Indian Press On Waseem Rizvi, Myanmar Junta, Rohingyas And Hate Crimes: New Age Islam's Selection, 17 March 2021
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
17
March 2021
• Waseem Rizvi Needlessly Provoked, But Don’t
Let Rule Of Law Be Guillotined At The Altar Of Religious Edicts
By Rahul Shivshankar
• Myanmar Junta Violence And Responsibility To
Protect
By Shankari Sundararaman
• The
Rohingyas Must Go Back From India
By Anil Gupta
• India Is Strangely Silent About Myanmar’s
Coup — There Are Two Strategic Reasons
By Subir Bhaumik
• India Needs Hate Crimes Law On Lines Of
Scotland
By Sunanda K Datta Ray
----
Waseem Rizvi Needlessly Provoked, But Don’t Let
Rule Of Law Be Guillotined At The Altar Of Religious Edicts
By Rahul Shivshankar
March 16,
2021
Waseem Rizvi
----
Muslim
groups are in a right royal tizz over former Shia Waqf Board Chief Waseem
Rizvi’s petition in the Supreme Court. They accuse Rizvi of senselessly
outraging sentiments by calling upon the apex court to remove 26 verses from
the Holy Quran for allegedly promoting violence against other religions. For
this act of ‘sacrilege’ furious adherents have announced that they will pay the
‘faithful’ Rs 11 lakhs to behead the ‘apostate’. This is not an empty threat.
In 2010,
members of the Popular Front of India chopped the hand of a professor called TJ
Joseph for scripting a question on the Prophet in a test paper. A few years
ago, Kamlesh Tiwari, member of the Hindu Samaj Party, had his throat slit
following a fatwa declared for allegedly disrespecting the Prophet. Several
others have been attacked for similar transgressions. Last year, France was
shocked when a teacher was beheaded for allegedly showing his students cartoons
of the Prophet that had appeared in the magazine Charlie Hebdo. Freedom of
expression he believed gave him the sanction to dare adherents who believe that
pictorially representing the Prophet is blasphemous.
On the
evidence of the fanatic display of fury in Lucknow and across the state of
Uttar Pradesh Rizvi must be fearing for his life. This is particularly so as
just about every human rights activist has all but abandoned the alleged
blaspheme in the face of Islamist fury leaving the door open for radicals to
strike. Gone is the outrage that is usually expressed in defence of the freedom
of ‘rationalists’ to question Hindu traditions.
While the
Supreme Court, in all its wisdom, might declare Rizvi’s petition as borne out
of a mischievous attempt towards provoking his co-religionists, insulting the
holy book or even a cheap attempt at publicity seeking, it still cannot be
anyone’s case that he deserves to be beheaded in the public square. India, a
country governed by the rule of law that draws from the high ideals of the
Constitution, cannot allow its citizens and justice to be guillotined at the
altar of religious edicts.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/beyond-the-headline/rizvi-has-needlessly-provoked-but-dont-let-rule-of-law-be-guillotined-at-the-altar-of-religious-edicts/
-----
Myanmar Junta Violence And Responsibility To
Protect
By Shankari Sundararaman
17th March
2021
Anti-coup protesters display
shields and placards as they gather in Yangon, Myanmar Tuesday. © AP
------
last week,
one of the most graphic images of the military-led violence in Myanmar flashed
across the globe digitally. On March 8, a day celebrated as International
Women’s Day, came a photo of a Catholic nun on her knees in front of security
forces pleading to ensure that the youth hiding within the Church were not
killed. It was the most poignant image of the gruesome violence that has been
ensuing for the past few weeks in Myanmar, even as the international community
had rhetorically pushed its repeated line on the return to “normalcy” and
“urging all conflicting parties to show restraint”. In one of the most brutal
crackdowns since the military coup that brought the tatmadaw back into power on
1 February 2021, the attack on the youth hiding within the Myitkyina’s St
Columban’s Cathedral in Kachin state was by far the most chilling reminder of
where Myanmar may be headed if the world watches silently.
In the
immediate aftermath of the coup d’etat, the United Nations Security Council met
on 2 February 2021 but failed in its efforts to pass a joint statement on the
crisis that had evolved in Myanmar, particularly as this was vetoed by China.
Beijing’s position since the coup had been that any coercive action on Myanmar
such as sanctions would only worsen the situation rather than making it better.
Earlier Chinese statements were also misleading as they referred to the
situation in Myanmar being akin to a ‘cabinet reshuffle’, minimising the impact
of the political realities and reaffirming that it was a matter of domestic
politics that remained out of the purview of the normative role of the UN.
