4. Whose Report? (18th January 2011)
- Whose numbers – NCRB or NHRC?
The HAF report states “Human rights violations against Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) occur on a daily basis throughout India and South Asia, and primarily in rural communities. The Government of India (GoI) is cognizant of these atrocities. The National Crime Records Bureau, mandated by the Ministry of Home Affairs of the GoI, releases annual reports on nationwide crimes and trends, with a special section dedicated to crimes against SC and STs. In the latest report covering the year of 2008, there were 33,615 such incidents reported.” Chapter 7, page 65.
Criminal act and human rights is not the same thing. The table shows the stats for atrocities on SC from National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) records, which are different than the NCRB data:
|# of cases reported||74401||82233|
|# of cases disposed||24936||17341|
|# of cases disposed related to atrocities on SC/ST||593||330|
This NHRC data illustrates that the atrocities on SC/ST were approximately 2% of the total. The rest, 98% of human rights violations occurred for non-SC/ST.
Even if you consider data only from NCRB “A total of 5,938,104 cognizable crimes comprising 2,093,379 Indian Penal Code (IPC) crimes and 3,844,725 Special & Local Laws (SLL) crimes were reported” (http://ncrb.nic.in/cii2008/cii-2008/Snapshots.pdf). This represents less than 1% of cases for atrocities on SC/ST.
The number for atrocities on SC/ST is around 2%, whatever the data source is.
My question to the authors of the report is why HAF report is quiet on these 98% human right violation cases for non-SC/ST? Are they not human or have no rights?
- Whose culpability – GoI or Hindu society?
The last time I checked, India was still a secular country and not a Hindu Rashtra. It is a strange logic that in the HAF report, Hindu society is held responsible for every social evil or criminal act in India.
Does HAF hold Christianity (the dominant religion) responsible for all social evils and criminal acts in USA?
- Whose responsibility – Indian constitution or Hindu scriptures?
“HAF supports the reanalysis and subsequent rejection of any and all teachings that promote caste-based discrimination and birth-based hierarchy. Most such teachings are found in texts called Smritis, or books of ancient Hindu social law….., (HAF report of Dec 10th, 2010). The same sentiment is present throughout the report.
The Human Rights violations, as listed in the HAF report, occurred in the last few years. For the last 60 years, Indian constitution is the law of the land.
Shouldn’t HAF be asking “re-analysis of the Indian constitution instead of reanalysis of the Hindu texts?
- Manu or Modern Manu?
Can the authors of the HAF report refer to a time period when Smritis were the law of the land?
Does HAF believe that the laws, as laid down in the Smritis, were ever implemented in India?
Since all historical social evils are blamed on Manu and Manu Smriti, isn’t it fair that current criminal acts and human right violations be blamed on modern day Manu, Dr. Ambedkar, and Indian constitution.
(While unveiling the statue of Dr. Ambedkar, Shri R. Venkataraman, the President of India called Dr. Ambedkar as “Modem Manu.”)
HAF’s position should be based on sound research and it should not be advocating other individuals and organizations position.
- Whose apology – Hindus or non-Hindus?
The first dedication on the dedication page of the HAF report contains the following:
“To All Those Who Have Suffered From Caste-based Discrimination Over The Centuries –
Our Apologies That Hindu Society Failed To Live Up To Its Highest Teachings
To Those Who Remained Committed Hindus Despite this Failure –
Our Deepest Respects and Admiration”
One of the basic premise of teaching students is: No child should be made to feel ashamed of their ancestors or their history. After continuous demonization of Germans for the crimes of Hitler, Germany plainly declared that the current generations of Germans have nothing to feel guilty or ashamed of.
Will HAF assure all the Hindus, whose voice they represent, that HAF will ask for apologyfrom the perpetrators of Hindu genocide and those who were responsible for the destruction of Hindu temples?
Shouldn’t HAF be using its successful “either/or” approach for apology, as used for caste in the Virginia Standards of Learning? Suhag Shukla from HAF, is author of this “either/or” approach.
- Whose Report?
It begs the question, whose report is this ??!!!