Situational Analysis: Asia Religious & Ethnic Freedom

The following is an excerpt from a situational analysis on religious & ethnic freedom (REF) in the Asia region, authored by Search for Common Ground for the Asia REF project. This report analyzes Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, and the Philippines. The full report is available for download on this page.

INTRODUCTION

Asia is the largest and most diverse continent in the world in terms of ethnic, linguistic, and religious diversity. The regions of South, Southeast, and Central Asia alone comprise 24 countries and account for about 35 percent of the world’s population. According to the Pew Research Center, these regions also have some of the highest levels of government restrictions on religion and have the most hostile incidents involving religion compared with other countries around the world.

A situational analysis is one of the steps in identifying the needs and opportunities in the expansion of religious and ethnic freedom in the region. It involves the collection and study of REF violations in secondary data, country contextual information, and regional trends to identify and understand the specific issues to be addressed. It examines the status of REF issues, establishing a basis of shared understanding for Asia REF partners and USAID. It also assists Asia REF in identifying actionable intervention areas for projects and identifies the key priorities for the Asia REF learning agenda. The approach of Asia REF incorporates adaptive management and flexible programming of award funding to support local organizations that promote the recognition of religious freedoms across Asia. The research includes projects in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, and the Philippines, based on project development needs.  It also ensures diverse representation of countries in the region for comparative analysis.

To understand the REF context in the selected countries, Johan Galtung’s Violence Triangle was used. The triangle helps to identify how physical violence, discriminatory structures in society and ideas about “the other” are interlinked. Direct violence is direct physical or psychological violence with clear specific victims and perpetrators. It can be carried out by states, groups in the society, or family. (Examples include security force attacks, torture, mob violence, sexual violence, and hate crimes.) Structural violence is harm done to people by injustice and discrimination in society leading to the denial of their basic rights. This injustice and discrimination can be found in the structures of society. It can be found in laws, polices, written and unwritten rules; the institutions and praxis of government authorities and civil society, and in the behavior of individuals. Cultural violence refers to the prevailing attitudes or beliefs used to legitimize violence – whether of a direct or structural nature. These include the prejudices or stereotypes existing in society that have been internalized by individuals. The stereotypes find expression in the interactions people have with each other.

Therefore, each country profile consists of a short background; an overview of its legal framework, describing constitutional norms and relevant legal religious freedom acts; an analysis through the triangle of violence lens; and an analysis of the actors involved. The study was conducted between May and September 2022.

Key Questions of the Study:

• What are the most pressing concerns for different groups in the target area, including women, girls, men, boys, and minorities? How are they linked to REF rights?
• Are there examples of direct violence related to REF in the country’s context?
• What are examples of structural violence connected to REF in a country’s context? How are men and women, boys and girls affected by these?
• Which attitudes make direct and structural violence seem acceptable to people? How are these attitudes and values being transmitted through a cultural context?
• Which actors/stakeholders are working on REF in the targeted countries and what types of programming are they doing now?
• What are the thematic priority/development challenges that Asia REF needs to address in each target area?

Limitations:

• Secondary data and reliability: The situational analysis is entirely desk research, with no expected key informant interviews. The study does not claim to be academically original. It is based on a literature review of sources provided by national and international human rights reports, as well media reports.
• Language: Most of the desk research consisted of a study of secondary sources available in English. For Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan resources in Russian language also were used.
• Difficulty in identifying cultural narratives: Reports on human rights and religious freedom provide little insight into the cultural narratives that underlie direct and structural violence. A feasible understanding of social perceptions of religious and ethnic diversity has been gathered, not intending to be comprehensive. A more in-depth study of the issue is needed.
• Limitations of an actor analysis: The situational analysis also includes a review of organizations working on religious freedom. However, an actor analysis is limited to those organizations mentioned in the resources covered in the literature review. Thus, the list is not exhaustive and does not identify the needs of these organizations. The identified list of organizations will be shared with REF partners, so it can be supplemented and evaluated in consultation with the Advisory Group and consortium partners.
• Definition: Inherent in religious freedom is the right to believe or not believe as one’s conscience directs and to live out one’s beliefs openly, peacefully, and without fear. Freedom of religion or belief is an expansive right that includes the freedoms of thought, conscience, expression, association, and assembly. While religious freedom is a core human right, international law and treaties recognize it as a vital element of national security that is crucial to ensuring a more peaceful, prosperous, and stable world.

CROSSCUTTING CHALLENGES

Most of the challenges to enjoying religious and ethnic freedom in the region are shared from country to country to various extents and with different specific issues. For example, the objects and subjects of religious nationalism differ depending on which religion is dominant: Islam, Christianity, or Buddhism. However, the mechanisms are identical, such as the use of hate speech, attacks on believers and places of worship, damage to the property of religious minorities, discriminatory rules in law, and favoritism of the majority religion. In addition, violations are of an intersectional nature and must be considered in conjunction with others. For example, blasphemy allegations and the enforcement of these violations are often coupled with extrajudicial violence, imminent threats to violence or even intimidation tactics, including the presence of mobs.

