Since her suspension, earlier this month, from her job as the head of Amnesty International’s Gender Unit, the 53-year-old Sahgal has spent much of her time fielding calls from around the world that are jamming her phone line. The suspension, as anyone who has been reading the papers and watching TV knows, came after Sahgal spoke to the UK’s Sunday Times about her concerns over Amnesty’s relationship with Moazzam Begg, a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, and Cageprisoners, a charity of which he is director.
A Spectator columnist dramatically said Sahgal had “blown the lid” on the relationship between Amnesty and Begg. She herself says she’d simply asked why the human rights organisation that employs her was happy to collaborate with a person and organisation whose views were, in her words, “abhorrent”.
Taking liberties with her granduncle Jawaharlal Nehru’s words, Sahgal wrote in a statement explaining her stand that “A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when a great organisation must ask: if it lies to itself, can it demand the truth of others?”
There have been both bouquets and brickbats—but almost certainly more bouquets. The Facebook group of Observer columnist Nick Cohen is titled “Amnesty International, You Bloody Hypocrites, Reinstate Gita Sahgal”. In it, he says Sahgal “is rightly sick of the lazy alliance between the supposedly liberal human rights world and the decidedly illiberal world of radical Islamists”.
Sahgal’s timing is good: many have come to believe that white, liberal Britons and Americans were so keen to distance themselves from the excesses of the Bush administration that they leaned too far the other way.
For many, Begg, a British Muslim whose father was born in India, is Britain’s most articulate critic of the Guantanamo Bay detention centre, where he was illegally held for three years. But for Sahgal, he is also “Britain’s most famous supporter of the Taliban”. While “horrified and appalled” by his illegal detention and torture, she argues that Amnesty could have, and should have, fought against torture without putting him on a platform. Chetan Bhatt, a professor of sociology at Goldsmiths’ college who has studied political Islam, agrees. “Moazzam Begg and Cageprisoners have actively promoted Anwar al-Awlaki, a self-styled preacher whose ideology implies that it is alright to kill civilians and undertake suicide missions and violent operations anywhere in the world,” he says.
There are other views. “But we are all only four or five clicks away from someone who promotes violence,” argues Arun Kundnani of the Institute for Race Relations, London. “There is simply no compelling evidence that Begg espouses or condones violent extremism”. And Amnesty, skirting around the issue of what Begg stands for or supports, simply says that the organisation cannot pick and choose whose human rights it defends. “To argue that some people are more ‘deserving’ than others of having their rights protected is to argue that some beings are less than human,” it said in a statement.
While the debate rages, it’s clear that Sahgal is becoming something of an international heroine; a just tribute, those who know her say, to this dogged woman’s fearlessness and integrity. She did not flinch from taking a principled stand, they point out, despite the inevitable risk, not only of hostility from her employers and the Islamic right but also the danger of becoming a “poster girl” of sorts for right-wing critics of human rights organisations—not a comfortable position for someone with her left-wing credentials.
But Sahgal is not a stranger to principled—and contrarian—stands, sometimes delivered in a brusque, even aggressive, manner that earns her enemies for all the wrong reasons. The India-schooled daughter of writer Nayantara Sahgal (herself the child of Nehru’s sister, Vijayalaxmi Pandit), she plunged into activism after graduating from London’s School of Oriential and African Studies, a hub of radical left-wing views. She was the co-founder of the influential Southall Black Sisters, and of Women Against Fundamentalism, formed around the time of the Rushdie affair in 1989. Typically, Sahgal and her colleagues argued—with women, among others—that it was not just orthodoxies among minority groups that had to be challenged, but also the fact that Britain was in many respects a Christian state.
Nayantara, 82, closely following the current controversy from her home in Dehradun, has been a staunch supporter of all her causes. While she worries for her daughter, she also says Gita could have taken no other position. “If I look around the world for an example of shining integrity, I can’t think of anyone better than Gita,” she tells Outlook. “She has always been loyal to the principles of human rights.” Even if, clearly, it means taking on the human rights movement itself.
Many people are unable to understand the legitimate role that Amnesty International plays as an organisation (It’s Very Human to Disagree, Mar 1). Even Gita Sahgal made a clear distinction about Begg: “As a former Guantanamo detainee, it was legitimate to hear his experiences. But as a supporter of the Taliban, it was absolutely wrong (for Amnesty) to legitimise him as a partner.” H.M. Siddhanti, Richmond, US
Bravo, Gita Sahgal. More power to your indomitable spirit. Yashodhara, New York
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT