shock weapons. 61 people in custody died as a result of the shocks received from such weapons. The number of such deaths between 2001 and 2006 totaled 142.
Cruelty to Women
Various reports by Amnesty International, the Human Rights Watch and other human rights related public interest groups repeatedly refer to ill-treatment of women inmates, including sexual abuses by male guards, including rape, parading partially naked in front of male inmates; forced strip searches by male guards, and fondling by male officers while dressing. AI’s Rights for All report points out that it is not only female inmates who are coerced into having sex by male staff; sexual coercion by female staff against both male and female inmates, and by male staff against male inmates are not uncommon. This happens because the U.S. prisons employ both men and women to supervise prisoners of the opposite sex, allow them to undertake searches involving body contact, and to be present when inmates are naked. The practice of employing male staff to supervise female inmates is contrary to international standards.
Women inmates have to suffer the indignity of being shackled even when they are pregnant; sometimes they remain shackled while in labor or are re-shackled shortly after. This practice has been denounced by a Washington D.C. court as ‘inhumane’—yet the practice continues.
Cruelty to Children
In as many as 20 states, children can be convicted as adults
and be imprisoned in adult prisons and housed with adult
inmates in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and other international standards, which require that juvenile prisoners should be kept separate from adults. Juveniles can be treated as adults only in exceptional circumstances. Nevertheless, many states are legislating to broaden the circumstances in which children may be prosecuted as adults and held in adult prisons. A special AI report on the ill-treatment of children in U.S. prisons states that children are often held in cruel conditions in overcrowded facilities, deprived of adequate mental health care, education and rehabilitation programs. They are also subjected to cruel punishments, including shackles, chemical sprays and electro-shock devices. Children are also kept in solitary confinement in violation of international standards. In a lawsuit against the State Training School in Plankinton, South Dakota, a juvenile detention facility, it emerged that children are placed in punitive handcuffs and shackles and forced to lie spread-eagled in four-point restraints for hours at a time, even through the night. It is common for male staff to forcibly strip girls while held in four-point restraint. Children, including those who are mentally ill, are routinely held in isolation for 24 hours a day, sometimes for months at a time.
According to the HRW there are as many as 2,225 child offenders in the United States who are convicted for life without parole. Over half of them are first time offenders. The United States is one of the fourteen countries which allows for such convictions. Reportedly, only twelve child offenders outside the United States are serving such sentences. The Convention of the Rights of the Child, ratified by all countries in the world except the United States and Somalia, bans such punishments.
Ethnic Minorities
In view of the widespread geographic and racial disparities in the application of the federal death penalty nationwide, the AI report, Rights for All, calls the application of the death penalty ‘to be racist, arbitrary, and unfair.’ The American criminal justice system’s vulnerability to personal or social prejudice is clearly unfair to minorities, particularly to African Americans. The fact that such an injustice takes place is confirmed by the State Department’s report to the UN Committee against Torture. It concedes that ‘African Americans are disproportionately more likely to be sentenced to death and executed than other racial or ethnic components of the U.S. population.’ The minorities have also suffered disproportionately as a result of the war on drugs. African Americans, constituting only 12 per cent of the total population accounted for 46.5 per cent of state prisoners and 40 per cent of federal prisoners convicted for drug offenses. For the country as a whole, African American men were eight times more susceptible to imprisonment than white men, with an incarceration rate of 3408 per 100,000 African American male residents, as against only 417 per 100,000 for white males. In eleven states, the African American incarceration rates ranged between twelve and twenty-six times those of white men. In September 2000, in its Initial Report to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination, the U.S. Department of State conceded the persistence of racism, racial discrimination, and de facto segregation in the United States. It pointed out that ‘while the scourge of officially-sanctioned segregation has been eliminated, de facto segregation and persistent racial discrimination continue to exist. The forms of discriminatory practices have changed and adapted over time, but racial and ethnic discrimination continues to restrict and limit equal opportunity in the United States.’
Asylum-seekers
Highlighting the human rights violations of asylum-seekers
in the United States, Rights for All pointed out that an increasing number of asylum-seekers are, on arrival in the USA, often detained indefinitely, confined with criminal prisoners and are held in inhuman and degrading conditions. They are liable to be stripped and searched; shackled and chained; sometimes verbally
or physically abused. They are often denied access to their
families, lawyers and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and even telephones. They cannot even receive letters. The passing of the new Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) in 1996 has led to a considerable rise in detentions. People without valid documents can be summarily sent back under the ‘expedited removal provisions’ of the act114 International law provides an opportunity for a review of the decision to detain depending on the merits of the case, taking into account the overall circumstances of the asylum-seeker, not just procedural correctness. U.S. practice does not allow for such an examination.
