Where Is Democracy In India? (Part 1)
1. Democracy
In August of every year, the country remembers its Independence Day of 1947, and in light of that, I want to talk about democracy, about equality, about liberty, about prosperity, and about peace.
The independence of any people from colonial shackles is an event deserving fervent celebration, but achieving independence is, unfortunately, not necessarily synonymous with achieving liberty, as historian Clarence Carson explains:
“It sometimes happens that a colonial revolt will result in both national independence and increased protections of individual liberty. It happened in America in the 1770s and 1780s. But it hardly follows that one will lead to the other. In the 20th century, there have been colonial revolutions in many lands. Often, they have been promoted and defended under the banner of freedom. In fact, 20th century revolutions have usually resulted in one party rule, dictatorship, and tyranny, even those that did achieve national independence. However desirable national independence may be, it is something quite different and separable from freedom.” [1]
The foundation of any true democracy is the free practice and propagation of religion without interference by the State. This is why, for instance, the very first amendment of the United States Constitution protects religious liberty. James Madison, called the “Father of the Constitution” and considered chief architect of the Bill of Rights (among which rights are the First Amendment), wrote:
“We are teaching the world the great truth that governments do better without kings and nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that religion flourishes in greater purity without, than with, the aid of Government.” [2]
That is, it was the considered opinion of the author of the world’s oldest written constitution that religion is more likely to be practiced free of force or fraud when the State has nothing to do with it. He did not stand alone in holding to this principle. John Adams, second president of the United States, put it thus: “Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion.” [3]
When they do meddle with religion, national governments often justify it in terms of a perceived necessity to prevent “antinational sentiment,” to protect people from “force or fraud,” or to somehow test the sincerity of a person’s beliefs. Yet, as Thomas Jefferson, author of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, stated: “The opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty.” [4]
So we come to considering how India fares as it celebrates achieving national independence.
In February 2015, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi declared: “My government will ensure that there is complete freedom of faith and that everyone has the undeniable right to retain or adopt the religion of his or her choice without coercion or undue influence.” [5]
That sounds pretty good. If all you heard was that soundbite, you might be convinced. But we need to seek a little more information. What does Modi mean when he talks about “freedom of faith”? Let’s look deeper.
One of his earliest acts after being elected Chief Minister of the State of Gujarat was to pass the so-called “Religious Freedom Act of 2003.”
This act says that if you want to switch your religion, you first have to ask permission from the government. The act says this is to prevent “forcible” conversions, but it says force includes talking about divine displeasure. That means that if I told a Gujarati that I believe “the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom,” a saying of Solomon taught by both Christians and Muslims worldwide, then I can face up to four years in prison and a 100,000 rupee fine.
    Modi’s cabinet ministers and senior members of party, the BJP, have repeatedly demanded this be made a national law. In December 2014, arguing the necessity of the national government meddling in religion, Home Minister Rajnath Singh said: “To check conversion, I think an anti-conversion law needs to be framed. All political parties should think about this.” [6]
Yet, in February of this year, Modi also said: “We cannot accept violence against any religion on any pretext, and I strongly condemn such violence.” [7]
That sounds pretty good, too. Another soundbite. Let’s look deeper.
In 2002, six months after becoming Chief Minister, Modi’s government in Gujarat sponsored a genocide against minorities, about which the U.S. State Department reported:
“Hindu mobs killed 1,200-2,500 Muslims, forced 100,000 people to flee, and destroyed homes. Christians were also killed and injured, and many churches were destroyed. India’s National Human Rights Commission found evidence of premeditated killing by members of Hindu nationalist groups, complicity by state government officials, and police inaction.” [8]
The State Department also said: “Police reportedly told Muslim victims, ‘we don’t have orders to help you.’ It was reported that assailants frequently chanted ‘the police are with us.’” [9]
 Additionally, Human Rights Watch reported the attacks were “planned in advance and organized with extensive participation of the police and state government officials.” [10]
Many members of Modi’s own administration have also spilled the beans. In 2007, Gujarati MLA Haresh Bhatt, one of those who led murderous mobs to massacre Muslims, was caught on hidden camera saying: “Modi told me I’ll give you three days. Do whatever you want, you will not be touched.” [11]
For ten years, Modi was banned from entering the United States because of his involvement in the 2002 Gujarat Genocide.
Twelve years after the genocide, however, he became Prime Minister of India.
If Modi speaks of religious liberty, but defines it as State regulation of religion, is there democracy? If Modi speaks of rejecting violence against religion, but sponsors a genocide against religious minorities, is there democracy?
Where is the democracy?

(Sikh 24
11 Sep 2016)