Sam Paul

UN Nations at last taking a stand for 260 Million people!!!

2009-09-27T23:07:00.000-07:00

UN set to treat caste as human rights violation
Manoj Mitta, TNN 28 September 2009, 06:10am IST

NEW DELHI: If the recent genome study denying the Aryan-Dravidian divide has established the antiquity of caste segregations in marriage, the
ongoing session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva looks set to recognize caste-based discrimination as a human rights violation. This, despite India's opposition and following Nepal's breaking ranks on the culturally sensitive issue.

Nepal has emerged as the first country from South Asia -- the region where untouchability has been traditionally practiced -- to declare support for the draft principles and guidelines published by UNHRC four months ago for ``effective elimination of discrimination based on work and descent'' -- the UN terminology for caste inequities.

In a side-event to the session on September 16, Nepalese minister Jeet Bahadur Darjee Gautam said his county welcomed the idea mooted by the UNHRC document to involve ``regional and international mechanism, the UN and its organs'' to complement national efforts to combat caste discrimination. This is radically different from India's stated aversion to the internationalization of the caste problem.

Much to India's embarrassment, Nepal's statement evoked an immediate endorsement from the office of the UN high commissioner for human rights, Navanethem Pillay, a South African Tamil. Besides calling Nepal's support ``a significant step by a country grappling with this entrenched problem itself'', Pillay's office said it would ``like to encourage other states to follow this commendable example''.

The reference to India was unmistakable especially since Pillay had pressed the issue during her visit to New Delhi in March. Pillay not only asked India to address ``its own challenges nationally, but show leadership in combating caste-based discrimination globally''. The granddaughter of an indentured labourer taken to South Africa from a village near Madurai, Pillay recalled that in 2006, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had compared untouchability to apartheid.

Adding to India's discomfiture, Sweden, in its capacity as the president of the Europeon Union, said, ``caste-based discrimination and other forms of discrimination based on work and descent is an important priority for EU''. If this issue continues to gather momentum, UNHRC may in a future session adopt the draft principles and guidelines and, to impart greater legal force, send them for adoption to the UN General Assembly.

The draft principles specifically cited caste as one of the grounds on which more than 200 million people in the world suffer discrimination. ``This type of discrimination is typically associated with the notion of purity and pollution and practices of untouchability, and is deeply rooted in societies and cultures where this discrimination is practiced,'' it said.

Though India succeeded in its efforts to keep caste out of the resolution adopted by the 2001 Durban conference on racism, the issue has since re-emerged in a different guise, without getting drawn into the debate over where caste and race are analogous.

Thanks to UN Special Rapporteur Asma - Wonderful job and a good report

2009-02-06T09:16:00.000-08:00

Thanks to The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Religious Freedom for pointing out the official religious discrimination in India.

Please read on the full text of the report. Was very glad to have met her and to make the submissions during her visit to India.

UNITED
NATIONS

A

General Assembly
Distr.
GENERAL

A/HRC/10/8/Add.3
26 January 2009

Original: ENGLISH

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
Tenth session
Agenda item 3

PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF ALL HUMAN RIGHTS,
CIVIL, POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL
RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT

Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief,
Asma Jahangir*

Addendum

MISSION TO INDIA**

* Late submission.
** The summary of the present report is circulated in all official languages. The report itself,
contained in the annex to the summary, is circulated as received, in the language of submission
only.

GE.09-10462 (E) 290109

A/HRC/10/8/Add.3
page 2

Summary

The Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief undertook a country visit to India
from 3 to 20 March 2008, upon the invitation of the Government.

The present report gives an overview of the international legal standards and the domestic
legal framework on freedom of religion or belief. The Special Rapporteur refers to the religious
demography and highlights selected aspects of the status of freedom of religion or belief in India.
She focuses on the following issues of concern: the situation of religious or belief minorities;
justice for victims and survivors of communal violence; freedom of religion or belief in Jammu
and Kashmir; the negative impact of laws on religious conversion in several states; and
implications of religion-based personal laws.

In the last part of the report, the Special Rapporteur presents her conclusions and
recommendations. She notes the religious diversity of society in India and the positive impact of
secularism as embodied in the Constitution, as well as the high degree of human rights activism
in the country. Even though a comprehensive legal framework to protect freedom of religion or
belief does exist, many of her interlocutors, especially from religious minorities, remain
dissatisfied with its implementation. Owing to the federal nature of the political system, Indian
states have wide powers, including in the field of law and order. While recognizing the efforts
and achievements of the central Government, the Special Rapporteur focuses on issues of
concern with regard to intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief, especially in
certain states. Organized groups claiming adherence to religious ideologies have unleashed an
all-pervasive fear of mob violence in many parts of the country. Referring to her predecessor’s
report on his visit to India (E/CN.4/1997/91/Add.1), the Special Rapporteur stresses the need to
prevent political exploitation of communal distinctions effectively and to address adequately
advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.

The Special Rapporteur appeals to the authorities to take quick and effective measures to
protect members of religious minorities from any attacks and to step up efforts to prevent
communal violence. Any specific legislation on communal violence should take into account the
concerns of religious minorities and must not reinforce impunity of communalized police forces
at the state level. While inquiries into large-scale communal violence should not be performed
hastily, they should be accorded the highest priority and urgency by the investigation teams, the
judiciary and any commission appointed to study the situation. Furthermore, the laws and bills
on religious conversion in several Indian states should be reconsidered since they raise serious
human rights concerns, in particular because of the use of vague or overbroad terminology and
discriminatory provisions. In addition, the eligibility for affirmative action benefits should be
restored to those members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes who have converted to
another religion. Finally, religion-based personal laws should be reviewed to prevent
discrimination based on religion or belief and to ensure gender equality.

A/HRC/10/8/Add.3
page 3

Annex

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON FREEDOM OF
RELIGION OR BELIEF, ASMA JAHANGIR, ON HER MISSION
TO INDIA (3-20 MARCH 2008)

CONTENTS

Paragraphs Page

I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1 - 5 4
II. INTERNATIONAL LEGAL STANDARDS .................................. 6 - 7 5
III.
DOMESTIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK ON FREEDOM OF
RELIGION OR BELIEF ................................................................. 8 - 13 5
IV.
RESPECT FOR FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR BELIEF
IN INDIA ......................................................................................... 14 - 58 7
A. Religious demography ............................................................. 14 - 15 7
B. Issues of concern ..................................................................... 16 - 58 8
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................... 59 - 74 20

A/HRC/10/8/Add.3
page 4

I. INTRODUCTION
1. Following an invitation by the Government of India, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of
religion or belief carried out a country visit to India from 3 to 20 March 2008. During her
mission, the Special Rapporteur met with Government officials and political leaders as well as
representatives of religious or belief communities, members of civil society and academics. She
travelled to Amritsar, Delhi, Jammu, Srinagar, Ahmedabad, Mumbai, Thiruvananthapuram,
Bhubaneswar and Lucknow.
2. During her country visit, the Special Rapporteur had the opportunity to meet with several
Government officials, including the Ministers of External Affairs, of Minority Affairs and of
Culture as well as with the Chief Ministers of Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir, Gujarat, Kerala and
Orissa. She also met with the Solicitor General, several Supreme Court Justices and High Court
Judges. In Delhi, the Special Rapporteur met with the chairperson and members of the National
Commission for Minorities as well as of the National Human Rights Commission. Officials met
in Jammu and Kashmir, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Kerala and Uttar Pradesh also included
representatives of the states’ human rights or minority commissions.
3. In addition, the Special Rapporteur was able to collect first hand information and
documents on the state of freedom of religion or belief in India. During her visit, the Special
Rapporteur spoke with representatives of various religious or belief communities, including
Baha’is, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Humanists, Jains, Muslims, Sikhs and Zoroastrians
(Parsis). Additional civil society meetings were held with academics, journalists, human rights
activists, lawyers and professionals from the visual arts industry. The Special Rapporteur was
impressed by the vigour with which many members of civil society organizations and artists,
particularly by those affiliated with the film industry, are challenging discrimination based on
religion or belief and are proposing concrete means how to overcome religious intolerance.
4. The Special Rapporteur also met with representatives of the United Nations Development
Programme; the United Nations Population Fund; the United Nations Development Fund for
Women; and the International Labour Organization. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the
logistical support provided by the office of the United Nations Resident Coordinator. She also
would like to acknowledge the high level of cooperation received from both the Government and
from the people of India.
5. Mr. Abdelfattah Amor, the second mandate-holder, undertook a mission to India in 1996.
Therefore, the Special Rapporteur perceived her country visit and this report as an opportunity to
follow-up on her predecessor’s recommendations1 and to analyze developments over the past
twelve years. In the present report, the Special Rapporteur first outlines the relevant international
legal standards and then gives an overview of the domestic legal framework on freedom of
religion or belief. The third part refers to the religious demography and highlights selected
aspects of the status of freedom of religion or belief in India. Finally, the Special Rapporteur
presents her conclusions and recommendations.
1 See Mr. Amor’s report (E/CN.4/1997/91/Add.1) and the reply by the Government of India
(A/53/279, annex).