Foreign Nationals
In violation of the Geneva Convention, foreign nationals
have been executed in the United States without being given their treaty-based consular rights. These rights have been denied to as many as 90 foreign nationals on death row in the U.S.A. In a case brought to the International Court of Justice in The Hague by Germany in the context of the execution of two German nationals in Arizona in 1999, the Court, with an overwhelming majority, found the United States in violation of the Vienna Convention on consular relations.
There are many other areas of concern in so far the protection of human rights is concerned. In both China and America there are sufficient legal and constitution provisions to safeguard human rights of individuals. It is the implementation of laws that is often at fault. The enforcement agencies have low paid and inadequately trained people to implement legal and constitution provisions. At times, policies such as ‘zero tolerance’’ or ‘strike hard,’ go against the safeguarding of human rights. Lack of transparency is a major issue in China. It is imperative for the government to allow independent non-governmental organizations to monitor the progress of implementation of legal provisions. The Chinese do not need sermons from America. In fact, guaranteeing basic minimum needs, the Chinese have gone much beyond what Americans have done in spite of their wealth. Unfortunately, there has been a retardation in this respect because of the adoption of the so-called liberalization as a result unemployment and inequality of income and wealth has increased in China, so has crime and corruption. If this trend continues there is risk of further undermining of human rights.
For a more detailed analysis please see Radha Sinha, ‘Sino-American Relations: Mutual Paranoia,’ (paperback), (New Delhi, Atlantic Publishers and Distributors, 2008) Ch. 6.
Thursday, 7 August 2008
Tuesday, 5 August 2008
The End Does Not Justify the Means; Violation of Human Rights in Xin Jiang
The Chinese official media claims that two Uighur (a Muslim ethnic group in Xin Jiang) men drove a dump truck into a group of jogging policemen on Monday August 4, killing 16 police officers, Such an act of terrorism, coming four days ahead the opening of the Beijing Olympics, is clearly an attempt by the dissidents to highlight their cause of separatism, as the Chinese government claims, or saving their cultural identity as the Uighurs claim. Whatever the objectives of the dissidents, violence is not justifiable. Violence brings about reprisals and counter-violence leadings to mindless killings and the cause, however genuine, is lost sight of. It goes to the credit of Rebiya Kadeer, a prominent Uighur dissident who issued a statement condemning all acts of violence.
There is no doubt that the Chinese government has attempted or allowed its agencies to undermine the ethnic culture and literature and in the name of war on terrorism to violate the basic norms of human rights in Xin Jiang. This is testified not only by the US State Department’s country reports on human rights but also by prestigious independent human rights related public interest groups such as the Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch (HRW). The present blog draws heavily on the reports from these organizations to draw attention to human rights infringements in Xin Jiang.
The Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, in northwest China, is a vast region, with almost one-sixth of China's land area. It is strategically important to China because it borders several countries, not all friendly to China. Xin Jiang is also expected to become the biggest petroleum and gas production base in China. Xinjiang has a population of 18 million many of whom are of Turkic-speaking Muslim ethnic groups. The Uighurs, numbering eight million,
\are the largest ethnic group, the second largest group being the Kazakhs numbering 1.2 million. The ethnic Chinese (Han) accounted for only 6 percent of the population in 1949; their population, thanks to the state sponsored transfer of population, has now risen to 7.5 million accounting for 40 percent of the total population of the region.
As the Human Rights Watch (HRW), writes ‘Chinese authorities have not discriminated between peaceful and violent dissent, however, and their fight against "separatism" and "religious extremism" has been used to justify widespread and systematic human rights violations against Uighurs, including many involved in non-violent political, religious, and cultural activities.’
Many Uighurs complain of racial abuse and discrimination against ethnic minorities, and the lack of equal opportunity in education, health care and employment. Unlike their Chinese Han institutions, Uighur schools and hospitals are poorly equipped, with some Uighur village schools so poor and short of equipment that the pupils have to sit and write on the earthen floor. Many hospitals reportedly give preferential treatment to Han Chinese patients and top jobs to Chinese doctors at the expense of their Uighur counterparts.
