The Uncared-for Plight of Uighur Muslims in China | Guest Post by Mahak Agarwal

  

Seven decades ago, the world witnessed a dreadful Human Rights violation. Hitler's regime pledged to wipe out every human belonging to the Jewish sect residing on the German Land. People were tormented, put in concentration camps, locked in gas chambers, and sometimes even executed publicly. After some of those deadly years, the international community lambasted Hitler's actions and pledged to prevent targeted hate crimes against communities. 

 

Seventy years later, here we are again. With its head buried in the sand, the international community chose to remain silent while Uighur Muslims in China face religious, cultural, and ethnic Genocide.

 

China, mainly dominated by the Han Chinese community, is also home to several ethnic minorities. The Uighurs are one such ethnic community, residing in Xinjiang province, which is also the largest autonomous province of China. Given the nature of China's powerful dictatorship regime, even a large population of around 10 million Uighurs living in this region could not escape the abominable cruelty that it subjects these people to.

There's no denying that the Dragon's actions, on many fronts, are becoming inhumane and barbaric. 

 

Who are Uighurs?

Uighurs are Sunni sect Muslims of Turkish ethnicity, recognized as native to the Xinjiang region. They constitute around 45% of the population of this region. They declared themselves independent in the 20th century; China took control of the area in 1949. Since then, the process of Sinicization (a method of bringing people of non-Chinese descent under the influence of Chinese culture) is getting into high gear. 

 

A look into Xinjiang Province

Xinjiang, as mentioned earlier, is the largest autonomous province of China. Since its annexation, the Chinese have been cautious about protecting Xinjiang due to its strategic importance. Landlocked from all sides, it is home to China's most important resources, i.e., one-third of China's natural gas and oil reserves, 60% of China's total cotton output, 38% of China's coal reserves, to name a few. Xinjiang sits at the heart of China's Belt and Road Initiative and acts as Beijing's gateway to Europe and Central Asia. This may be one reason for the insecurity of China's Communist Party (CCP) of lending out this region to a community of non-Chinese ethnicity. 

 

China's actions 

To be precise and apt: It is mercilessly killing, torturing, and wiping off a whole class. The persecution has been going on for a long time now. From demolishing over ten-thousand mosques to making Uighurs a victim of forced assimilation, CCP has manifested its diabolical character to the world. Humanity has again been forgotten as Uighurs are being looked down on by China's ruling party. 

 

The Uighur Muslims have been put in concentration camps, popularly called by CCP as "Re-Education Camps," "Joyful Training Schools," where Uighurs are forced to speak and act Chinese. In the name of 'Correcting Extremist Behaviour,' China subjects these Muslims to political indoctrination. The state surveillance system in the region doesn't let the Muslims carry out their religious and traditional practices. People aren't allowed to chant the Quran; men and women can't wear their formal dresses. Such is the stolidity exhibited in this country, seen nowhere else.

 

In order to shrink the Uighur population, women are either made to sleep with Han-Chinese men or are subjected to forced sterilization or abortion. What is it, if not a 'State-sanctioned rape'?

 

And the effects of this "Population Shrink Drive," as we may call it, is real. The number of Uighurs living in Xinjiang was 76% of the population back in 1949; it has now been reduced to just 40%. Out of around 10 million Muslims living in the region, about 2 million are behind bars for no rhyme or reason. Even those moving freely are under high state surveillance, curbing freedom in any form. 

 

The stance of the international community

The Islamic nations, the so-called 'Defenders of Faith,' measure the importance of brethren by China's cheques. Out of the 37 Muslim-majority countries that back Chinese suppression, 14 are members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. OIC, an organization that calls itself 'Collective voice of Muslims' worldwide, too genuflected to the CCP for its money. It doesn't seem to have enough audacity to question the Dragon lest it fires back at them. Even countries like Pakistan, Turkey, and Malaysia, which have a record of speaking for Muslim Rights worldwide, have silenced themselves in front of China.

 

The whole world sits tongue-tied today, raising a meek voice, if at all, while Uighurs' sufferings are becoming unendurable each day.

 

Applicable international laws 

The world took a wake-up call after the Second World War and for the first time codified the crime of Genocide at an international level.

 

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention), as it stands today, was the first human rights treaty adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 9 December 1948. Its adoption not only exhibited the determination of the world to formulate resilient international human rights but also a resolute decision to safeguard each being from such atrocities.

 

This convention is binding on countries and obligates them to prevent Genocide, enact relevant legislation, and punish perpetrators. China, being a party to the Genocide Convention, is obligated to act in line with the convention, and if it doesn't, the world has the right to question and punish China for its sinful acts.

 

The Road Ahead

Turning a blind eye to the worst Human Rights violation of its time will put one and all in dire straits. The world cannot compensate for what happened with Jews seven decades ago, but it can surely stop CCP from setting another such horrifying example for generations to come. It's time the international community deterred and warned China of its sinful crime.

 

As a believer in meliorism, I opine that the world can still indulge in rectification without further ado, and humanity will follow. 

