[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 14]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 20157-20158]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           DEMOCRACY IN INDIA

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. DAN BURTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, July 23, 2007

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, as many of our colleagues in 
this House know, India prides itself on being the world's most populous 
democracy. Although relations between India and the United States have 
been rocky in the past, since 2004 Washington and New Delhi have been 
pursuing a ``strategic partnership'' based on shared values such as 
democracy, multiculturalism, and rule of law. In addition, numerous 
economic, security and globally focused initiatives, including plans 
for ``full civilian nuclear energy cooperation,'' are currently 
underway. I support

[[Page 20158]]

these initiatives but I remain deeply concerned about the numerous 
serious problems that remain when it comes to India's respect for the 
rights of all of her citizens.
  In fact, according to the Department of State's 2006 Human Rights 
Report for India: ``Major problems included extrajudicial killings of 
persons in custody, disappearances, torture and rape by police and 
security forces. The lack of accountability permeated the government 
and security forces, creating an atmosphere in which human rights 
violations often went unpunished. Although the country has numerous 
laws protecting human rights, enforcement was lax and convictions were 
rare.''
  Again, these are not my words; this is from the State Department's 
official report on Human Rights. I firmly believe that as the United 
States and India move towards greater cooperation in numerous endeavors 
we must at the same time continue to insist that India adhere to the 
full expression of democracy and basic human rights; especially for 
members of ethnic or religious minorities.
  For example, according to reports, on April 20, 2006, Sikh activist 
Daljit Singh Bittu was arrested after making a speech. He was charged 
with sedition and ``making inflammatory speeches.'' Mr. Bittu's crime 
was to speak out against the acquisition of the land of poor farmers by 
the State of Punjab on behalf of private business firms. Fortunately, 
Mr. Bittu was ultimately released on bail. The issue of government 
taking land by eminent domain for private usage is also extremely 
controversial in this country, but to the best of my knowledge no one 
has ever been charged with sedition for speaking out about it. On June 
2nd of this year, Daljit Singh Bittu, was again arrested and charged 
with sedition. What did Mr. Bittu do this time? He participated in a 
peaceful march protesting government inaction on several issues where 
some of the marchers--and by all accounts not Mr. Bittu--allegedly 
expressed their desire--unrelated to the topic of the march--for an 
independent Sikh nation of Khalistan by shouting ``Khalistan 
Zindabad.''
  As I understand it, according to the Indian Supreme Court in the case 
Balwant Singh vs. State of Punjab, the mere public use of the slogan 
``Khalistan Zinabad'' is not illegal; and as the march itself was 
peaceful, it is difficult to understand how the Indian Government 
believes Mr. Bittu did anything that can, to the best of my knowledge, 
be legitimately considered a crime--much less sedition--under United 
States, International, or Indian law.
  What is really at issue here, Madam Speaker, is the fact that India 
is a nation comprised of a hodgepodge of ethnicities, some of whom do 
not wish to be a part of Hindu-dominated India. The conflict over the 
Muslim-majority region of Jammu and Kashmir is perhaps most familiar to 
Americans as it has sparked three major wars between India and 
Pakistan, but it is by no means the only ethnic or religious conflict 
roiling India. In 1948, India promised a free and fair plebiscite on 
the status of Kashmir. No such vote has ever been held. As our Nation 
fights to spread democracy to oppressed people across the globe, why 
don't we insist on a simple democratic vote, with international 
monitors, in Kashmir, in Punjab, Khalistan, in predominantly Christian 
Nagalim, and wherever people seek their freedom from India? The answer 
tragically is all too obvious, in the world of international diplomacy 
and geopolitics, sometimes expedience and ``good relations'' trump 
freedom and human rights.
  I do not know whether the plebiscite promised to the people of 
Kashmir will ever happen, and I do not know whether a Sikh nation of 
Khalistan or a Christian nation of Nagalim will ever come into 
existence; but I do know that the Muslims of Kashmir, the Sikhs of 
Punjab/Khalistan and the Christians of Nagalim should never have to 
live in fear for freely and peacefully expressing their opinions.

                          ____________________