The opportunities afforded by the economic development have benefited mainly Han Chinese. Many Uighur farmers have become so impoverished due to discriminatory policies, the multiplication of taxes, and corruption that they have to sell their crops to state agencies at lower prices than those of the free market, whereas Chinese farmers are reportedly allowed to trade on the market. Many Uighur farmers are forced by circumstances to sell their land and joined the ranks of the unemployed and vagrants. Han Chinese are the major beneficiaries of the newly created job opportunities in the new oil fields and other enterprises in the north. In the south, many enterprises which have been privatized are now under Han Chinese management which prefer Han Chinese over Uighur workers. With increasing unemployment, there has been an increase in crime, drug addiction and prostitution have become widespread among the unemployed.
As a result of the "open door" policy launched in the late 1970s mosques were reopened and some Islamic countries were allowed to fund the construction of mosques and to establish Koranic schools and import religious books. In the late 1980s the restrictive policies brought back amidst fears that Islam might provide a rallying point for ethnic nationalism. It was also feared that Islamist movements abroad might inspire young Uighurs who had studied in foreign Islamic schools. These fears were apparently reinforced by the protests and rioting in Baren, near Kashgar in 1990, reportedly led by members of an Islamic nationalist group, which resulted in many deaths. New restrictive policies include closure of mosques and Koranic schools, banning of the use of the Arabic script, the tight control, including dismissal and arrests, of the Islamic clergy, and religious leaders and the prohibition on practising religion by Muslims working in government offices and other official institutions.
There has been a curtailment of social and cultural rights as well. In Urumqi, the regional capital, some Uighur entrepreneurs have bee n harassed for manufacturing traditional ethnic clothes or for being involved in social activism. Some entrepreneurs were forced to close down their businesses. In cities in the north, some people have faced harassment or even detention simply for displaying signs of their ethnic or religious identity, such as headscarves for Muslim women.
All this has resulted in an exacerbation of long-standing ethnic tensions between Uighurs and Han Chinese in the region which is behind the escalation of violence in recent years. The number of violent incidents has increased significantly. These include violent clashes between small groups of Uighurs and the security forces, attacks on government officials and bombings by underground opposition groups. The government’s response, as usual, has been harsh repression by launching a ’hard hit’ campaign against ‘ethnic separatists’, imposing new restrictions on religious and cultural rights and resorting increasingly to executions, show trials and arbitrary detention to silence real and suspected opponents.
Both the HRW and the Amnesty International points out that people not involved in violence are also victims of human rights abuses. Attempts by Uighurs to air their views or grievances peacefully and to exercise their most fundamental human rights in constitutional manner have attracted government repression. In doing so the government is inevitably inviting violence. One recognises that Xin Jiang, bordering several countries not all friendly to China, is strategically important; vast amount of petroleum and gas makes the region economically valuable as well. Therefore, its security and the maintenance of law and order are of paramount importance to the Chinese government. But the answer is not in repression which would exacerbate the cycle of violence and counter-violence. While the government must take a hard line against terrorists and violent elements, it must not alienate those who abhor violence.
As the HRW points out, there has long been strong Uighur opposition to Chinese rule in Xinjiang. The effective control of the region by the central government was achieved only after the founding of the Chinese People’s Republic in 1949. In fact, between 1944 and 1949, a short-lived independent East Turkestan Republic ruled the region. It was backed by the Soviet Union. Today, the Uighur opposition-in-exile is based in Turkey, Germany and the United States, and remains overwhelmingly pan-Turkic. The East Turkestan National Congress, based in Munich, Germany, a federation of most of the Turkish and European Uighur associations, consistently advocates peaceful means to achieve a ‘real autonomy’ or ‘independence’ for the region.
Likewise, Uighur organizations in Central Asia, such as the Kazakhstan Regional Uighur Organisation in Almaty or Kyrgyzstan Uighur Unity in Bishkek believe in democracy and secularism.
In Xinjiang itself, there is no unified movement. Pan-Turkic movements like the East Turkestan Party (Tengri Tag), and the Uighur Liberation Organization are the most structured organizations, and are active mainly in urban areas like Yining, Urumqi, Korla, and Kucha. More religiously-oriented groups are active in the southern part of Xinjiang, notably in the Kashgar and Hetian areas. Such groups advocate the establishment of an Islamic state in Xinjiang and oppose Chinese domination, but as the HRW points out there is no evidence that they are either associated with the Taliban or draw inspiration from them. As the HRW points out, the pro-independence groups, whether religious or secular, are mainly ethno-centric movements, not religious ones. There is no evidence of significant cooperation among Xinjiang's different Muslim ethnic groups of Kazakhs, Mongols, Tajiks, and Uighurs on religious lines.
