India treats its minorities better than Pakistan

India which is a secular and democratic republic is often questioned about its treatment of Muslims by its Islamic neighbour Pakistan, However Pakistan often forgets about its own treatment of minority groups, whose rights are far more disrespected in Pakistan rather than in India.Pakistanis are never falling behind to tell the World that a Hindu Nationalist Party is now in power in India however even this Hindu Nationalist Party was the one that nominated APJ Abdul Kalam, a Muslim, for the prestigious post of the President in its last term. Furthermore, there have been 2 previous Muslim Presidents in India. In comparison to that the highest ranking Hindu Politician in Pakistan was Jogendra Nath Mandal who was the Minister of Law and Labour that too way back in 1950. Let us get fake Pakistani liberal concern out of our way. Pakistan was born out of the notion that Hindus and Muslims cannot live together. India lives on as proof that the two-nation notion was just exploitation of religious emotions. India has not withered away; on the contrary, it has prospered.We have hit rough patches off and on but compared to Pakistan, we enjoy more freedom and greater security. Minorities, especially Muslims, do find the going tough sometimes, but they have equal rights.The current mood of despondency will also give way to hope and how soon that happens depends upon the new dispensation.But Indians do not have to denounce a minority to qualify for an Indian passport.Every Pakistani has to sign on a form that outcasts Ahmadis to apply for a passport.India has had its majority-minority divide, sometimes with bloody consequences, but we have not reached that level of disgrace. Nosy neighbours forget to look at their own backyards. Muslims die in dozens every day in Pakistan because government policy has nurtured and used terror as a tool against its neighbours.Now let's deal with our own. Is it as bad as critics claim? Let's first recognise that 22 Muslims in a 543-member house is a figure that sounds under-representative. It's important to recognise that.But looks are deceptive. That the 22 Muslims represent Muslims is a flawed idea. They represent their constituencies, people who voted for them and people who didn't. They do not represent Muslims. Like a Hindu MP does not represent Hindus. Mulayam Singh Yadav of the SP lost many seats in Uttar Pradesh probably because he was perceived as representing only Muslims. Is he counted among the 22?Shahnawaz Hussain of the BJP lost the election, but had he won, would he represent Hindus or Muslims? His party is perceived to be representing Hindus.If that is the case, Bulo Mandal, who defeated Hussain, is a RJD candidate, who won because of Muslim support, will end up representing Hindus and not his core voters.So is the meagre figure of 22 not a cause of concern? It is.But contrary to what many believe, it is not a crisis of Muslim representation in parliament. It is symptomatic of a crisis of leadership in the community. The quality of leadership, the Sangh-inspired discourse of otherness, the skewed and much-abused politics of secularism - all keep the community in perpetual panic.The rise of a party that has many right-wing, venom-spewing Giriraj Singhs does scare the hell out of not just Muslims or minorities but also the majority of right-thinking people.Even the Right-thinking among them feel disgusted. But it's not the Togadias, Girirajs, Owaisis or other loonies of the kind who decide state policy. It's the state governments and the government in Delhi. Modi has a record to set straight. The ghosts of 2002 will not go away with a victory. He will triumph only when he finds that much-needed balance. He is here with a popular mandate. He has been saying the right things. Now, he has to be seen doing the right things.The fear, though exaggerated, is not baseless. It's time to face that fear. It's time for Modi to address the concern. That there are only 22 Muslim MPs in the Lok Sabha is not one of them. The Electoral Process for Non Muslims is within itself controversial In 1980s Zia ul-Haq introduced a system under which non-Muslims could vote for only candidates of their own religion. Seats were reserved for minorities in the national and provincial assemblies. Government officials stated that the separate electorates system is a form of affirmative action designed to ensure minority representation, and that efforts are underway to achieve a consensus among religious minorities on this issue. But critics argue that under this system Muslim candidates no longer had any incentive to pay attention to the minorities. Pakistan's separate electoral system for different religions has been described as 'political Apartheid'. Hindu community leader Sudham Chand protested against the system but was murdered. In 1999, Pakistan abolished this system. On 28 June 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that non-Muslims may vote for any candidate at the Union Council level for seats reserved for mayor, deputy mayor, laborers, farmers, and women. However, non-Muslims still are barred from voting for Muslim candidates who run for general seats. Three of the five rounds of elections already had occurred prior to this ruling. Few non-Muslims are active in the country's mainstream political parties. Christian and Hindu leaders conducted a boycott to protest against the system of separate electorates during the local elections. In October 2000, a coalition of Christian non-governmental organizations sent a petition to Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, requesting a dialogue between the government and minority religious leaders on the controversy. The government did not acknowledge receipt of this petition. The Pakistani position on Ahemadis is even more controversial.The Pakistan government does not ban formally the public practice of the Ahmadiyya, but its practice is restricted severely by law. A 1974 constitutional amendment declared Ahmadis to be a non-Muslim minority because, according to the Government, they do not accept Muhammad as the last prophet of Islam. However, Ahmadis consider themselves to be Muslims and observe Islamic practices. In 1984, under Ordinance XX the government added Section 298(c) into the Penal Code, prohibiting Ahmadis from calling themselves Muslim or posing as Muslims; from referring to their faith as Islam; from preaching or propagating their faith; from inviting others to accept the Ahmadi faith; and from insulting the religious feelings of Muslims. This section of the Penal Code has caused problems for Ahmadis, particularly the provision that forbids them from "directly or indirectly" posing as Muslims. The Ahmadis must not use the standard Muslim greeting form and must not name their children Muhammad. The constitutionality of Section 286(c) was upheld in a split-decision Supreme Court case in 1996. The punishment for violation of this section is imprisonment for up to 3 years and a fine. It has been alleged that this provision has been used extensively by the Government and anti-Ahmadi religious groups to target and harass Ahmadis. Ahmadis also are prohibited from holding any conferences or gatherings. Doesn't all this effectively equal to the suppression of the Ahemadis? India on the other hand doesn't ban or censor any religious group from any such activities. Pakistani Penal Code articles 298 and 295 and its sections are the very proof of religious intolerance in the Pakistani Constitution. No such articles are present in the Indian Constitution. With this I would like to end by Argument on the Treatment of religious minorities in India and Pakistan.