IV 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 417 

Praising India’s rich religious diversity and commitment to tolerance and 

equality, and reaffirming the need to protect the rights and freedoms 

of religious minorities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 18, 2013 

Mr. PITTS (for himself, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. WOLF, Mr. SIRES, Mr. MEADOWS, 

Mr. MORAN, Mr. HUELSKAMP, Mr. LEWIS, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. GRIJALVA, and Mr. POLIS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by 

the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

RESOLUTION 

Praising India’s rich religious diversity and commitment to 

tolerance and equality, and reaffirming the need to protect the rights and freedoms of religious minorities. 

Whereas India is the world’s largest democracy, with a constitution that protects the fundamental rights of all citizens, including the right of each citizen to profess, propagate, and practice his or her own religion; 

Whereas India is the birthplace of several of the world’s great 

religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and 

Jainism; 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 417 IH 

Whereas India and the United States enjoy a strong historic 

relationship and believe deeply in the causes of liberty, 

justice, and equality under the law; 

Whereas India and the United States have rich multiethnic 

societies and share a commitment to the values of tolerance, pluralism, and religious diversity; 

Whereas the population of India includes a Hindu majority, 

the third largest Muslim population in the world, a Christian population of more than 25,000,000, a Sikh population of more than 19,000,000, and dozens of other 

faiths; 

Whereas contrary to the tolerant and pluralistic traditions of 

the Hindu faith, strands of the Hindu nationalist movement have advanced a divisive and violent agenda that 

has harmed the social fabric of India; 

Whereas on December 6, 1992, a large mob destroyed the 

historic 16th-century Babri Mosque in Ayodhya, which 

was located on a site claimed to be the birthplace of the 

Hindu god Rama; 

Whereas according to the Congressional Research Service, 

‘‘ensuing communal riots left many hundreds dead in cities across India’’ and ‘‘Mumbai was especially hard hit 

as the site of coordinated 1993 terrorist bombings believed to have been a retaliatory strike by Muslims’’; 

Whereas on February 27, 2002, in the city of Godhra in the 

western state of Gujarat, India, 58 Hindus were burnt 

alive in a train coach fire, and communal violence erupted in several Gujarati cities; 

Whereas in the International Religious Freedom Report of 

2003, the United States Department of State found that 

‘‘In Gujarat the worst religious violence directed against 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 417 IH 

Muslims by Hindus took place in February and March 

2002, leaving an estimated 2,000 dead and 100,000 displaced into refugee camps . . . Christians were also victims in Gujarat, and many churches were destroyed’’; 

Whereas the Indian magazine Tehelka reported that many of 

the people who participated in the violence said it was 

possible only because of the connivance of the state police 

and Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi; 

Whereas the United States Government denied Minister Modi 

a visa to the United States in 2005 on the grounds of 

egregious religious freedom violations under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, the first and 

only time such a denial has been issued; 

Whereas 10 years after the violence took place, Human 

Rights Watch reported on February 24, 2012, that 

‘‘Modi has acted against whistleblowers while making no 

effort to prosecute those responsible for the anti-Muslim 

violence . . . Where justice has been delivered in Gujarat, it has been in spite of the state government, not because of it.’’; 

Whereas 10 years after the violence took place, Amnesty 

International reported on February 29, 2012, that at 

least 21,000 survivors and relatives of the victims remained in 19 transit relief camps; 

Whereas violence broke out between Christians and Hindus 

in the eastern state of Odisha in December 2007, with 

significant rioting and looting of shops and churches and 

more than 1,000 people displaced from their homes; 

Whereas the August 2008 murder of a prominent Hindu 

leader of Vishwa Hindu Parishad in Odisha sparked a 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

•HRES 417 IH 

violent campaign against Christians, although Maoist extremists claimed responsibility for the assassination; 

Whereas the United States Department of State reported 

that 40 people were killed, 134 were injured, churches 

and homes were destroyed, and more than 10,000 people 

fled the state; 

Whereas the Associated Press reported at the time that the 

violence provided ‘‘a window into India’s hidden fragility, 

its sometimes dangerous political climate, and the fierce 

historical divisions buried in its vast diversity’’; 

Whereas according to the United States Commission on 

International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), there was 

no immediate police or state government reaction to the 

Odisha violence, and religious leaders and aid agencies 

were denied access to provide care for the victims; 