The Chinese government’s’ claim, that these groups are in league with fundamentalist Islamic groups, at least at present, cannot be easily substantiated. A continuing repression may in the long-run prove to be counter-productive since it may lead to a greater cooperation among these disparate groups and then the Chinese government may find it difficult to deal with these groups. It is imperative that the Chinese government begins a meaningful dialogue with the dissidents in Xin Jaing, Tibet and other areas. If repression silenced or eliminated dissent, the Chinese Communist Party would not have come to power in the face of Chiang Kai-shek’s repressive policies.
There is no doubt that the Chinese government has attempted or allowed its agencies to undermine the ethnic culture and literature and in the name of war on terrorism to violate the basic norms of human rights in Xin Jiang. This is testified not only by the US State Department’s country reports on human rights but also by prestigious independent human rights related public interest groups such as the Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch (HRW). The present blog draws heavily on the reports from these organizations to draw attention to human rights infringements in Xin Jiang.
The Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, in northwest China, is a vast region, with almost one-sixth of China's land area. It is strategically important to China because it borders several countries, not all friendly to China. Xin Jiang is also expected to become the biggest petroleum and gas production base in China. Xinjiang has a population of 18 million many of whom are of Turkic-speaking Muslim ethnic groups. The Uighurs, numbering eight million,
\are the largest ethnic group, the second largest group being the Kazakhs numbering 1.2 million. The ethnic Chinese (Han) accounted for only 6 percent of the population in 1949; their population, thanks to the state sponsored transfer of population, has now risen to 7.5 million accounting for 40 percent of the total population of the region.
As the Human Rights Watch (HRW), writes ‘Chinese authorities have not discriminated between peaceful and violent dissent, however, and their fight against "separatism" and "religious extremism" has been used to justify widespread and systematic human rights violations against Uighurs, including many involved in non-violent political, religious, and cultural activities.’
Many Uighurs complain of racial abuse and discrimination against ethnic minorities, and the lack of equal opportunity in education, health care and employment. Unlike their Chinese Han institutions, Uighur schools and hospitals are poorly equipped, with some Uighur village schools so poor and short of equipment that the pupils have to sit and write on the earthen floor. Many hospitals reportedly give preferential treatment to Han Chinese patients and top jobs to Chinese doctors at the expense of their Uighur counterparts.
The opportunities afforded by the economic development have benefited mainly Han Chinese. Many Uighur farmers have become so impoverished due to discriminatory policies, the multiplication of taxes, and corruption that they have to sell their crops to state agencies at lower prices than those of the free market, whereas Chinese farmers are reportedly allowed to trade on the market. Many Uighur farmers are forced by circumstances to sell their land and joined the ranks of the unemployed and vagrants. Han Chinese are the major beneficiaries of the newly created job opportunities in the new oil fields and other enterprises in the north. In the south, many enterprises which have been privatized are now under Han Chinese management which prefer Han Chinese over Uighur workers. With increasing unemployment, there has been an increase in crime, drug addiction and prostitution have become widespread among the unemployed.
As a result of the "open door" policy launched in the late 1970s mosques were reopened and some Islamic countries were allowed to fund the construction of mosques and to establish Koranic schools and import religious books. In the late 1980s the restrictive policies brought back amidst fears that Islam might provide a rallying point for ethnic nationalism. It was also feared that Islamist movements abroad might inspire young Uighurs who had studied in foreign Islamic schools. These fears were apparently reinforced by the protests and rioting in Baren, near Kashgar in 1990, reportedly led by members of an Islamic nationalist group, which resulted in many deaths. New restrictive policies include closure of mosques and Koranic schools, banning of the use of the Arabic script, the tight control, including dismissal and arrests, of the Islamic clergy, and religious leaders and the prohibition on practising religion by Muslims working in government offices and other official institutions.
There has been a curtailment of social and cultural rights as well. In Urumqi, the regional capital, some Uighur entrepreneurs have bee n harassed for manufacturing traditional ethnic clothes or for being involved in social activism. Some entrepreneurs were forced to close down their businesses. In cities in the north, some people have faced harassment or even detention simply for displaying signs of their ethnic or religious identity, such as headscarves for Muslim women.
