Dr.
Kanwal Sibal about NRC
Before
I put before you the perception of a noted personality, I would like to give a
small write-up with a view to introducing him to the readers.
I
am speaking about Dr. Kanwal Sibal.
He
was born on 18 November 1943 to noted Lawyer Hira Lall Sibal, Padma Bhushan
awardee.
He
graduated with an MA in English from Punjab University. Dr. Kanwal Sibal later
graduated from the World Information Distributed University with the scientific
degree of International Doctor of Philosophy and the scientific degree of Grand
Doctor of Philosophy, in June 2006. Dr. Kanwal Sibal is the First Grand Doctor
of Philosophy in India. He received the title of Full Professor from the
European Academy of Informatization and the World Information Distributed University-WIDU.
Though he held many acclaimed posts, I just
mention the last two that he was Ambassador of India to France (March 1998 to
June 2002) and Ambassador to Russia (2004 to 2007).
Indian
National Congress politician and former Cabinet Minister Kapil Sibal is
Kanwal's younger brother. Virender Sibal, Jitendar Sibal (both retired IAS
officers) and Ms. Asha Nanda are his other siblings.
With
this small introduction I present before you, his opinion as to why need NRC.
It
was actually his reply to:
The
Economist’s editorial “Intolerant India” is full of distortions,
misrepresentations, half-baked analysis and unwarranted conclusions. It is not
journalism but a diatribe against Modi and the BJP. … The government should
think of expelling The Economist’s India correspondent as the paper has gone
beyond journalism to playing oppositional politics in India. – Kanwal Sibal
The
Economist, in its latest issue (Jan. 25), has unabashedly joined the current
campaign of opposition circles in India against Prime Minister Modi and the
BJP. Western journalists stationed in Delhi, socially comfortable with India’s
articulate English-speaking elites who scorn the RSS, become willing
participants in relaying the anti-BJP opposition propaganda internationally
because what they hear in the circles they mix in accords with their own
preconceived notions about a “Hindu” India.
Why we need NRC:
When
critics within India decry the rise of Hindu nationalism because any Hindu
consolidation in India will durably alter the balance of political forces in
the country to BJP’s advantage, they get the endorsement from the so-called
liberal circles in the West who decry the rise of “nationalism” anywhere
because of Europe’s historical experience.
Many
expatriate Indian-origin writers and academics linked to kindred circles in
India feed into the current negative narrative about BJP’s policies being
majoritarian, anti-minority and socially divisive. How much they need to assert
their liberal credentials in the society they live in search of more esteem,
credibility and acceptance can be debated.
The
Economist’s editorial “Intolerant India” is full of distortions,
misrepresentations, half-baked analysis and unwarranted conclusions. It is not
journalism but a diatribe against Modi and the BJP. It accuses India of
changing the law to make it easier for all except Muslims to acquire
citizenship.
This
is an entirely misleading statement as the amendment to the law applies only to
illegal migrants and is one time in the application, the cut-off date for
quicker acquisition of citizenship by non-Muslim illegal migrants being
December 31, 2014. After that, no religion is privileged in terms of acquiring
citizenship under the Citizenship Act. To say that the BJP looks at the NRC “as
a means to hunt down illegal immigrants” is a nasty misrepresentation. Yes,
illegal migrants would get identified, but the purpose is larger. India, like
its neighbours and others, must have a citizenship roll to cater for the
future.
India
has thousands of kilometres long undefined or porous borders with three of its
neighbours, an open border with Nepal, and an extensive coast-line. It faces
cross-border terrorism; the demography of its districts bordering Bangladesh
has changed over the years. For improved governance, security, sovereignty
reasons and proper targeting of social benefit schemes a national roll of
citizens is essential.
Sweeping statement
To
say that “many of the country’s 200m Muslims don’t have the papers to prove
they are Indian, so they risk being made stateless” is absurd as many more of
Hindus do not have the papers too, and by this logic, they will also be made
stateless. Under what law will the BJP government make the Indian Muslims
stateless and not the Hindus and others?
The
magazine declares sweepingly that Modi is determined “to transform India from a
tolerant, multi-religious place into a chauvinist Hindu state”. It does not
explain how India will cease to be multi-religious. Will the Constitution be
amended, fundamental rights abrogated, judicial independence ended and the
media censored?
The
Economist links the BJP’s rise to “a decades-long project of incitement”,
beginning with the destruction of a mosque by “Hindu extremists” and a massacre
of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002 under Modi’s watch which “made him a hero to
Hindu nationalists around the country”. Is this journalism or distilled
political aversion? “Alas, what has been electoral nectar for the BJP is
political poison for India”, it says in a gush of animosity towards the ruling party
and its leader. The Economist accuses Modi of constantly insinuating “that
Muslims are dangerous fifth-columnists, always scheming to do Hindus down and
sell out their country to Pakistan”. Will The Economist list these statements
in the interest of honest reporting?
Distorted argument
Making
the party look like a collection of dangerous political adventurers, the paper
claims that the BJP is “hunting for a new grievance”—the citizenship issue now
that the Supreme Court’s ruling has deprived it of its favourite Ram Temple
cause. It is ridiculous for the paper to say that Modi’s policies “blatantly
discriminate against his Muslim compatriots”. Can they give an example? How are
illegal Bangladeshi migrants India’s “Muslim compatriots”?
That
the UK wants to close its borders even to legal migrants from Europe, continues
to tighten its immigration laws, and seeks to send back what it claims are
50,000 illegal Indian migrants in the UK, the hypocrisy of this establishment
paper is amazing in demanding that India accept millions of illegal Muslim
migrants without demur. It talks of the “deliberate and sustained persecution”
of Muslims, without giving any proof, no doubt because it thinks that as the
lingering voice of British imperialism it owes no explanation to anyone.
In
a bid to stoke communal tensions in India, Modi is accused of “rabble-rousing”,
of “perpetually firing up Hindus and infuriating Muslims” and thereby making
“fresh bloodshed more likely”. India’s Supreme Court has been mocked for not
showing spine. The government should think of expelling The Economist’s India
correspondent as the paper has gone beyond journalism to playing oppositional
politics in India. – Daily-O, 28 January 2020
›
Kanwal Sibal is a distinguished career diplomat who has retired as Foreign
Secretary to the Government of India.
No comments:
Post a Comment