A partial list of regional challenges includes growing religious nationalism, conversion, the operation of religious related violent groups, and hate speech.

Religious nationalism. In all the countries analyzed, religion has shaped history through colonialism and imperialism, whether in the 1970s or 1990s, so that nationalism has become a unifying expression to break with the country’s colonial past and shape identity. Countries, formed as secular earlier in the 20th century, have changed in the end. They seek secularism as an external product and look for origins, unity, and pride in religion and their historical past. Such narratives are often underpinned by conspiracy theories and the “destructive” influence of external traditions on one’s own local traditions. The neutral notion of religious nationalism, in its extreme manifestations and in countries where religion is virtually indistinguishable from deeply rooted cultural traditions, leads to the manipulation of religious and ethnic identities.

To varying degrees, the politicization of religion (as well as the “religionization” of politics) can be observed in all countries covered by this analysis. This is more evident in forms of Buddhism in Sri Lanka, and Islam in Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Pakistan; and less in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and the Philippines. Obviously, the secular nature of the state, as enshrined in the constitutions of the countries, restrains the growth of nationalist sentiments to a certain extent. Religious nationalism is a major backdrop when considering the challenges and causes of violations of rights to religious freedom. It is accompanied by deepening social divisions along religious lines, intolerance not only of minorities  –  whether religious, ethnic, or gender  –  but also within the mainstream itself. This gives rise to disputes about the purity of faith or the correctness of its expression. It provides moral justification for structural violations, discriminatory laws, and access to education, jobs and decision-making institutions.

Conversion. Over the last decade, governments across the region have taken legal measures to prohibit religious conversions. Often the motivation behind these laws, though not officially stated as such, is to protect the dominant religious tradition from a perceived threat from minority religious groups. The methods for preventing conversions vary: national laws may prohibit proselytizing directly, blasphemy laws may be used to criminalize attempts to convert members of the majority, and governments tighten controls on foreign missionary groups. Moreover, narratives of betrayal of faith and financial motivation for adopting another religion are widespread in society. Converts face intense societal pressure and hostility. Some have gone into hiding or concealed their newly adopted faith for fear of social stigmatization. However, feelings of insecurity exist not only among converts, but also in communities from which people have converted. Women who converted are even more often subject to discrimination, constant verbal or physical harassment, and are sometimes even forced to convert back to the religion of their birth.

Blasphemy and related laws. Blasphemy laws are found in criminal codes in all analyzed countries. Often blasphemy laws are vaguely worded, do not specify intent, and carry unduly harsh penalties for violators. Blasphemous acts might be criminalized through the enforcement of other criminal laws, such as apostasy laws, anti-conversion laws, incitement to hatred laws, or anti-extremism laws. Blasphemy laws not only target ordinary citizens and believers, but can also affect lawyers, human rights activists, political opponents, journalists, and scholars. Blasphemy accusations are often accompanied by mob action, violence, or threats thereof, as well as growing religious intolerance. In addition, by virtue of the nature of social media, its accessibility, and its approval (likes) and dissemination (shares) functions, the possibility of being caught in blasphemous or hateful acts is increased. Social media blurs the distinction between the public and private spheres, allowing the state to act against behavior that may never have been intended for public consumption or wide distribution. These laws violate fundamental human rights, including rights to freedom of expression; freedom of religion or belief; freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; and fair trial rights.

Terrorism and violent extremism. This analysis showed that terrorism and violent extremism are seen as a serious threat in all the countries analyzed. The activities of homegrown, regional, and global terrorist networks, as well as attacks and hate narratives have implications on the exercise of the right to freedom of religion or belief in the region. On one hand, the subjects of such attacks are religious minorities, representing both dominant and non-dominant religions, as well as representatives of various beliefs – be they communists in the Philippines, or secular bloggers in Bangladesh, Malaysia, or Pakistan. Violent groups impede any peacebuilding, interfaith or human rights activities by threatening or attacking the initiators and participants. In countries such as Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, such incidents are less common, but the consequences of the response show a general trend. On the other hand, the states’ response prioritizes a military and hard measures approach, including the use of anti-extremism and anti-terrorism laws to severely restrict the activities of religious communities, suppress peaceful dissent, and imprison people through “national security” measures. Peaceful religious practitioners or organizations might be imprisoned or fined after being accused of crimes of extremism or terrorism. In some cases, there is an abuse of extended powers by law enforcement agencies. In some countries, this is accompanied by extrajudicial executions, restriction of access to justice or the persecution of political opponents and journalists.