All this has resulted in an exacerbation of long-standing ethnic tensions between Uighurs and Han Chinese in the region which is behind the escalation of violence in recent years. The number of violent incidents has increased significantly. These include violent clashes between small groups of Uighurs and the security forces, attacks on government officials and bombings by underground opposition groups. The government’s response, as usual, has been harsh repression by launching a ’hard hit’ campaign against ‘ethnic separatists’, imposing new restrictions on religious and cultural rights and resorting increasingly to executions, show trials and arbitrary detention to silence real and suspected opponents.
Both the HRW and the Amnesty International points out that people not involved in violence are also victims of human rights abuses. Attempts by Uighurs to air their views or grievances peacefully and to exercise their most fundamental human rights in constitutional manner have attracted government repression. In doing so the government is inevitably inviting violence. One recognises that Xin Jiang, bordering several countries not all friendly to China, is strategically important; vast amount of petroleum and gas makes the region economically valuable as well. Therefore, its security and the maintenance of law and order are of paramount importance to the Chinese government. But the answer is not in repression which would exacerbate the cycle of violence and counter-violence. While the government must take a hard line against terrorists and violent elements, it must not alienate those who abhor violence.
As the HRW points out, there has long been strong Uighur opposition to Chinese rule in Xinjiang. The effective control of the region by the central government was achieved only after the founding of the Chinese People’s Republic in 1949. In fact, between 1944 and 1949, a short-lived independent East Turkestan Republic ruled the region. It was backed by the Soviet Union. Today, the Uighur opposition-in-exile is based in Turkey, Germany and the United States, and remains overwhelmingly pan-Turkic. The East Turkestan National Congress, based in Munich, Germany, a federation of most of the Turkish and European Uighur associations, consistently advocates peaceful means to achieve a ‘real autonomy’ or ‘independence’ for the region.
Likewise, Uighur organizations in Central Asia, such as the Kazakhstan Regional Uighur Organisation in Almaty or Kyrgyzstan Uighur Unity in Bishkek believe in democracy and secularism.
In Xinjiang itself, there is no unified movement. Pan-Turkic movements like the East Turkestan Party (Tengri Tag), and the Uighur Liberation Organization are the most structured organizations, and are active mainly in urban areas like Yining, Urumqi, Korla, and Kucha. More religiously-oriented groups are active in the southern part of Xinjiang, notably in the Kashgar and Hetian areas. Such groups advocate the establishment of an Islamic state in Xinjiang and oppose Chinese domination, but as the HRW points out there is no evidence that they are either associated with the Taliban or draw inspiration from them. As the HRW points out, the pro-independence groups, whether religious or secular, are mainly ethno-centric movements, not religious ones. There is no evidence of significant cooperation among Xinjiang's different Muslim ethnic groups of Kazakhs, Mongols, Tajiks, and Uighurs on religious lines.
The Chinese government’s’ claim, that these groups are in league with fundamentalist Islamic groups, at least at present, cannot be easily substantiated. A continuing repression may in the long-run prove to be counter-productive since it may lead to a greater cooperation among these disparate groups and then the Chinese government may find it difficult to deal with these groups. It is imperative that the Chinese government begins a meaningful dialogue with the dissidents in Xin Jaing, Tibet and other areas. If repression silenced or eliminated dissent, the Chinese Communist Party would not have come to power in the face of Chiang Kai-shek’s repressive policies.
Sunday, 3 August 2008
Are Religious Leaders Failing Us?
Early this afternoon, the PTI reported that in the worst-ever temple tragedy in Himachal Pradesh, 146 devotees, including 30 children and 38 women, were killed and more than 50 injured today in a stampede at the Naina Devi shrine. This makes me ask a question: Are our religious leaders failing us?
We have been taught from our childhood that God resides in all the living beings, therefore if one wants to worship God, one has to look inside. One does not need to go to temples or pilgrimages. Unfortunately, millions of us spend our hard earned money on pilgrimages every year. Many poor people can hardly afford such trips and it is largely these families, because of their ignorance and superstitious believes, that travel to such places. Is it not imperative for religious leaders to come forward and say that such sacrifices at the cost of continued deprivation of the family concerned is not needed for spirituality? Or is it that the religious hierarchy has a vested interest in promoting such pilgrimages because these are the main sources of income and the basis of comfortable (or even the luxurious) life of the religious hierarchy?