A/HRC/10/8/Add.3
page 5

II. INTERNATIONAL LEGAL STANDARDS
6. The right to freedom of religion or belief are enshrined in various international legal
instruments.2 These include articles 2, 18-20 and 26-27 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights; article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights; article 2 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women;3 article 5 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination; articles 2, 14 and 30 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and article 12
of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and
Members of Their Families. Apart from the latter, India has ratified all of the other
above-mentioned human rights treaties.
7. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur is guided in her mandate by other relevant
declarations, resolutions and guidelines of various United Nations bodies, including those issued
by the General Assembly, the Human Rights Committee, the former Commission on Human
Rights and the Human Rights Council. Of these instruments, of particular relevance for the
mandate are articles 2, 18 and 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as
the 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination
Based on Religion or Belief.
III. DOMESTIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK ON
FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR BELIEF
8. The Special Rapporteur would like to refer to her predecessor’s country report concerning
India’s legislation in the field of tolerance and non-discrimination based on religion or belief
(E/CN.4/1997/91/Add.1, paras. 5-16). In his report, Mr. Amor discussed various provisions of
the Constitution of India; the Penal Code; the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967; the
Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1988; the Places of Worship (Special
Provisions) Act 1991; and the Representation of the People Act 1951.
9. Since 1996, a number of laws pertaining to freedom of religion or belief have been
amended and new ones adopted, both at the central and state levels. According to the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act 2004, members of an “unlawful association”, which for
2 For an overview of the Special Rapporteur’s legal framework, see her reports to the
Commission on Human Rights (E/CN.4/2005/61, paras. 15-20 and E/CN.4/2006/5, annex)
as well as the online digest of her framework for communications (www2.ohchr.org/english/
issues/religion/standards.htm).

3 Upon ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women, the Government of India declared that it shall abide by and ensure the provision on
marriage and family relations (article 16 (1) of the Convention) “in conformity with its policy of
non-interference in the personal affairs of any Community without its initiative and consent”.
With regard to the principle of compulsory registration of marriages according to article 16 (2) of
the Convention, the Government declared that this is “not practical in a vast country like India
with its variety of customs, religions and level of literacy”.

A/HRC/10/8/Add.3
page 6

example has for its object the promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds of
religion, can be punished with up to two years’ imprisonment. Under specific circumstances, the
punishment can be death or imprisonment for life, for example if a member of an unlawful
association was in possession of any unlicensed firearms, ammunition or explosive and
committed an act that resulted in the death of any person.

10. According to article 26 of the Indian Constitution, every religious denomination or any
section thereof shall have the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion, subject to
public order, morality and health. Diverse personal status laws exist governing all family
relationships such as marriage and divorce, maintenance, custody of children, guardianship of
children, inheritance and succession, adoption etc. There are five broad sets of personal status
laws: one for Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs as well as separate laws for Christians, Jews,
Muslims and Zoroastrians (Parsis). Hindu and Muslim personal status laws also cater to different
schools of thoughts within each community. Family law is a concurrent subject in the
Constitution allowing each state as well as the Centre to legislate on it. For example, people
residing in the Indian state of Goa are governed by the Portuguese Civil Code of 1867.
Furthermore, the school of law applicable to Hindus can also depend on the region from which
the person comes. In addition, there is an over-aching secular civil law, the Special Marriage
Act 1954, which a person may opt for. All legal norms, like succession etc., will apply
according to the law under which a couple marries and all personal status laws based on religion
have different sets of rights. For example, Muslim marriages can be polygamous, however, those
who convert to Islam after having married under another personal status law cannot avail
themselves of the principles of Muslim personal law. There is rich jurisprudence in India,
resolving inequalities within and amongst personal status laws of different communities,
especially with regard to women’s rights. One of the Directive Principles of State Policy
(article 44 of the Constitution of India) stipulates that the “State shall endeavour to secure for the
citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India”. However, this has not been
implemented as a uniform civil code raises controversy amongst various religious leaders and
faith groups.
11. A number of Indian states have adopted specific laws which seek to govern religious
conversion and renunciation. Five states have passed and implemented the so-called Freedom
of Religion Acts (Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh).
Similar laws have been passed but not yet implemented in two other states (Arunachal Pradesh
and Rajasthan). All of these laws stipulate that “no person shall convert or attempt to convert,
either directly or otherwise, any person from one religious faith to another by the use of force
or by inducement or by any fraudulent means nor shall any person abet any such conversion”.
The term “force” is defined to “include a show of force or a threat for injury of any kind
including threat of divine displeasure or social excommunication”. These laws carry penalties
of imprisonment and fines with harsher penalties in case children, women or persons
belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes are forcibly converted. Furthermore,
in some states anyone converting another person from one religion to another is required to
obtain prior permission from state authorities thirty days before the date of such intended

A/HRC/10/8/Add.3
page 7

conversion4 or submit a related intimation.5 In other states with such laws, anyone intending to
change his or her religion needs to give prior notice6 or intimation after the conversion

7

ceremony.

12. The Constitution (Eighty-Ninth) Amendment Act 2003 established a National Commission
for the Scheduled Tribes and a separate National Commission for Scheduled Castes. The latter’s
duties include investigating and monitoring all matters relating to the safeguards provided for the
Scheduled Castes under the Constitution or under any other law or order of the government. For
example, article 17 of the Constitution states that “untouchability” is abolished and that its
practice in any form is forbidden and punishable in accordance with the law. Furthermore, the
Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955 specifically provides for the punishment of anyone who, on
the ground of “untouchability”, prevents any person from entering a place of public worship
which is open to other persons professing the same religion or any section thereof.
13. A new Ministry of Minority Affairs was created on 29 January 2006 to ensure a more
focused approach towards issues relating to the minorities and to facilitate the formulation of
overall policy and planning, coordination, evaluation and review of the regulatory framework
and development programmes for the benefit of the minority communities, including religious
ones. The Ministry of Minority Affairs is responsible for the administration and implementation
of the National Commission for Minorities Act 1992, the Wakf Act 1995 and the Durgah
Khwaja Saheb Act 1955.
IV. RESPECT FOR FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR BELIEF IN INDIA
A. Religious demography
14. India is the second most populous country in the world with more than 1.1 billion
inhabitants estimated in 2008. According to the latest official census of 2001, the population
of India comprised about 80.5 per cent Hindus, 13.4 per cent Muslims, 2.3 per cent Christians,
1.9 per cent Sikhs, 0.8 per cent Buddhists and 0.4 per cent Jains. About 0.7 per cent either did
4 See section 5 of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act 2003; sections 3 and 4 of the Gujarat
Freedom of Religion Rules 2008; section 5 of the Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion
(Amendment) Act 2006.

5 See section 5 of the Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act 1978; section 5 of the
Orissa Freedom of Religion Rules 1989.

6 See section 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act 2006; section 3 of the
Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Rules 2007.