Whereas the National Solidarity Forum, an independent Indian tribunal of former judges, journalists, and political 

analysts, concluded in 2010 that institutional bias on the 

part of the Odisha state government, its police, and judicial system, led to a lack of justice and accountability; 

Whereas the All India Christian Council, an Indian nongovernmental organization, reported in 2012 that state 

police documented an estimated 3,500 complaints related 

to the 2007 to 2008 Odisha violence, but only 827 cases 

were registered with local or state court structures; 

Whereas USCIRF found that the investigative and court 

structures the Government of India created in response 

to the communal violence in Gujarat and Odisha failed 

to end intimidation, harassment, and violence against religious minorities; 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
5 

•HRES 417 IH 

Whereas according to a 2012 report by the Pew Research 

Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life, India falls 

into a ‘‘high’’ category for government restrictions on religion and a ‘‘very high’’ category for religious social hostilities; 

Whereas nongovernmental organizations and Christian, Muslim, and Sikh communities reported an increase in religiously motivated harassment and violence over the last 

2 years, and expect it to increase in advance of the 2014 

general elections; 

Whereas on August 27, 2013, communal violence erupted in 

Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous 

state, with more than 60 Muslims and Hindus killed, 

50,000 people displaced, and thousands remaining in relief camps 2 months later; 

Whereas on September 18, 2013, a local court in 

Muzaffarnagar issued arrest warrants against 16 politicians and community leaders, including Bahujan Samaj 

Party parliamentarian Qadir Rana and Bharatiya Janata 

Party Legislative Assembly members Sangeet Som and 

Bhartendu Singh for inciting the violence; 

Whereas several states have ‘‘Freedom-of-Religion Laws’’, 

commonly referred to as anticonversion laws, that purport to ban forced conversions but actually are used to 

prevent certain religious groups from peacefully persuading others to change their religion; and 

Whereas USCIRF found in its 2013 Annual Report that 

‘‘states with these laws have higher incidents of intimidation, harassment and violence against religious minorities, particularly Christians, than states that do not.’’: 

Now, therefore, be it 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
6 

•HRES 417 IH 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes the suffering of all Indian citi3 zens who have been victims of religious violence, in4 cluding the victims of all faiths from the 1992 Babri 

5 Mosque riots, the 2002 Gujarat riots, the 2008 

6 Odisha riots, and violence that is ongoing today; 

7 (2) calls for religious freedom and related 

8 human rights to be included in the United States– 

9 India Strategic Dialogue, and for these issues to be 

10 raised directly with federal and state Indian Govern11 ment officials when appropriate; 

12 (3) shares the opinion of the United States De13 partment of State and the United States Commis14 sion on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) 

15 that the Gujarat government has not adequately 

16 pursued justice for the victims of the 2002 violence 

17 and remains concerned by reports from journalists 

18 and human rights groups about the complicity of 

19 local officials in the 2002 violence; 

20 (4) commends the United States Government 

21 for exercising its authority in 2005 under the Inter22 national Religious Freedom Act of 1998 to deny a 

23 United States visa to Narendra Modi on the grounds 

24 of religious freedom violations, and encourages it to 

25 review the applications of any individuals implicated 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
7 

•HRES 417 IH 

1 in religious freedom violations under the same stand2 ard; 

3 (5) commends the role of India’s National 

4 Human Rights Commission and the Indian Supreme 

5 Court, which has led to some convictions in Gujarat 

6 riot cases and the arrest of a few high-level leaders 

7 in the Gujarati administration; 

8 (6) urges India to increase training on human 

9 rights and religious freedom standards and practices 

10 for police and the judiciary, particularly in states 

11 with a history or likelihood of communal violence; 

12 (7) calls on Gujarat and other Indian states 

13 with anti-conversion laws to repeal such legislation 

14 and ensure freedom to practice, propagate, and pro15 fess ones’ religion as enshrined in the Indian con16 stitution; 

17 (8) urges the Government of India to empower 

18 the National Commission on Minorities with enforce19 ment mechanisms, such as the ability to conduct 

20 trials and hear appeals; 

21 (9) encourages the establishment of an impar22 tial body of interfaith religious leaders, human 

23 rights advocates, legal experts, and government offi24 cials to discuss and recommend actions to promote 

25 religious tolerance and understanding; and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
8 

•HRES 417 IH 

1 (10) urges all political parties and religious or2 ganizations to publicly oppose the exploitation of re3 ligious differences and denounce harassment and vi4 olence against religious minorities, especially in the 

5 run-up to India’s general elections in 2014. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS