Sushma-Pakistan Twitter Spat Shows That We Are No Longer Squeamish About Calling Hindu Persecution

You can also read this article in Hindi- सुषमा और पाकिस्तान की ट्विटर बहस दर्शाती है भारत की हिंदुओं के लिए मुखरता

The Twitter war of words between India’s External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and Pakistan’s I&B Minister Fawad Chaudhry over the abduction and forced conversion of two under-age girls in Sindh should be welcomed. Reason: rarely in the last 70-plus years after Partition has an Indian government talked about the rights of Hindus in Pakistan.

India’s narrow secularism had made us squeamish about raising these issues with Islamist neighbours like Pakistan, Bangladesh or Afghanistan, for fear of stoking Hindu anger in India. But this restraint has always been one-sided, for Pakistan has never held itself back from meddling with issues involving Indian Muslims and their treatment in this country. It has, in fact, used incidents like the Gujarat riots of 2002 and mob lynchings to instigate Indian Muslims against the Indian state, even while using the same issues to retain the army’s power over the Pakistani state.

The spat started with Swaraj tweeting that she had asked the Indian High Commission in Islamabad to report on the two girls’ abduction, to which the Pakistani I&B Minister responded in poor English: “Mam, it is Pakistin (sic) internal issue ..rest assure (sic) its not Modi’s India where minorities are subjugated….its Imran Khan’s Naya Pak where white color of our flag is equally dearer to us. I hope you will act with same diligence when it comes to rights of Indian minorities.”

To which Swaraj responded: “Mr Minister (@FawadChaudhry) – I only asked for a report from the Indian High Commissioner in Islamabad about the kidnapping of two minor Hindu girls to Islam. This was enough to make you jittery. This only shows your guilty conscience.”

To which Fawad Chaudhry’s riposte was: “Madam minister I am happy that in the Indian administration we have people who care for minority rights in other countries. I sincerely hope that your conscience will allow you to stand up for minorities at home as well. Gujarat and Jammu must weigh heavily on your soul.”

The joke must have been on Chaudhry, for his reference to Jammu can only mean the ethnic cleansing of the Pandits from Kashmir Valley, for which Pakistan is abundantly responsible, unless the minister meant J&K, and not Jammu.

Quite apart from the defensive nature of the Pakistani response to the mere mention of the abduction by Swaraj, this breaking of the taboo, that India must stay silent on Hindus being persecuted in Pakistan and elsewhere, is welcome. It recently manifested itself in the government passing the Citizenship Amendment Bill in the Lok Sabha, before electoral considerations in Assam intervened and the government to let it lapse without a fight in the Rajya Sabha. The bill would have fast-tracked citizenship for persecuted Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Christians and Buddhists in three neighbouring Islamic states.

While it’s no one’s case that Indian Muslims have no reason to complain in India, the reality is this.

First, despite subtle forms of discrimination in some parts of India, Muslims are much better off in secular India than in Pakistan or even Bangladesh. If this were not the case, there wouldn’t be a one-way inflow of minorities towards India and not the other way around.

Second, the other reality we tend to forget is that the law also discriminates against the so-called majority community, with minority institutions getting constitutional protections under articles 25-30, while Hindu educational and religious institutions being trampled upon by the state.

Third, while India history-writing and narratives have been overprotective of the feelings of Muslims – thus giving a false perspective on Islamic rule to today’s generations – in Pakistan negative perceptions about Hinduism and India are built into the curriculum. And institutions of state are explicitly Islamic in character not only in Pakistan, but also Bangladesh and Afghanistan. This structural discrimination against the minorities is a characteristic of Islamic states, not India.

In short, while there may be real or subtle discrimination against Muslims in India, this discrimination is not cast in stone and can be steadily changed through effective implementation of the law and affirmative action. This is impossible with our neighbours.

Given this situation, India not only has a right but an obligation to speak on behalf of Hindus in our neighbourhood, and also all over the world. If India, which is home to the third largest religion in the world, and the bulk of Hindus are resident in this country, it is logical for India to speak up for oppressed Hindus anywhere. More so since there is no other country that will speak up for them.

It is worth recalling the 1950 Nehru-Liaquat pact under which both countries committed themselves to allow refugees to return unmolested to dispose of their abandoned properties, help return abducted women, derecognise forced conversions, and uphold minority rights.

While the pact was always a dead letter, India’s “secularism” has largely enabled this country to stick to its part of the bargain. Pakistan, even in this day and age, some 69 years after promising to do so, still allows a frightened, dhimmified and intimidated minority to be subjected to Islamist tyranny.

India has no reason to fear Pakistani or world scrutiny of its treatment of its minorities as long as it is not a one-sided commitment to allow the scrutiny here but not in Pakistan and Bangladesh. We may have much to do to make our minorities feel safer, but there is much they too can do to convince the majority community that they respect Hindu sentiments and innate pluralism. Accommodation is never a one-way street.

If the Swaraj-Chaudhry spat prompts more scrutiny of the treatment of minorities in both India and Pakistan, we should welcome it. As long as it is not one-sided.