7 See section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act 1968; section 3 of the Madhya
Pradesh Freedom of Religion Rules 1969 (“within seven days after the date of such ceremony”);
section 5 of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Rules 2008 (“within ten days from the date of such
conversion ceremony”).

A/HRC/10/8/Add.3
page 8

not state their religious affiliation or belonged to other religions or beliefs, including Bahai’s,
Jews and Zoroastrians (Parsis).8 The next official census, which will again include disaggregated
data on religious demography, is scheduled to take place in 2011.

15. In 1993, the Indian Central Government notified Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists
and Zoroastrians (Parsis) as “minority” communities under section 2(c) of the National
Commission for Minorities Act 1992. The National Commission for Minorities is mandated to
make recommendations for the effective implementation of safeguards for the protection of the
interests of “minorities” by the Central Government or the State Governments as well as to look
into specific complaints regarding deprivation of rights and safeguards of the “minorities” and
take up such matters with the appropriate authorities. In 1997, an organization representing a
section of the Jain community sought issuance of a direction to the Central Government to also
notify Jains as a “minority” community under this provision. However, the Supreme Court in
2005 emphasized that before the Central Government can take decision on claims of Jains as a
“minority” community, the identification has to be done on a state basis, also considering the
social, cultural and religious conditions of the community in each state.9
B. Issues of concern
16. The Special Rapporteur would like to highlight selected aspects of the status of freedom of
religion or belief in India. She will focus on the following issues of concern: (1) the situation of
religious or belief minorities; (2) justice for victims and survivors of communal violence; (3)
freedom of religion or belief in Jammu and Kashmir; (4) the negative impact of laws on religious
conversion in several states; and (5) implications of religion-based personal laws.
1. Situation of religious or belief minorities
17. Before and during her mission, the Special Rapporteur received numerous reports of
attacks on religious minorities and their places of worship as well as of discrimination against
the disempowered sections of the Hindu community. Organised groups claiming adherence to
religious ideologies have unleashed an all-pervasive fear of mob violence. Furthermore, concerns
have been raised with regard to the social, economic and educational status of minority
communities. In order to illustrate the situation of religious minorities, the Special Rapporteur
wishes to briefly give some examples.
8 It is not possible to compare these 2001 figures directly with the data provided in Mr. Amor’s
report (E/CN.4/1997/97/Add.1, paras. 18-20) since the 1981 official census was not conducted in
Assam and the 1991 official census was not conducted in Jammu and Kashmir. The Special
Rapporteur would also caution against improper utilization and communal interpretations of the
respective communities’ growth rates which may ultimately lead to a more polarized and
intolerant society.

9 Supreme Court of India, Bal Patil and Another v. Union of India and Others, judgement
of 8 August 2005.

A/HRC/10/8/Add.3
page 9

(a) Christians
18. Widespread violence in the Kandhamal district of Orissa in December 2007 primarily
targeted Christians in Dalit and tribal communities. The Special Rapporteur received credible
reports that members of the Christian community alerted the authorities and politicians in
advance of the planned attacks of 24-27 December 2007. The police, too, had warned Christian
leaders about anticipated violence. In its report on the events of December 2007, the National
Commission for Minorities confirmed that “destruction on such a large scale in places which are
difficult to access could not have taken place without advance preparation and planning”.
19. The situation in Orissa has reportedly deteriorated again after 23 August 2008, when
Swami Lakhmananda Saraswati, a local leader of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), and four
other VHP members were killed. Although a Maoist leader had claimed responsibility and the
Christian leadership had condemned the killings, organized mobs subsequently attacked
Christians in Dalit and tribal communities. By the end of September 2008, more than 40 people
had allegedly been killed in Orissa, over 4,000 Christian homes destroyed and around
50 churches demolished. Around 20,000 people were living in relief camps and more
than 40,000 people hiding in forests and others places. The Special Rapporteur was profoundly
alarmed by the humanitarian situation in relief camps where access to food, safe drinking water,
medical care, proper sanitary arrangements and adequate clothing were reportedly lacking.
(b) Muslims
20. Members of the Muslim community in India shared their concerns about the ongoing
repercussions of communal violence, for example after the Gujarat massacre in 2002 (below,
paras. 34-36). Many of the Muslim interlocutors informed the Special Rapporteur during her
mission that a number of them have been arrested on ill-founded suspicion of terrorism. Some of
them even encountered problems in finding a lawyer who would be prepared to defend a terrorist
suspect. For example, the Lucknow Bar Association reportedly passed a resolution that none of
its members should represent the accused of a terrorist act carried out in the state, but the
Lucknow Bar Association subsequently reflected on its position. Moreover, many Muslims were
disturbed that terrorism was associated with their religion despite various public statements from
Muslim leadership denouncing terrorism. There have been complaints about a continuing bias
among security forces against Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir who also seem to face difficulties
with regard to the issuance of passports and security clearances for employment purposes.
21. However, a large number of her interlocutors, including Muslims, also expressed their
concerns about continued radicalization and cross-border terrorism. They lamented that the
radicalisation of certain Muslims had an adverse impact on the entire community because
communal relations hardened after every act of terrorism carried out by a militant group of
Muslims. Some Muslim interlocutors regretted that after such events they were expected to
“prove their loyalty to the State of India”, which constituted an indignity towards them as Indian
citizens.
22. Mr. Amor in his country report had already highlighted the “exploitation of religion for
political purposes, which is an alien practice and detrimental to Indian Muslims and to Islam”
(E/CN.4/1997/91/Add.1, para. 52). In addition, a large number of official and non-official
interlocutors from all communities expressed anguish at the continued operation of militant

A/HRC/10/8/Add.3
page 10

groups of Muslims carrying out acts of terrorism. A number of people interviewed by the Special
Rapporteur were deeply concerned that effective measures were not being taken by the central
Government against such militant groups whom they accused of maintaining links with foreign
elements. Others were concerned that militancy itself as well as the counter-terrorism measures
adopted by the Government would undermine the enjoyment of human rights.

23. With regard to the social, economic and educational status of the Muslim community of
India, a recent report10 analysed issues relating to demography, education, health, employment,
credit, infrastructure and public programmes. The report for example highlights problems with
regard to access to good quality schools in Muslim localities and “communal” content of school
textbooks. Furthermore, the share of Muslims in employment in various government departments
is abysmally low at all levels. A relatively high number of Muslim workers are engaged in
self-employment activity, particularly in urban areas. Some banks have reportedly designated a
number of Muslim concentration areas as zones where bank credit and other facilities are not
easily provided. The health of Muslims, especially women, is directly linked to poverty and the
absence of basic services like clean drinking water and sanitation. The Special Rapporteur would
also like to refer to her latest report to the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/10/8, paras. 29-62) in
which she analyses the international legal framework and provides some examples of
discrimination based on religion or belief and its impact on the enjoyment of economic, social
and cultural rights.
(c) Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists
24. Several Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists expressed concerns that they were not treated as distinct
religious communities but rather as belonging to Hindu religion. Article 25 of the Constitution
contains an explanation that “reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to
persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious
institutions shall be construed accordingly”. Jurisprudence confirms that since the Constitution
was framed, Sikhs and Jains have been treated as part of the wider Hindu community with its
different sects, sub-sects, faiths, modes of worship and religious philosophies. In various
codified customary laws,11 the definition of ‘Hindu’ includes Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs.
25. The Supreme Court also stated12 that “‘Hinduism’ can be called a general religion and
common faith of India whereas ‘Jainism’ is a special religion formed on the basis of
quintessence of Hindu religion.” When dealing with the claim of Jains to be considered a
10 Prime Minister’s High Level Committee (Chairperson: Justice Rajindar Sachar),
Social, Economic and Educational Status of the Muslim Community of India - A Report,
November 2006 (available online at http://minorityaffairs.gov.in/newsite/sachar/
sachar_comm.pdf).

11 See for example the Hindu Marriage Act 1955; the Hindu Succession Act 1956; the Hindu
Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956; and the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956.

12 Supreme Court of India, Bal Patil and Another v. Union of India and Others, judgement
of 8 August 2005.

A/HRC/10/8/Add.3
page 11

‘minority’ community, the Supreme Court indicated that [m]inority as understood from
constitutional scheme signifies an identifiable group of people or community who were seen as
deserving protection from likely deprivation of their religious, cultural and educational rights by
other communities who happen to be in majority and likely to gain political power in a
democratic form of Government based on election. […] Statistical data produced to show that a
community is numerically a minority cannot be the sole criterion. If it is found that a majority of
the members of the community belong to the affluent class of industrialists, businessmen,
professionals and propertied class, it may not be necessary to notify them under the Act as such
and extend any special treatment or protection to them as minority”.

26. Since the identification of minority status has to be done on a state basis, Sikhs also voiced
their concerns with regard to their minority rights. While Sikhs represent about 1.9 per cent of
India’s population according to the 2001 census, the share of Sikhs in the state of Punjab is about
59.2 per cent. The state government granted minority status to the Sikh community and issued a
notification in 2001 which permitted the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) to
give a 50 per cent quota to Sikh students in colleges run by it. This notification, however, was
struck down by the High Court on a petition filed by students who had failed to secure admission
to colleges run by SGPC. The High Court decided that “in the State of Punjab, it cannot be held
that Sikhs were such a group of persons who apprehended deprivation of their religious, cultural
and educational rights by other communities, who were in majority and who were likely to gain
political power”13. On 15 February 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order.
27. Further problems can arise for members of the Scheduled Castes, especially when they
want to convert to a different religion, since government benefits for Scheduled Castes are by
law limited to Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists. The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950
provided that no person who professes a religion different from the Hindu religion shall be
deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste. This provision was subsequently amended in 1956
and 1990 to also include Sikhs and Buddhists.14 However, the Special Rapporteur’s interlocutors
pointed out for example that Sikhism and Buddhism did not recognise the caste-system. She was
also informed that when a member of a Scheduled Caste left Hinduism and converted to
Christianity or Islam, the previous caste status and related social bias would often remain at the
social level while the person would legally no longer be eligible to government benefits for
Scheduled Castes. In some cases, there are separate churches and cemeteries for members of the
Scheduled Castes who converted to Christianity.
28. The legal link between Scheduled Caste status and affiliation to specific religions seems
problematic in terms of human rights standards. The Special Rapporteur would like to recall that
the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination noted with concern that Dalits who
convert to Islam or to Christianity to escape caste discrimination reportedly lose their entitlement
under affirmative action programmes, unlike converts who become Buddhists or Sikhs (A/62/18,
13 High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Sahil Mittal v. State of Punjab and Other, judgement
of 17 December 2007.

14 See Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act 1956; Constitution
(Scheduled Castes) Order (Amendment) Act 1990.

A/HRC/10/8/Add.3
page 12

para. 179). In 2008, an independent research study commissioned by the National Commission
for Minorities found that there is a strong case for offering Muslims and Christians of Dalit
origin the same constitutional safeguards already available to Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist Dalits.
The report by the National Commission for Religious and Linguistic Minorities, headed by
Justice Renganath Misra, recommended to delete paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled
Castes) Order 1950 - which originally restricted the Scheduled Caste net to the Hindus and later
opened it to Sikhs and Buddhists - and to make the Scheduled Castes net fully religion-neutral
like that of the Scheduled Tribes.

(d) Atheistic and non-theistic believers
29. Humanists, rationalists and other atheistic or non-theistic believers voiced their concerns
about the stifling effect of criminal provisions on offences related to religion. Especially the
provision against deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class
by insulting its religion or religious belief (section 295A of the Indian Penal Code) had allegedly
been invoked by the administration to harass writers and activists who were criticizing religious
bigotry and superstition or who were trying to expose cheating of the gullible. In this regard, the
Special Rapporteur would like to refer to her report to the 62nd session of the General Assembly,
where she discussed the situation of persons with atheistic or non-theistic beliefs in greater detail
(A/62/280, paras. 64-79).
2. Justice for victims and survivors of communal violence
30. The Special Rapporteur is seriously concerned at the extended timeframe of investigations
in cases involving communal riots, violence and massacres such as those which occurred after
“Operation Blue Star” in 1984, after the destruction of Babri Masjid in 1992 and after the
Godhra train burning incident in 2002. All of these incidents continue to haunt the people
affected by them and the system of impunity emboldens forces of intolerance. It is important to
draw appropriate lessons from these events in order to prevent the recurrence communal
violence.
31. The Special Rapporteur fully agrees with the analysis by the National Commission for
Minorities that communal violence is not merely a “law and order” problem but has a serious
socio-economic basis and ramifications. Sectarian riots are most likely to occur when the
following elements are present: (i) severe long-standing antagonism on religious lines in
particular villages and urban localities; (ii) an emotional response of members of religious
communities to a precipitating event; (iii) a feeling in the minds of rioters and the larger religious
group to which they belong that sectarian violence is justifiable; and (iv) the assessment by the
rioters that the reaction from the police to sectarian violence will be either absent or partisan or
ineffective.
(a) Communal violence after “Operation Blue Star” (1984)
32. Many of the Special Rapporteur’s interlocutors referred to the anti-Sikh riots after
the attack by the Indian army on the Golden Temple in Amritsar (“Operation Blue Star”) in
June 1984 and subsequent to the tragic assassination of Ms. Indira Gandhi on 31 October 1984.
During the following four days, nearly 3,000 Sikhs were reported to have been killed. Two
commissions and eight committees were set up from 1984 to 2005 in order to identify those

A/HRC/10/8/Add.3
page 13

responsible for the anti-Sikh riots. However, many families of the victims or survivors voiced
their concerns that the main accused were either not charged or were acquitted and that
compensation was inadequate. Furthermore, despite a 2004 court judgement in favour of the
return of the Sikh religious scriptures, reference material and artefacts, which had been removed
from the Sikh reference library in Amritsar by the Indian army in 1984, had reportedly not been
returned yet.

33. Further concerns refer to the issue of unidentified bodies. Punjab security forces had
secretly cremated thousands of bodies that they had labelled as “unidentified/unclaimed”. A
report by the Central Bureau of Investigation documented more than 2,000 cases of illegal
cremations at crematoria in the Amritsar district. Subsequent claims for compensation filed with
the National Human Rights Commission have been limited to these cases in the Amritsar district,
excluding the other twelve districts of Punjab.
(b) Communal violence after the destruction of Babri Masjid (1992)
34. Another example of communal violence and its continuing impact on community
relations are the violent clashes in 1992 between Hindus and Muslims after the destruction of
Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. Subsequently, riots broke out in several Indian cities and reportedly
more than 2,000 people, mainly Muslims, were killed. The Special Rapporteur would like to
refer to her predecessor’s communications and reports about the background of this issue as well
as to the responses sent by the Government of India to the mandate (E/CN.4/1994/79;
E/CN.4/1995/91; E/CN.4/1997/91/Add.1; and A/53/279).
35. The Special Rapporteur notes that less than two weeks after the destruction of
Babri Masjid, the Central Government appointed a Commission of Inquiry to probe the sequence
of events leading to, and all the facts and circumstances relating to, the occurrences in Ayodhya
on 6 December 1992. However, this Commission has not yet submitted its final report and its
mandate so far has been extended 47 times. Now it is required to conclude its inquiry by
31 March 2009. Many of the Special Rapporteur’s interlocutors referred to the tradition of
long-standing commissions of inquiry as an example of devaluing justice and keeping tensions
simmering.
(c) Communal violence after the Godhra train burning incident (2002)
36. With regard to the Gujarat massacre in 2002, the Special Rapporteur met a large number of
eyewitnesses as well as people who visited Gujarat during the communal violence and she also
received numerous reports, from both official bodies and civil society organisations. The Special
Rapporteur also met a former Prime Minister of India and Members of Parliament who visited
Gujarat soon after the riots in 2002. The state government reported that, prior to the Godhra train
burning incident, Gujarat had witnessed 443 major communal incidents between 1970 and 2002.
However, the massacre that took place after the tragic deaths in the Godhra train burning
incident on 27 February 2002, is all the more horrifying since at least a thousand people15 were
15 The state Government of Gujarat indicated that 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus were killed
during the communal violence in Gujarat in 2002; however, other sources estimate that more
than 2,000 people were killed.