Gender issues. Most research and data on religious freedom violations covered by the analysis were gender blind. Gender based violence related to FoRB is often blended in with other areas, such as domestic violence, and is not recognized as violations against religious minorities or groups. According to the Stefanus alliance, women tend to be disproportionately more affected by Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB) violations than men, both in terms of frequency and in level of severity. Women are more likely to be subject to discrimination and persecution based on their religion or belief because of their gender. In addition, they do not have equal access to resources. Women and religious minorities are more likely to access informal justice systems, which are still highly patriarchal (refering to local religious leaders). Muslim women have fewer protections in Muslim communities. All these factors shape the gender dimension of FoRB violations. Women in most of the countries covered by the analysis appear to be victims of double and triple forms of discrimination, because of the intersection between ethnicity, gender, religious or belief identity, and sometimes socio-economic status. These different identity layers mutually reinforce each other, making women particularly vulnerable to discrimination. It might be a part of legislation (religious and family laws), honor killings, kidnappings, abductions, forced conversions and forced marriages of minority girls and young women. Women, in particular, have suffered violence at the hands of Islamist groups, who inflict vigilante punishments against women charged with adultery or other alleged violations of Islamic law.

In addition, hostility and violence against the LGBTQ+ community is common in the region. Cases of discrimination and abuse against LGBTQ+ persons are regularly reported, including in employment, education, health care, housing and social services, attacks on representatives, and — in some cases — killings. If there is a tendency for FoRB violations against women needed to understand the correlation between gender-based violence and FoRB, then the issue of violations of LGBTQ+ experience of FoRB violations is not on the agenda at all. Given the sensitivity of the issue, an examination of the nature of FoRB violations in the LGBTQ+ communities is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

The countries analyzed represent different patterns of religious and ethnic freedom challenges in the Asian region. They represent diversity with respect to constitutional systems (secular and religious), dominant religions (Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism), varying degrees of state restrictions and social hostilities, and different levels of civil society development. Virtually all countries are post-conflict societies, and while the nature of conflict lay more in the political realm, it has had far-reaching consequences, shaping entrenched images of the “other,” shaping social intolerance, and justifying disproportionate state interventions. Yet, the challenges faced by such seemingly different countries are quite similar: they all require working at a structural level and community engagement. This similarity allows us to find common solutions through Asia REF programming. The intended results of Asia REF programming now covers the major challenges of religious freedom such as preventing and responding to REF-related violations, countering exclusionary narratives, supporting media efforts to cover such violations, and providing technical assistance to state agencies.

In addition, the complexity of non-governmental organizations in the region is worth considering. Virtually all countries have state restrictions on the activities of the civil society sector, especially human rights organizations, supported by narratives fearing the promotion of “Western,” or “alien” values. In Central Asia, civil society is restricted by an information campaign for the forming of images of “foreign agents,” “grant-eaters,” and are heavily supported by similar Russian discourse. In other Asian countries, attacks on civil society can go as far as physical violence and threats of violence. Where people are suspicious about international organizations, locals who received funding also becoming subject to monitoring. While some assume that partnering with religious organizations (particularly in the majority) and the government would be more effective, there are risks to consider. Religious organizations involved in peace and development work often have weak transparency and accountability mechanisms, which is combined with a perceived sense of moral superiority. A lack of coordination among organizations from different religious traditions is common. This can undermine the work of these religious groups, but since public demand for religion remains very high, these problems are rarely addressed.

Moreover, bias and lack of trust in civil society organizations demonstrates the challenges of promoting human rights – including religious freedom – which is also seen as an external construct. As the analysis has shown, to avoid prejudice some organizations frame their initiatives in protecting religious freedom as interreligious dialogue and engagement, round tables, and promoting peace and co-existence. Considering that virtually all countries have constitutional freedoms of religion or belief and non-discrimination provisions, law reform initiatives can take place under the umbrella of bringing laws and regulations into conformity with the constitution. In any form, concepts of religious freedom and gender must be strongly applied locally before starting any Asia REF programs. This study also revealed different understandings of the concept of secularism in the countries. For example, some South Asian countries introduced the idea of positive secularism, calling for a reasonable level of religious freedom; while Central Asian countries see secularism more as an atheistic model, which leads to a negative perception of the secular state as godless.

Since the analysis of actors was based on those mentioned in English-language reports and media, it lacks complete coverage and should be supplemented by country stakeholder mapping. At the same time, it shows the limited number of organizations working directly on religious freedom, which suggests the need to build capacity to work with FoRB, increase interaction between “secular” and religious NGOs, and strengthen the gender sensitivity of REF programs.

In every country, there are efforts to resolve conflicts and promote human rights. In post-conflict societies, these include government and civil society efforts to reconcile after civil wars, positive judicial precedents in favor of a secular state, media efforts to build and strengthen national unity. Efforts by religious leaders to foster interfaith relations might be recognized as a good opportunity to promote religious and ethnic freedoms.

At the same time, today’s society, wracked by political-economic and social crises, may prefer to scapegoat a minority with the potential for violence against it (e.g., the belief that Muslims intentionally infect others with COVID-19). On the other hand, in the face of external challenges, society can find the strength to reconcile.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Building state and public demands to promote REF:

• Conduct an awareness raising campaign on the positive impact of religious diversity on peace and the development of each country;
• Demonstrate to governments the economic advantages of fulfilling international obligations on FoRB (e.g. economic preference mechanisms);
• Support local civil society actors to build public demands for addressing violent acts of religious intolerance, gender violence, and discrimination;
• Develop initiatives and activities aimed at understanding the strategic importance of a tolerant attitude toward religious, beliefs, and ethnicity. For example, optional training courses (online and offline) on FORB and inter-religious tolerance in mass media in local languages could be developed.

Efficiency of state authorities:

• Strengthen the neutrality principle of public services along with state agencies for civil service and local self-governments, judiciary and law enforcement;
• Assist government capacity building for local law enforcement on addressing religious and ethnic freedom violations (e.g., the rights of minorities, the investigation and prosecution of offenders attacking minority groups) and mob negotiation tactics;
• Establish monitoring and evaluation systems of state policies on religion and countering extremism/terrorism;
• Provide technical support to governments in the reform, development, or adoption of REF relevant legislation. For example, blasphemy, conversion, and anti-extremism laws should have a non-religious purpose to protect potential victims, rather than protecting a majority religious group from alleged threats from religious minorities. These laws also must define the main concepts.

Protecting victims:

• Support local human rights organizations providing legal assistance/consultations for REF violation victims; and engage in strategic litigation related to REF issues outlined in the constitution;
• Build the capacity of small local NGOs to strengthen the community oversight of REF violations; hold capacity-building workshops for various religious freedom protection skills.
• Build the capacity of relevant groups and organizations and start an informational campaign among those groups on local, national and international access to justice mechanisms and on local legislation (e.g. the Vested Property Return Act in Bangladesh.)
• Establish a national mechanism for documenting and responding (early warning mechanisms) to religious and ethnic freedom violations, strengthen the interaction between the central apparatus of government and the heads of state, and strengthen the system of response to cases of religious discrimination.

Countering societal polarization:

• Reconstruct exclusionary narratives through work with community actors, religious and ethnic leaders, as well as media representatives;
• Work with local officials and media representatives on reframing narratives about “non-traditional,” “destructive,” or “deviant” religions, portraying converters as “betrayers”; and develop conflict-sensitive journalism guidelines for the mass media to cover the subject of religion, taking into account international standards and journalism ethics;
• Support civil society organizations to address the rapid spread of disinformation and hate speech online. Religious or belief-based hate speech is not a focus in some countries in the region. Most interventions are directed at political narratives or anti-extremism/counternarratives;
• Focus on activities indirectly promoting REF, stimulating intra-faith, interfaith and inter-ethnic engagement (For example, preserving and supporting cultural and linguistic heritage);
• Efficiently distribute efforts in the country. For example, in recent years the emphasis of NGO work in Kyrgyzstan has been on the south of the country, leading to an increase in protest sentiments in the northern regions. In Kazakhstan, religious freedom observers noted that the Kordai District experienced a disproportionate number of religious freedom prosecutions;
• Programs should seek adequate representation from all relevant stakeholders. For example, in Central Asia, religious minorities are often excluded. In Southeast Asia it is indigenous groups.

Gender:

• Strengthen gender sensitive approaches in REF protection and capacity building;
• Address gender inclusion in ensuring access to justice for the victims of REF violations;
• Reconstruct narratives to address the traditional attitudes and social norms that legitimize bride kidnapping, polygamy, early marriages, honor killings, etc.;
• Initiate positive masculinity campaigns. Work with male leadership to champion women’s rights to REF.

Research:

• Understand how different religious, ethnic, and belief groups make sense of their presence as minorities in each country. Arguably, these nuances shape their understanding of their own religious freedom;
• Understand intersections of REF and gender (including LGBTQ+) and consult with local women’s group to ensure strong gender analysis and mainstreaming in projects;
• Provide opportunities for localization of REF, gender, and secularism concepts: What does religious freedom means to people in the countries where Asia REF intends to do projects? Is religious freedom and secularism about the separation of church and state? Does it also factor in individual liberties of exercising beliefs, practices, and even moral choices?
• Establish stakeholder mapping exercises/actor analysis in the countries where Asia REF works. Identify different organizations/bodies/people/institutions that are in their REF field and seek their classification and evaluation.