If my visiting a holy shrine, or a dip in the Ganges, absolves me from all my sins what stops me committing sins all my life and once in a while visit a pilgrimage or take a dip in one of the holy rivers?
Even with respect to the offerings I may have a question. Is it justifiable to pour tons of milk, fruits and sweets on stone statutes while millions of children, the living incarnation of Gods starve? Is it not the duty of the religious hierarchy to see that some of these offerings are used to eradicate hunger and poverty from India? Should not the hierarchy fattening on people’s largesse--not many of the hierarchy has in fact renounced the worldly pleasures; for those who have renounced worldly pleasures I have a great regard—devote a part their earnings on the elimination of poverty and raising educational standards of the community?
There are many major social issues, such a sex-selected abortions, infanticide, burning of brides, banishment of widows from homes, sexual abuse of children and so on that need reforming. The religious leaders can be the main instruments for such social changes. They would have much more influence than government legislation. Why, then, are these leaders silent? To the best of my knowledge they have not spoken even against the ‘Devdashi’ system which is directly in their jurisdiction.
I may raise some other issues of great significance to India, in fact to the world humanity. We Hindus do cremate dead bodies. This requires lots of firewood, ghee and oil. Clearly, burning of ghee and oil is questionable in a country where millions of people suffer from hunger and malnutrition. Burning a lot of firewood is depleting our forests and changing our climate. Is it not imperative on our religious leadership to support electrical cremation? It is clean with the least environmental consequences and the ashes can still be taken to holy rivers. In fact, the sandal wood that the rich use in funeral pyres is one of the main reasons for the scarcity of sandal wood so much so that we have now to import it from abroad.
In my view, religious believes and practices have to adjust according to the changing circumstances and it is the duty of the religious hierarchy to redefine values and practices to suit modern times. If they do not do say they are failing us, and \ bringing religion to disabuse and ultimately opening the path to self-destruction.
We have been taught from our childhood that God resides in all the living beings, therefore if one wants to worship God, one has to look inside. One does not need to go to temples or pilgrimages. Unfortunately, millions of us spend our hard earned money on pilgrimages every year. Many poor people can hardly afford such trips and it is largely these families, because of their ignorance and superstitious believes, that travel to such places. Is it not imperative for religious leaders to come forward and say that such sacrifices at the cost of continued deprivation of the family concerned is not needed for spirituality? Or is it that the religious hierarchy has a vested interest in promoting such pilgrimages because these are the main sources of income and the basis of comfortable (or even the luxurious) life of the religious hierarchy?
If my visiting a holy shrine, or a dip in the Ganges, absolves me from all my sins what stops me committing sins all my life and once in a while visit a pilgrimage or take a dip in one of the holy rivers?
Even with respect to the offerings I may have a question. Is it justifiable to pour tons of milk, fruits and sweets on stone statutes while millions of children, the living incarnation of Gods starve? Is it not the duty of the religious hierarchy to see that some of these offerings are used to eradicate hunger and poverty from India? Should not the hierarchy fattening on people’s largesse--not many of the hierarchy has in fact renounced the worldly pleasures; for those who have renounced worldly pleasures I have a great regard—devote a part their earnings on the elimination of poverty and raising educational standards of the community?
There are many major social issues, such a sex-selected abortions, infanticide, burning of brides, banishment of widows from homes, sexual abuse of children and so on that need reforming. The religious leaders can be the main instruments for such social changes. They would have much more influence than government legislation. Why, then, are these leaders silent? To the best of my knowledge they have not spoken even against the ‘Devdashi’ system which is directly in their jurisdiction.
I may raise some other issues of great significance to India, in fact to the world humanity. We Hindus do cremate dead bodies. This requires lots of firewood, ghee and oil. Clearly, burning of ghee and oil is questionable in a country where millions of people suffer from hunger and malnutrition. Burning a lot of firewood is depleting our forests and changing our climate. Is it not imperative on our religious leadership to support electrical cremation? It is clean with the least environmental consequences and the ashes can still be taken to holy rivers. In fact, the sandal wood that the rich use in funeral pyres is one of the main reasons for the scarcity of sandal wood so much so that we have now to import it from abroad.
In my view, religious believes and practices have to adjust according to the changing circumstances and it is the duty of the religious hierarchy to redefine values and practices to suit modern times. If they do not do say they are failing us, and \ bringing religion to disabuse and ultimately opening the path to self-destruction.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