A/HRC/10/8/Add.3
page 14

systematically killed. While the Special Rapporteur notes the controversy about the different
conclusions of various public enquiries concerning the question whether the Godhra train
burning incident was an accident or a deliberate criminal act, she would like to emphasize that
there can be no justification for the large-scale killings and violence after 27 February 2002. In
addition, there are credible reports that inaction by the authorities was evident and most of the
Special Rapporteur’s interlocutors, including politicians, alleged complicity by the state
government.

37. While discussing the events with victims, the Special Rapporteur could see their
continuing fear which was exacerbated by the distress that justice continues to evade most
victims and survivors. A large number of criminal cases relating to the communal violence in
2002 remain un-investigated or have been closed by the Gujarat police and the plight of those
internally displaced from their home continues. In addition, there is increasing ghettoization and
isolation of Muslims in certain areas of Gujarat, for example in one part of Ahmedabad which is
colloquially called “little Pakistan”. The assertion of the state government that development by
itself will heal the wounds does not seem to be realistic. The Special Rapporteur believes that it
is crucial to recognise that development without a policy of inclusiveness of all communities will
only aggravate resentments.
38. During her visit to Gujarat, the Special Rapporteur was also disturbed that at various
meetings with members of civil society, plain-clothed government agents took names of her
interlocutors and also made their presence felt afterwards. On several occasions, the Special
Rapporteur had to insist that police officers left the room during her non-governmental meetings.
The terms of reference for fact-finding missions by Special Rapporteurs (E/CN.4/1998/45,
appendix V) guarantee confidential and unsupervised contact of the Special Rapporteur with
witnesses and other private persons. Furthermore, she would like to remind the authorities in
Gujarat of the Government’s assurance according to these terms of reference “that no persons,
official or private individuals who have been in contact with the special rapporteur/representative
in relation to the mandate will for this reason suffer threats, harassment or punishment or be
subjected to judicial proceedings”.
(d)
The Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims)
Bill 2005
39. In December 2005, the Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of
Victims) Bill was introduced in the Parliament but has not yet been adopted. The Bill provides
for (a) prevention and control of communal violence; (b) speedy investigation and trials; and
(c) rehabilitation of victims. Furthermore, the state government could declare an area as
communally disturbed under certain conditions. The district magistrate or the competent
authority appointed by the state government could take measures such as regulating assembly,
directing persons to deposit their arms or searching premises to control communal violence.
40. However, various civil society organizations have criticized the Bill for its failure to
dismantle impunity, state collusion or redress gender based crimes. They have also voiced their
concern that the sweeping powers given by the Bill to state governments could be misused to
intimidate members of the minority community. Furthermore, the National Commission for

A/HRC/10/8/Add.3
page 15

Minorities made several suggestions16 for amendments to the Bill. For example it has proposed
that those found guilty of involvement in communal violence and indicted by the special courts
should be debarred permanently from government jobs and from contesting any public office. In
addition, there should be a provision whereby the state government concerned should have to
rebuild or cause to have rebuilt the religious property or place of worship damaged or destroyed
during sectarian violence. The Bill should also provide for public recognition of
non-governmental organizations and individuals who have helped in relief measures in the
aftermath of sectarian violence.

(e) Prime Minister’s New 15 Point Programme for Welfare of Minorities (2006)
41. The Special Rapporteur would like to acknowledge the Prime Minister’s New 15 Point
Programme for Welfare of Minorities, which unequivocally states that the prevention and control
of communal riots is a basic duty of the State. This programme, as adopted by the cabinet of the
central government on 22 June 2006, notes that minority communities have suffered loss of lives
and property on account of communal violence in the past decades and that the welfare of
minority communities is inextricably linked with the effectiveness of measures adopted to
address this issue. It furthermore emphasizes that district and police officials of the highest
known efficiency, impartiality and secular record must be posted in areas which have been
identified as communally sensitive and riot prone (point 13). With regard to prosecution for
communal offences, the programme indicates that special courts or courts specifically earmarked
to try communal offences should be set up so that offenders are brought to justice speedily
(point 14). Finally, the programme states that victims of communal riots should be given
immediate relief and provided prompt and adequate financial assistance for their rehabilitation
(point 15).
3. Freedom of religion or belief in Jammu and Kashmir
42. The Special Rapporteur would like to refer to her predecessor’s report concerning freedom
of religion or belief in Jammu and Kashmir, for example with regard to discrimination
experienced by Muslims, the expulsion of Kashmiri Pandits (Hindus) in the 1990s and attacks
against places of worship in the context of the armed conflict.17 Mr. Amor had urged all the
parties concerned to act calmly and refrain from exacerbating religious problems so as to ensure
that immutable religious principles are not affected by political considerations at the expense of
the religious rights of the communities and, more generally, of tolerance and non-discrimination
based on religion or belief.
43. The population of Jammu and Kashmir is still divided on religious lines. The Muslim
community remains vulnerable to excesses of the security forces, while the entire population is a
victim of violence perpetrated by militant groups of Muslims. The Special Rapporteur was told
16 National Commission for Minorities, Suggestions of the NCM for amendments to “The
Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill, 2005” (available
online at http://ncm.nic.in/suggestion.html).

17 See E/CN.4/1997/91/Add.1, paras. 27, 34-36, 48-54, 90 and 98.

A/HRC/10/8/Add.3
page 16

by many of her interlocutors during the mission that tensions in Jammu and Kashmir were
decreasing as a result of the de-escalation of violence in recent years. However, there still
remains deep bitterness among members of the Muslim and Hindu communities, both against
each other and against the Government.

44. Muslims living in Srinagar provided information on several documented incidents relating
to extrajudicial executions, torture, enforced disappearances and rape committed by the security
forces against Muslims and they alleged that these acts were perpetrated against members of
their community due to their religious background. Furthermore, they submitted that many of
them had been denied entry into hotels while travelling to other parts of India simply because
their passports indicated a Muslim name and Srinagar as their place of birth.
45. A number of Hindu leaders expressed their mistrust of Muslims living in Srinagar. They
remain hurt at the use of violence and threats hurled at the Kashmiri Pandits, who were
eventually left no option but to be evacuated from Srinagar in the 1990s. While many of the
Kashmiri Pandits remain internally displaced,18 there have also been public statements inviting
them to return to Kashmir.
46. Since June 2008, however, it is reported that tensions and violence in Jammu and Kashmir
have increased subsequent to a controversy about a transfer of land to the Shri Amarnath Shrine
Board, which was constituted in 2000 by the state legislature to oversee the pilgrimage to a
Hindu shrine in the Himalayas. In a press statement of 27 August 2008, the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights voiced concerns about the violent protests that had reportedly
led to civilian casualties as well as restrictions on the right to freedom of assembly and
expression.
4. Negative impact of laws on religious conversion in several states
47. The Special Rapporteur is deeply concerned that laws and bills on religious conversion in
several Indian states are being used to vilify Christians and Muslims. The so-called “Freedom of
Religion Acts” have been adopted and implemented in the states of Orissa, Madhya Pradesh,
Chhattisgarh, Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh. Similar laws have been passed but are yet to be
implemented in the states of Arunachal Pradesh and Rajasthan.
48. While these laws appear to protect religious adherents only from attempts to induce
conversion by improper means, they have been criticized on the ground that the failure to clearly
define what makes a conversion improper bestows on the authorities unfettered discretion to
accept or reject the legitimacy of religious conversions. All of these laws include in the
definition of use of force any “threat of divine displeasure or social excommunication”.
Moreover, the terms inducement or allurement are defined to include the offer of any gift or
gratification, either in cash or in kind, as well as the grant of any benefit, either pecuniary or
otherwise. These broad and vague terms might be interpreted to cover the expression of many
18 At the end of the year 2007, there were reportedly 55,456 Kashmiri migrant families, of
whom 34,878 families were living in Jammu and 19,338 families in Delhi (Union Ministry of
Home Affairs, Government of India, Annual Report 2007-08, p. 8).

A/HRC/10/8/Add.3
page 17

religious beliefs. In addition, some provisions are discriminatory in giving preferential treatment
to re-conversions, for example by stipulating that returning to the forefathers’ original religion or
to one’s own original religion shall not be construed as conversion.19

49. Furthermore, the requirement of advance notice or prior permission seems to be unduly
onerous for the individual who intends to convert. Any state inquiry into the substantive beliefs
and motivation for conversion is highly problematic since it may lead to interference with the
internal and private realm of the individual’s belief (forum internum). This approach is
aggravated if such a Freedom of Religion Act awards specific protection to the state government
and its officers against prosecution or legal proceedings with regard to “anything done in good
faith or intended to be done under the Act or any rule made thereunder”.20 Moreover, it seems
unclear who may bring an action for, or lodge an appeal against, decisions with regard to the
permissibility of a religious conversion. The Special Rapporteur would like to reiterate that any
concern raised with regard to certain conversions or how they might be accomplished should
primarily be raised by the alleged victim.
50. Even in the Indian states which have adopted laws on religious conversion there seem to be
only few - if any - convictions for conversion by the use of force, inducement or fraudulent
means. In Orissa, for example, not a single infringement over the past ten years of the Orissa
Freedom of Religion Act 1967 could be cited or adduced by district officials and senior officials
in the State Secretariat.21 However, such laws or even draft legislation have had adverse
consequences for religious minorities and have reportedly fostered mob violence against them.
There is a risk that “Freedom of Religion Acts” may become a tool in the hands of those who
wish to use religion for vested interests or to persecute individuals on the ground of their religion
or belief. While persecution, violence or discrimination based on religion or belief need to be
sanctioned by law, the Special Rapporteur would like to caution against excessive or vague
legislation on religious issues which could create tensions and problems instead of solving them.
51. The National Commission for Minorities also has expressed its profound concern over the
attempt in such state laws on religious conversion to interfere with the basic right to freedom of
religion or belief. Provisions relating to notice and selective enquiry will allow state
functionaries to interfere in matters of personal life and religious beliefs, thus impinging on
freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion guaranteed by
article 25 of the Constitution. The Special Rapporteur would like to add that, according to
universally accepted international standards, the right to freedom of religion or belief includes
the right to adopt a religion of one’s choice, the right to change religion and the right to maintain
19 Section 2 of the Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Act 2006. However, the
state governor has withheld assent to this amendment Act. See also section 2 of the Gujarat
Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Bill 2006, which was ultimately withdrawn by the state
government on 10 March 2008.

20 See section 5C of the Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Act 2006.

21 National Commission for Minorities, Report of the Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion
(Amendment) Act 2006.e online at http://ncm.nic.in/pdf/orissa%20report.pdf).

A/HRC/10/8/Add.3
page 18

a religion. She highlights the fact that these aspects of the right to freedom of religion or belief
have an absolute character and are not subject to any limitation whatsoever. Mr. Amor already
stressed in an annual report to the Commission on Human Rights (E/CN.4/1997/91, para. 99)
that “it is not the business of the State or any other group or community to act as the guardian of
people’s consciences and encourage, impose or censure any religious belief or conviction”.

52. The Special Rapporteur would also like to refer to her report to the 60th session of the
General Assembly (A/60/399, paras. 40-68), in which she discussed the question of conversion
in greater detail. She notes that international human rights law clearly prohibits coercion that
would impair the right to have or adopt a religion or belief, including the use or threat of physical
force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers to adhere to their religious beliefs
and congregations, to recant their religion or belief or to convert. Similarly, a general prohibition
of conversion by a State necessarily enters into conflict with applicable international standards.
5. Religion-based personal laws
53. Conversions are also addressed in some religion-based personal laws and some provisions
may lead to discrimination, for example in matters of succession. Conversion to another religion
by one spouse is a ground for divorce in some areas of personal law.
54. There is concern amongst women’s rights activists regarding several discriminatory
aspects, especially on the basis of gender, within personal laws governing each religious
community. Women’s groups recognise that religious minorities, particularly members of the
Muslim community, have been opposed to the enactment of a uniform civil code mainly because
according to religious Muslim leaders this would infringe upon their religious freedom and might
be biased in favour of the majority religion. Their arguments are nonetheless challenged by many
Muslims as well. The debate on upholding personal laws became heated after the Shah Bano
judgement, where the Supreme Court of India confirmed that Muslims were subject to the
secular criminal law of maintenance in the Criminal Procedure Code 1973.22 The Supreme Court
deprecated Muslim personal law for denying maintenance to a destitute woman by her former
husband three months after their divorce. This judgement was not well-received by some Muslim
groups and subsequently the Indian Parliament passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights
on Divorce) Act 1986, thus diluting the effect of the Supreme Court judgement. This Act gives
divorced Muslim women the right to “a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be
made and paid to her within the iddat23 period by her former husband”.
55. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board, constituted in 1972, led the agitation against
the Shah Bano judgement and arguably arrogated to itself the authority to speak on behalf of all
Muslims on matters of personal law. The Board also opposed a subsequent bill on compulsory
22 Supreme Court of India, Mohammad Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum and others,
judgement of 23 April 1985.

23 For a definition of “iddat” see section 2 (b) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on
Divorce) Act 1986.

A/HRC/10/8/Add.3
page 19

registration of marriages, arguing that a large number of Muslims in India were illiterate and
might not be able to abide by the law. Women activists, on the other hand, advanced the very
same reason in favour of a compulsory registration of marriages in order to protect the legal
status of women and they subsequently set up parallel Muslim women personal law boards. They
pointed out that women within religious minorities suffered from multiple discrimination, both
as a religious minority and due to their gender within their own community. They argued that the
secular nature of the state must also apply to women, while still respecting religious rights of all
individuals, and that the option of invoking alternative secular family laws was not sufficient
since most women remain disempowered and the ultimate decision of selecting a legal system
did not effectively lie with them. In addition, men mostly prefer to register their marriages under
personal laws because of the preferential treatment they are entitled to under these laws
especially in matters of inheritance.

56. Some Indian states have enacted laws to make the registration of marriages compulsory,
yet there is no national legislation to this effect. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur would like
to refer to the concluding comments of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination
against Women, in which it expressed concern “that failure to register marriages may also
prejudice the inheritance rights of women” (A/55/38, para. 62) and recommended that “the State
party take proactive measures to speedily enact legislation to require compulsory registration of
all marriages, work with states and union territories to effectively implement such legislation and
to consider withdrawing its reservation to article 16 (2)” of the Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination against Women (A/62/38, para. 196).
57. During her visit, the Special Rapporteur also received reports of violence and rape, for
example in Uttar Pradesh, as a reaction to cases of intermarriage between believers of different
religions or castes. Acts of violence continue to occur while perpetrators are dealt with some
sympathy by the law enforcement agents. This bias is deep-rooted in certain sections of society
and it makes the protection of the victims even more difficult. In this regard it seems important
to apply a gender perspective and to protect women effectively against any forms of violence or
discrimination.
58. The visual arts industry seems to face difficulties when producing films which deal with
cases of intermarriage, especially when the movie’s story involves a Muslim woman who would
like to marry a Hindu man. The Special Rapporteur was informed that some films are effectively
censored or even banned by non-State actors due to intimidation and mob pressure. Regrettably,
professionals of the visual arts industry seem to routinely seek the approval of self-appointed
custodians of religious sentiments before finalising a film which touches upon communal issues.
A number of film producers and directors confirmed to the Special Rapporteur that they felt
compelled to get their scripts cleared by a Hindu leader in Mumbai in order to avoid subsequent
mob violence. This shows how religious intolerance might adversely affect cultural and
commercial activities. At the same time, culture and media may be used as powerful tools to
foster mutual tolerance, respect and understanding. The Special Rapporteur would like to
emphasize that there are a number of positive examples where Indian films contributed to public
education with regard to religious tolerance and inter-communal harmony.