 

9 December, this year, marks the 70th anniversary of the Genocide Convention and is celebrated as International Day of Commemoration and Dignity of the Victims of the Crime of Genocide and of the Prevention of this Crime. This year, let's resurrect the pledge of 'NEVER AGAIN' that the world adopted 70 years back. It's correctly said - "The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.

The contours of the right to receive bail | Guest Post by Rasveen K. Kapoor

(This is a guest post by Rasveen K. Kapoor. Rasveen is a student at Indore Institute of Law).  

Arnab Goswami || Siddique Kapan

“A man of courage never needs weapons, but he may need Bail.” 

– Lewis Mumford, American historian

It is the sacrosanct obligation of all concerned with the justice dispensation system to ensure that the administration of criminal justice remains effective and meaningful. Literally, the expression 'bail' denotes a security for appearance of a prisoner for his release. Bail is a grant of conditional liberty to an accused who assures or on whose behalf assurance is given that he would be present at the trial. It is imperative to note that the very idea of bail emerges from an assumption, of the accusatorial framework, i.e.  innocent till proven guilty.

As recognized by the English jurist, William Blackstone, “it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.”  An incalculable wrong is done to an innocent person who spends even a single day in prison. From the date of recording of an FIR till consummation of the trial process and the case decision, the law contains different arrangements to release an accused on bail. Through multiple decisions, the Supreme Court of India has held that bail is a privilege and is significant in a democratic republic, until he is demonstrated liable through a fair trial process.

A Mathura court on November 13^th’ 2020, dismissed the bail plea of three persons, booked on charges of sedition and terrorism after their arrest in Mathura along with a Kerala journalist namely, Siddique Kappan – who was on his way to Hathras village to meet the family of a Dalit woman who died after being brutally gang raped.

This denial of bail must be examined in context with the speed with which Arnab Goswami received bail, after just a single hearing in the Supreme Court. The speedy hearing and the grant of bail to Arnab Goswami has rekindled the moot question regarding the selective treatment of the high and the mighty - “Whether the privilege to fundamental rights is only a prerogative of the riches”?

When bail is refused, it is a restriction on personal liberty of the individual guaranteed by Art.21 of the Constitution and therefore such refusal must be rare. Where delays in the disposal of criminal proceedings take place, the accused ought not to be kept in custody for an inordinately long time and must be released on bail except when under extremely rare circumstances it is not possible to do so.

Personal liberty is recognised significantly in the constitutional framework under Article 21. While considering bail applications of the accused, it is important that the courts balance considerations of personal liberty and the interests of the general public, thereby paving a way for judicial discretion in matters of bail.

 It is the solemn duty of the court to decide the bail applications at the earliest by a reasoned order, based on the bona fides of the applicant in light of prevailing facts and circumstances. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra vs. Sitaram Popat Vital[1] has stated certain points to be considered before granting bail, namely:

1.  The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence
2.  Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant
3. Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.

The Supreme Court had time and again stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. N.C.T. Delhi and Ors[2] has mentioned some relevant grounds that play a vital role in deciding the bail applications being, the possibility for repetition of crime, the time lag between the date of occurrence and the conclusion of the trial, illegal detention, and undue delay in the trial of the case.

It has been regarded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Babu Singh and Ors. V. State of U.P. [3] that, deprivation of personal liberty by refusal of bail applications blurs the great trust exercisable as on the part of the judiciary as an institution, not casually but judicially, with lively concern for the cost to the individual and community. Personal liberty of an accused or convict is fundamental, and shouldn’t be subjected to suffering lawful eclipse in terms of the procedure established by law. 

In all these cases, the common condition attached is that the person released on bail will be brought before the court on demand. Other conditions may be imposed as may be deemed appropriate. It may be stated in passing that in the event of delivering custody to the state by way of refusal of bail to the accused or his surety the court may set out other conditions for the benefit and enjoyment of liberty by the accused.

Legislative prescriptions governing inmates in prison may be said to be serving this end. These regulations have to be in conformity with the themes of such human dignity as are now being expounded by the court as a part of human rights jurisprudence in general and personal liberty in particular.[4]

Passionate pleas for personal liberty are often being made while seeking release of an accused person in pre-trial cases. This approach is expressive of the conscious assertion to protect the individual rights. The pre-emptive rule of “Bail Not Jail” as regarded in Khemlo Sakharam Sawant v. State of Maharashtra[5] , vis-a-vis Article 21 should not be ignored. Though judicial discretion in matters of granting bail is imperative, but selective treatment by judiciary in matters of personal liberty dwindles the very faith of an individual in the credibility of judiciary as an institution.

---

[1] State of Maharashtra vs. Sitaram Popat Vital AIR 2004 SC 4258.

[2] Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. N.C.T. Delhi and Ors AIR 2001 SC 1444.

[3] Babu Singh and Ors. V. State of U.P., (1978) AIR 527, 1978 SCR (2) 777.

[4]  D.C. Pandey, "Criminal Law", XVI ASIL 452 et. seq. (1980).

[5] Khemlo Sakharam Sawant v. State of Maharashtra 2002 (1) BOM C.R. 689.