Preeta D. Bansal, Chair of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom

WASHINGTON: The new government in India has been prompt in allaying fears of minorities that religious intolerance would not be accepted. It is taking the necessary steps to bring to justice those who committed crimes in the wake of the Gujarat riots, said Preeta D. Bansal, Chair of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. These initiatives have helped restore hope and confidence that religious freedom would be protected in India as had been its traditions, she said.

Bansal was responding to questions from Rep. Eni Faleomavaega (D-AS) during the hearing on the annual Report on International Religious Freedom 2004 and the Designation of Countries of Particular Concern (CPC) before the House International Relations Committee (HIRC) on Oct. 6.

Faleomavaega, a member of the HIRC, wondered why the Commission chose to recommend India, which has the second largest Muslim population in the world, as CPC.

Bansal, who had dissented along with three other commissioners on this recommendation, explained that while there was unanimity in condemning the Gujarat riots, there was a difference of opinion over the “classification” or designating India as CPC.

She drew his attention to the dissenting note attached to the Commission’s annual report to say that India, unlike other countries named as CPCs, is a democracy with people of many religious traditions that coexist and flourish under extreme economic and other conditions.

It has a judiciary which is independent, albeit slow-moving and frequently unresponsive, that can work to hold the perpetrators responsible; contains a vibrant civil society.

The country also has independent non-governmental human rights organizations that have investigated and published extensive reports about the Gujarat government’s handling of the situation and the rise of religiously-motivated violence.

Besides this, it is home to a free press that has widely reported on and strongly criticized the situation on the ground in Gujarat and the growing threats to a religiously plural society within India.

Despite concerns about Gujarat, it was felt that adding India to the CPC list of nations was inappropriate at that time.

“India has the legal and democratic traditions to deal with religious intolerance and should be strongly encouraged to do so,” the note said.

In 2004, the Commission recommended that India be designated a “country of particular concern.”

Till date, the State Department has not named India a CPC.

Earlier, Congressman Joseph Pitts (R-PA), while condemning the Gujarat riots and some of the state governments’ “blatantly discriminatory policies” on religious conversions, said: “Many of those extremists who previously indirectly or directly supported religious discrimination and persecution were removed from power in the most recent elections.

“I look forward to the strong leadership of Prime Minister (Manmohan) Singh and his government in protecting religious freedom for all peoples in India and prosecuting the criminals who engage in persecution,” Pitts, another member of the HIRC remarked.

The HIRC hearing was called to examine the annual report by the State Department that identifies CPC.

This year’s report covers more than 190 countries where religious freedom is either severely restricted or faces other barriers or levels of official intolerance.

It designates eight countries — Burma, China, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam — as CPC and adds three to the list: Saudi Arabia, Eritrea and Vietnam.