A/HRC/10/8/Add.3
page 20

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
59. Historically, India has been home to believers of a whole range of religions and beliefs
and India’s society is still characterized by a remarkable religious diversity. The Supreme
Court has recently emphasized that “India is a country of people with the largest number
of religions and languages living together and forming a Nation”. The Special Rapporteur
would like to acknowledge that such diversity poses particular challenges for the executive,
legislative and judicial branches. There are democratic safeguards within the political
system and the institutions have accumulated a vast experience in protecting human rights.
Many of the Special Rapporteur’s interlocutors have pointed to the positive impact of
Indian secularism as embodied in the Constitution as well as to the high degree of human
rights activism in India.
60. The central Government has developed a comprehensive policy pertaining to
minorities, including religious ones. In this context, the Special Rapporteur would like to
laud the Prime Minister’s New 15 Point Programme for Welfare of Minorities as well as
various reports on religious minorities, for example the reports issued by the committees
headed by Justice Rajinder Sachar in 2006 and by Justice Renganath Misra in 2007. Such
committees mandated by the Government are good examples of mechanisms put in place to
analyse the situation and put forward recommendations for Government action. Concrete
follow-up to such recommendations both at the national and at the state levels seems vital
in order to address the problems identified in these reports.
61. The National Commission for Minorities, too, has taken up several challenges. Their
members took prompt action and issued independent reports on incidents of communal
violence with concrete recommendations. However, the performance of various state
human rights commissions depends very much on the selection of their members and the
importance various governments attach to their mandates. It is vital that members of such
commissions have acute sensitivity to human rights issues and they must reflect the
diversity of the state, particularly in terms of gender, since women are often subject to
religious intolerance. The inclusion of women in such commissions would be welcomed by
the Special Rapporteur as she noticed that women’s groups across religious lines were the
most active and effective human rights advocates in situations of communal tension in
India.
62. All of the Special Rapporteur’s interlocutors recognised that a comprehensive legal
framework to protect freedom of religion or belief exists, yet many of them - especially
from religious minorities - remained dissatisfied with its implementation. Since the political
system of India is of a federal nature and states have wide powers, including in the field of
law and order, the level of action of the Government to protect its citizens in terms of
freedom of religion or belief varies from state to state. The Special Rapporteur would like
to recognize the efforts and achievements of the central Government. However, several
issues of concern with regard to intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief
remain pertinent, especially in the context of certain states.

A/HRC/10/8/Add.3
page 21

63. Organised groups claiming roots in religious ideologies have unleashed an all-
pervasive fear of mob violence in many parts of the country. Law enforcement machinery
is often reluctant to take any action against individuals or groups that perpetrate violence
in the name of religion or belief. This institutionalised impunity for those who exploit
religion and impose their religious intolerance on others has made peaceful citizens,
particularly the minorities, vulnerable and fearful.
64. In this report the Special Rapporteur would also like to follow-up on her
predecessor’s country visit to India in 1996 and on his pertinent recommendations. As the
communal violence in Gujarat in 2002 evidences, Mr. Amor was unfortunately prophetic in
his country report, in which he expressed his fears that “something in the nature of the
Ayodhya incident will recur in the event of political exploitation of a situation”
(E/CN.4/1997/91/Add.1, para. 46). She is also very much concerned about the degree of
polarization in some pockets of different faith groups and about the danger of chain
reactions that can be triggered by communal tensions. The Special Rapporteur would like
to emphasize that there is at present a real risk that similar communal violence might
happen again unless political exploitation of communal distinctions is effectively prevented
and advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or
violence is adequately addressed.
65. It is a crucial - albeit difficult - task for the State and civil society to challenge the
forces of intolerance. The Special Rapporteur would like to refer to encouraging examples
where private individuals have come to each other’s rescue during communal violence,
crossing all religious boundaries. Indeed, a large number of victims in Gujarat recognised
the positive role played by some national media channels and other courageous individuals
who effectively saved lives during the communal violence in 2002.
66. The visual arts industry in India has played an important role in public education
regarding religious tolerance and can contribute to the prevention of communal tensions.
However, due to its visibility and potential impact on the population, the visual arts
industry remains a target of mob pressure and intimidation by non-State actors. While any
advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or
violence needs to be prosecuted, this subtle form of self-censorship begs the question how
the State could prevent the build-up of an atmosphere of fear of repercussions and mob
pressure.
67. The Special Rapporteur appeals to the Indian authorities to take quick and effective
measures to protect members of religious minorities from any attacks and to step up efforts
to prevent communal violence. Legal aid programmes should be made available to survivor
groups and minority communities in order to effectively prosecute and document cases of
communal violence. Furthermore, a central telephone hotline might be set up to accept
complaints and to register allegations concerning police atrocities. Any specific legislation
on communal violence should take into account the concerns of religious minorities and
must not reinforce impunity of communalised police forces at the state level.

A/HRC/10/8/Add.3
page 22

68. While inquiries into large-scale communal violence should not be done in indecent
haste, they should be accorded the highest priority and urgency by the investigation teams,
the judiciary and any commission appointed to study the situation. Furthermore, the State
could envisage setting up of truth and reconciliation commissions to create a historical
account, contribute to healing and encourage reconciliation in long-standing conflicts, such
as the one in Jammu and Kashmir.
69. Concerning vote-bank politics and electoral focus on inter-communal conflicts, the
Special Rapporteur would like to reiterate her predecessor’s suggestion to debar political
parties from the post-election use of religion for political ends. In addition, the
Representation of the Peoples Act 1951 should be scrupulously implemented, including the
provision on disqualification for membership of parliament and state legislatures of
persons who promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens
of India on grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language.
70. The laws and bills on religious conversion in several Indian states should be
reconsidered since they raise serious human rights concerns, in particular due to the use of
discriminatory provisions and vague or overbroad terminology. A public debate on the
necessity of such laws, more information on their implementation and safeguards to avoid
abuse of these laws seem vital to prevent further vilification of certain religious
communities. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that such legislation might be perceived
as giving some moral standing to those who wish to stir up mob violence. She would like to
emphasize that the right to adopt a religion of one’s choice, to change or to maintain a
religion is a core element of the right to freedom of religion or belief and may not be
limited in any way by the State. She also reiterates that peaceful missionary activities and
other forms of propagation of religion are part of the right to manifest one’s religion or
belief, which may be limited only under restrictive conditions.
71. The Special Rapporteur would like to recall the recommendation by the Committee
on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (A/62/18, para. 179) to restore the eligibility
for affirmative action benefits of all members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
having converted to another religion. The Special Rapporteur recommends that the
Scheduled Caste status be delinked from the individual’s religious affiliation.
72. With regard to religion-based personal laws, the Special Rapporteur would like to
recommend that such laws be reviewed to prevent discrimination based on religion or
belief as well as to ensure gender equality. Legislation should specifically protect the rights
of religious minorities and of women, including of those within the minority communities.
73. In order to protect and empower members of religious minorities, the State should be
proactive and take appropriate measures against all forms of intolerance and
discrimination based on religion or belief which manifest themselves in school curricula,
textbooks and teaching methods as well as those disseminated by the media and the new
information technologies, including Internet. Also in line with the Final Document of the
International Consultative Conference on School Education in Relation to Freedom of
Religion or Belief, Tolerance and Non-Discrimination (E/CN.4/2002/73, appendix), the

A/HRC/10/8/Add.3
page 23

Government should favourably consider providing teachers and students with voluntary
opportunities for meetings and exchanges with their counterparts of different religions or
beliefs as well as facilitating educational study abroad. Furthermore, specific education
components on mass media could be envisaged in order to help the students to select and
analyse the information conveyed by the mass media concerning religions and beliefs.

74. Finally, the State, non-governmental organizations and all members of civil society
are encouraged to join their efforts with a view to taking advantage of the media and
cultural institutions to provide the individual with relevant knowledge in the field of
freedom of religion or belief. In this regard, setting up educational institutions for the
whole South Asian region or encouraging joint movie productions might contribute to
strengthening peace, understanding and tolerance among individuals, groups and nations.

