SOUTH ASIA - House Foreign Affairs Committee Democrats

2238law, a Muslim husband may divorce his wife spontaneously and unilaterally; thereis no such provision for women. Islamic law also allows a man to have up to fourwives but prohibits polyandry. Under the Indian Divorce Act of 1869, a Christianwoman may demand divorce only in cases of spousal abuse and certain categoriesof adultery; for a Christian man, adultery alone is sufficient. In May 1997, theMumbai High Court recognized abuse alone as sufficient grounds for a Christianwoman to obtain a divorce.The Government was reviewing the legislation on marriage and drafted the‘‘Christian Marriage Bill’’ during the year. The bill would replace the Indian DivorceAct of 1869, which is widely criticized as biased against women. If enacted it wouldplace limitations on interfaith marriages and specify penalties, such as 10 years’ imprisonment,for clergymen who contravene its provisions. The current form of thebill states that no marriage in which one party is a non-Christian may be celebratedin a church. The bill was not introduced during the most recent Parliament sessionin March-May due to the strong objections and reservations of the Christian community.There is no national law that bars proselytizing by Christian citizens. Foreignmissionaries generally may renew their visas, but since the mid-1960’s the Governmenthas refused to admit new resident foreign missionaries. New arrivals currentlyenter as tourists on short-term visas. During the year, as in the past, state officialsrefused to issue permits for foreign Christian missionaries, as well as other persons,to enter some northeastern states, on the grounds of political instability in the region.This restriction is not levied specifically against Christians. Many foreigners,including diplomats, are refused permits to the country’s northeastern states on thegrounds of political instability in the region. Missionaries and religious organizationsmust comply with the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), whichrestricts funding from abroad and, therefore, the ability of certain groups to financetheir activities. The Government is empowered to ban a religious organization if ithas violated the FCRA, has provoked intercommunity friction, or has been involvedin terrorism or sedition. There is no ban on professing or proselytizing religious beliefs;however, speaking publicly against other beliefs is considered dangerous topublic order, and is prohibited.A January decision by the Gujarat state government to revoke the ban on the participationof government employees in Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh activitieswas criticized widely by those who felt that this would lead to the spread of RSSinfluence within the government services, as was the well-publicized participationof the state’s chief minister at an RSS rally that month. In March the governmentof Gujarat convinced a BJP legislator to withdraw a bill that sought to regulateChristian missionary activity within the state; the bill was written to prohibit‘‘forced’’ or ‘‘induced’’ conversionsa crime that would have been punishable by a fineand up to 3 years in prison. In May the Gujarat government withdrew permissionfor state government workers to engage in RSS activities. Despite these steps by thestate and national governments to address communal concerns, many in the minoritycommunities continued to express unease about BJP rule.In August 1999, a bill was introduced in Gujarat that would allow harsh punishmentfor anyone in the state found guilty of converting someone to another religionthrough the use of force, provision of material benefits, or fraud. Human rightsgroups feared that if passed the bill—called the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Bill,1999—could be used to restrict the fundamental right to choose one’s religion. However,the Gujarat state assembly took no action on the Freedom of Religion Bill, allowingit to lapse. It must be reintroduced to be further considered.Violent attacks against Christians by Hindus, which began in late 1998, continuedduring the year. Attacks on religious minorities no longer appear to be confined toGujarat and Orissa. There were several attacks by Hindu groups against Christianinstitutions in Uttar Pradesh in April (see Section 5). These incidents were the firstsigns of Hindu-Christian violence in Uttar Pradesh in over 6 years. The Governmentdispatched the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) to investigate the attacksin the north, but the NCM’s findings that the attacks were not ‘‘communal in nature’’sparked widespread criticism in the minority community (see Section 5). Thereis strong evidence that the NCM report misrepresented the victims in its claim thatthe victims themselves are satisfied entirely that there was no religious motivationbehind the violence. Victims of the incidents claim that the local police were not responsiveeither before or during the attacks. The BJP government in Uttar Pradeshinitiated an investigation by intelligence agencies into the June 21 custodial killingof a witness, Vijay Ekka (see Sections 1.a. and 5); the government also announcedplans to set up a judicial inquiry by a sitting judge from the state High Court. TheMathura superintendent of police was transferred because of the Ekka killing; how-VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:46 Sep 20, 2001 Jkt 071555 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\COUNTRYR\S71555\71555.035 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1