In Reply to: Re: What I can say with my experience in India posted by Farmer on December 27, 2009 at 01:55:55:
That Mahatma Gandi was killed over religion is only a small part of the story. According to recent BBC documentaries, Gandi was assasinated not as much over religion as over politics. His political peers found him too much of a wild card and wanted to move on without him. Towards the end, Gandi saw the futilty his own efforts in preventing India from splitting into two separate states, and began to call for his own matyrdom. He practically scripted his own death. The favor was done by a fellow Hindu, Nathuram Godse, who felt that Gandhi had betrayed the Hindu cause.
Indira Ghandi was killed by Sikh bodyguards in retalition for the 1984 storming of the Golden Temple. She wasn't killed because she was of a different religion per se. Even her misplaced faith in her bodguards paradoxically says something about the strong foundation for tolerance in India. She had assumed her bodyguards to be loyal, due to the traditional regard Sikhs give towards duty and matters of state. They are known for religious tolerance and are traditionally amongst the best security personnel in the country since British India.
This India Times report is in reality a twist on a report and very typical of melodramatic Indian news media. The twist may have come from India or from the so-called US thinktank, but to make such statements is still quite misleading.
When the chief minister of the state of Andhra Pradesh died in a helicopter crash in the beginning of September, the next day one Indian newspaper headline read: "139 die of shock on hearing news of CM's death." Just how did they arrive at that figure exactly? Some reporter had gone calling around hospitals for statistics on how many heart attacks there where about the time of the news release and made that bold conclusion, without factoring in that there were no more heart attacks than usual that morning.
The India Times report is no different in its sensationalism. It says and I quote:
"the highest overall levels of restrictions are found in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran, where both the government and society at large impose numerous limits on religious beliefs and practices'' India is ranked well above them in the social hostility index."
To compare India with Saudi Arabia and Iran in the same sentence is far-fetched to say the least. If you read the sentence carefully, you can see where it was spliced (the addendum came right after "practices"). The original quote in context is: "Among the world's 25 most populous countries, Iran, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan and India stand out as having the most restrictions when both measures are taken into account."
When the context of "most populous countries" is given then it becomes clear why India is even mentioned at all. The country has a lot of people there, so statiscally speaking, shit happens. And if you see the methodology of the report, the fact that any shit happens at all and it happens to be reported, it all piles up into a big bad shit report. But what percentage of the Indian population is actually religiously intolerant? Probably far less than that of the UK or USA.
The India Times statement gives the impression that social hostility and intolerance towards others' religions is rife in India, but anyone who has been there knows this is really not the norm. It exists in certain regions, but all in all, considering the size of India geographically and demographically, it is far rarer than religious intolerance that happens say in the USA, the source of this report. If you have a look at ,
one could just as easily misuse actual isolated incidents to state that the USA is the most religiously-intolerant place on the face of the earth, and that "both the government and society at large impose numerous limits" on religious freedom.
And how did the Pew Forum "study" arrive at its conclusions? "In preparing this study, states the report, the Pew Forum devised a battery of measures, phrased as questions, to gauge the levels of government and social restrictions on religion in each country."
Questions can be rigged. Example: "Just answer yes or no: have you stopped beating up your wife yet?" In this case, the format of Pew Forum questions are rigged to be: does shit ever happen in India?
Of course it does. Shit happens in India, like anywhere else in the world.
The original Pew Forum report admits to limitations on its findings: "It does not capture the other side of the coin: the amount of religious dynamism, diversity and expression in each country. The indexes of government restrictions and social hostilities are intended to measure obstacles to the practice of religion. But they are only part of a bigger picture." Further, the study admittedly does not "analyze the many factors - historical, demographic, cultural, religious, economic and political - that might explain why restrictions have arisen."
The India Times neglects to report that India scored highest on GRI-Q.1: "Does the constitution, or law that functions in the place of a constitution (basic law), specifically provide for “freedom of religion” or include language used in Article 18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights?"
India scored just as well as most European countries on GRI-Q.2: "Does the constitution or basic law include stipulations that appear to qualify or substantially contradict the concept of “religious freedom”?"
On GRI-Q.3: "Taken together, how do the constitution/basic law and other national laws and policies affect religious freedom?" India fared no worse than Singapore or East European States.
On GRI-Q.4: "Does any level of government interfere with worship or other religious practices?" India scored no worse than Spain.
And so on and so on. This is all I have time for and you can look it up for yourself, but my bottom line is:
Please check the facts. I cannot speak for your experience, only my own, and I find this India Times report to be damn untruthful.