Text of President Barack Hussein Obama's first speech

2009-01-21T07:58:00.000-08:00

Text of President Barack Obama's inaugural address on Tuesday, as delivered.

___

My fellow citizens:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we the people have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land — a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America — they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted — for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sanh.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act — not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. All this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions — who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. Those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control — and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart — not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers ... our founding fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all the other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort — even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West — know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment — a moment that will define a generation — it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends — hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism — these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence — the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed — why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent Mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

"Let it be told to the future world ... that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet (it)."

America, in the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.

Satyam Computer Chief Mr. Ramalinga Raju's open letter

2009-01-08T03:47:00.000-08:00

It is a very sad day for the Indian companies as the open letter of Mr. Ramalinga Raju is released to the public domain. Deep sympathies to those that have invested in Satyam and are in losses:

The interesting pointers about the letter are:

1. The tenacity to write such a open letter

2. The tone is very good and sounding sincere

3. Great example of protecting your team members that work with you.

4. Wanting to abide by the penalties and the legal processes that the law of the
land will give.

So sad that these fictitious figures were passed by the CFO Srinivas and also the auditors.

If you are interested the full text of the letter pasted below:

Sam

Text of the letter of Mr. B. Ramalinga Raju

To: The Board Members
From B. Ramalinga Raju

Chairman, Satyam Computer Services Ltd. January 7, 2009

Dear Board Members,

It is with deep regret, and tremendous burden that I am carrying on my conscience, that I would like to bring the following facts to your notice:

1. The Balance Sheet carries as of September 30, 2008

a. Inflated (non-existent) cash and bank balances of 50.40 billion rupees ($1.04 billion) (as against 53.61 billion reflected in the books).

b. An accrued interest of 3.76 billion rupees which is non-existent.

c. An understated liability of 12.30 billion rupees on account of funds arranged by me.

d. An overstated debtors position of 4.90 billion rupees (as against 26.51 billion reflected in the books)

2. For the September quarter (Q2) we reported a revenue of 27.00 billion rupees and an operating margin of 6.49 billion rupees (24 pct of revenues) as against the actual revenues of 21.12 billion rupees and an actual operating margin of 610 million rupees (3 percent of revenues). This has resulted in artificial cash and bank balances going up by 5.88 billion rupees in Q2 alone.

The gap in the Balance Sheet has arisen purely on account of inflated profits over a period of last several years (limited only to Satyam standalone, books of subsidiaries reflecting true performance). What started as a marginal gap between actual operating profit and the one reflected in the books of accounts continued to grow over the years. It has attained unmanageable proportions as the size of company operations grew significantly (annualized revenue run rate of 112.76 billion rupees in the September quarter, 2008, and official reserves of 83.92 billion rupees). The differential in the real profits and the one reflected in the books was further accentuated by the fact that the company had to carry additional resources and assets to justify higher level of operations -- thereby significantly increasing the costs.

Every attempt made to eliminate the gap failed. As the promoters held a small percentage of equity, the concern was that poor performance would result in a take-over, thereby exposing the gap. It was like riding a tiger, not knowing how to get off without being eaten.

The aborted Maytas acquisition deal was the last attempt to fill the fictitious assets with real ones. Maytas' investors were convinced that this is a good divestment opportunity and a strategic fit. Once Satyam's problem was solved, it was hoped that Maytas' payments can be delayed. But that was not to be. What followed in the last several days is common knowledge. I would like the Board to know:

1. That neither myself, nor the Managing Director (including our spouses) sold any shares in the last eight years -- excepting for a small proportion declared and sold for philanthropic purposes.

2. That in the last two years a net amount of 12.30 billion rupees was arranged to Satyam (not reflected in the books of Satyam) to keep the operations going by resorting to pledging all the promoter shares and raising funds from known sources by giving all kinds of assurances (Statement enclosed, only to the members of the board). Significant dividend payments, acquisitions, capital expenditure to provide for growth did not help matters. Every attempt was made to keep the wheel moving and to ensure prompt payment of salaries to the associates. The last straw was the selling of most of the pledged share by the lenders on account of margin triggers.

3. That neither me, nor the Managing Director took even one rupee/dollar from the company and have not benefitted in financial terms on account of the inflated results.

4. None of the board members, past or present, had any knowledge of the situation in which the company is placed. Even business leaders and senior executives in the company, such as, Ram Mynampati, Subu D, T.R. Anand, Keshab Panda, Virender Agarwal, A.S. Murthy, Hari T, S.V. Krishnan, Vijay Prasad, Manish Mehta, Murali V, Sriram Papani, Kiran Kavale, Joe Lagiola, Ravindra Penumetsa; Jayaraman and Prabhakar Gupta are unaware of the real situation as against the books of accounts. None of my or Managing Director's immediate or extended family members has any idea about these issues.

Having put these facts before you, I leave it to the wisdom of the board to take the matters forward. However, I am also taking the liberty to recommend the following steps:

1. A Task Force has been formed in the last few days to address the situation arising out of the failed Maytas acquisition attempt. This consists of some of the most accomplished leaders of Satyam:, Subu D, T.R. Anand, Keshab Panda and Virender Agarwal, representing business functions, and A.S. Murthy, Hari T and Murali V representing support functions. I suggest that Ram Mynampati be made the Chairman of this Task Force to immediately address some of the operational matters on hand. Ram can also act as an interim CEO reporting to the board.

2. Merrill Lynch can be entrusted with the task of quickly exploring some Merger opportunities.

3. You may have a restatement of accounts' prepared by the auditors in light of the facts that I have placed before you.

I have promoted and have been associated with Satyam for well over twenty years now. I have seen it grow from few people to 53,000 people, with 185 Fortune 500 companies as customers and operations in 66 countries. Satyam has established an excellent leadership and competency base at all levels. I sincerely apologize to all Satyamites and stakeholders, who have made Satyam a special organization, for the current situation. I am confident they will stand by the company in this hour of crisis.

In light of the above, I fervently appeal to the board to hold together to take some important steps. Mr. T.R. Prasad is well placed to mobilize support from the government at this crucial time. With the hope that members of the Task Force and the financial advisor, Merrill Lynch (now Bank of America) will stand by the company at this crucial hour, I am marking copies of this statement to them as well.

Under the circumstances, I am tendering my resignation as the chairman of Satyam and shall continue in this position only till such time the current board is expanded. My continuance is just to ensure enhancement of the board over the next several days or as early as possible.

l am now prepared to subject myself to the laws of the land and face consequences thereof.

(B. Ramalinga Raju)

Copies marked to:

1. Chairman SEBI

2. Stock Exchanges

End of the text of the Letter of Mr. Ramalingaraju

Some of the very interesting Greetings that I received this year

2009-01-03T22:32:00.000-08:00

So many have sent warm and personal and official greetings. To follow some efficient people I could reply to ALL the wishes that came through emails. Several SMSs also were replied. But a few were deleted by mistake and could not reply.

Two of the very interesting messages:

1. I wish you 12 Months of Happiness
52 Weeks of Fun
365 Days of Success
8760 Hours of Good Health
52600 Minutes of Good Luck
3,153,600 Seconds of Joy

2. Wishing You a blessed new year and a Year free of EXPLOITATION from Religious
leaders.

Best Wishes for the New Year 2009

2009-01-03T21:24:00.000-08:00

Friends,

The year 2008 has left us with many issues.

1. The wonderful victory of Barrack Obama as the President of United States of America.

A glowing tribute to a vibrant democracy and a hope for all the dominated peoples of the world including the 250 million (SC/STs) Dalits of India. There is hope and a new day is possible.

2. The global recession and a major crisis in the financial market. About 23 Million Dollars is lost by Anil Ambani and the top 50 Richest persons of India that lost the money in the recession were shown in the media time and again.

We need to yet to see any media that will highlight the top 50 poor persons in India that cannot have proper meals a day or have no where to sleep. If they do this may be they would not have any one watching their TV or subscribing to their print media!!

Happy New Year to you