In the
earlier UNSC debates on Myanmar’s internal situation, both China and Russia had
vetoed any action against that nation. This was specifically evident during the
2017 Rohingya crisis in which the current military leader General Min Aung
Hliang has been implicated in an independent fact-finding mission under the UN
Human Rights Council. In November 2019, Gambia filed a lawsuit against Myanmar
at the International Court of Justice for the genocide of Rohingyas, leading to
Aung San Suu Kyi’s fall from grace even as she defended the issue as an
internal matter of the state. While Suu Kyi did not categorically give a clean
chit to the military, the question of sovereignty and non-interference weighed
heavily in the debate over human rights, which was seen as tacit support for
the military’s actions against the Rohingyas. However, the more recent UNSC
presidential statement on 10 March 2021 has been emphatic in its position,
vocally condemning the military coup d’etat and calling for the restoration of
democracy unanimously, even as the military has been told to exercise ‘utmost
restraint’. While the statement falls short of a resolution, it is still the
first unanimous effort by the UNSC to address the crisis.
This raises
the question of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and its implementation in the
context of Myanmar. The R2P principle still remains nascent in its
implementation. In Southeast Asia in particular, several countries are
primarily driven by authoritarian and semi-authoritarian regimes where the
context of state security becomes aligned with the stability of the regime in
power. This places the principles of sovereignty and human rights on opposite
sides of the spectrum. The ASEAN’s approach to the issue of human rights has
always been more limiting, as it justified restrictions on the universal
principles for supporting authoritarian governments that delivered on economic
development. Often categorised within the cloak of ‘Asian values’, it set the
approach to human rights apart from the universal principles. This underwent a
change in 2008 following the implementation of the ASEAN Charter and the move
towards community building within the ASEAN region as a whole. The Charter
emphasised the importance of democratisation and human rights, bringing these
values into the ASEAN’s broader debates and approaches.
The R2P
emerged as a norm in the 2001 report of the International Commission on
Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), identifying the response of the
international community when human lives are at risk of violence from within
the state. In 2005, this was reformed by reaffirming intervention under
specific cases of mass killings and crimes against humanity.
In the
specific case of Myanmar, the UNSC invoked the R2P following Cyclone Nargis in
May 2008 that led to huge losses of life and displaced millions. Two important
factors emerged in the debate—first, whether the principle could be used to
address humanitarian assistance in the aftermath of natural calamities; second,
whether regional organisations such as the ASEAN could act as intermediaries in
the move to deliver assistance. Applying the debate on R2P in the current
context becomes far more critical as the junta is now waging a ruthless war
against its own people. The picture of protestors carrying placards invoking
the R2P is a clear reminder of the ground realities. While provisions for an
arms ban are currently in place, these still do not address the crucial issue
of reining in the violence by the state forces. While the UNSC statement falls
short of a resolution, the R2P may be the need of the hour, even as the junta’s
violence has gone unchecked through the last week.
https://www.newindianexpress.com/opinions/2021/mar/17/myanmar-junta-violence-andresponsibility-to-protect-2277584.html
----
The Rohingyas Must Go Back From India
By Anil Gupta
17 March
2021
Interestingly,
it is not only the Government of India or the people of Jammu who consider
Rohingyas as a security threat. Myanmar and Bangladesh, too, consider them
similarly
In a recent
move, Jammu and Kashmir Police started
moving Rohingya refugees to holding centres prior to their deportation to
Myanmar. It is believed to be a part of the larger all-India exercise which
will finally culminate with their deportation to the country of their origin.
Many of the refugees have been living in India since 2008, when they fled their
home country following a brutal outbreak of violence at the hands of the
Myanmar military.
In 2012 and
then 2017, the numbers of Rohingya in India grew again after further campaigns
of violence. Most ended up in camps in Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh, but tens of
thousands have also sought safety in India over the past decade, where they
have set up established communities.
The mass
detentions, which began in Jammu, are
part of a wider nationwide crackdown against Rohingyas, who number about 40,000
in India. Many hold registered United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR) refugee ID cards, which offer protection from arbitrary detention. They
were also provided identity documents, ration cards and settled on the periphery
of Jammu city surrounding the military garrison at Sunjuwan.
Surprisingly,
in Jammu & Kashmir (J&K), they were not allowed to settle down in
Kashmir despite religious affinity and the fact that they were also being
supported financially by many Kashmiri philanthropic organisations who were
working towards their rehabilitation in Jammu. Along, with successive
Governments, even these organisations never thought of taking them to Kashmir
where it would have been much easier to look after them logistically. The
growing dissent in Jammu to these illegal settlers received no attention of the
successive State Governments and their numbers continued to increase
exponentially.
The growing
dissent in Jammu to these illegal settlers received no attention from
successive State Governments and their influx to the region grew and their
population increased over the years. In the end, it was the Narendra Modi
Government with began the process of putting an end to the inflow of Rohingyas
into the country. It took a firm view on their deportation and its efforts in
this direction included talks between Prime Minister Modi and Aung San Suu Kyi,
the de facto ruler of Myanmar. (She has now been replaced by the military
regime).
Interestingly,
it is not only the Government of India or the people of Jammu who consider
Rohingyas as a security threat. Myanmar and Bangladesh, too, consider them
similarly. Many other Muslim nations like Indonesia and Malaysia who have
resisted the entry of Rohingyas into their country also do so because of
security concerns despite sharing religious affinity.
In June
2017, Bangladesh Foreign Minister Abul Hassan Mahmood Ali told the national
Parliament that Rohingyas could pose a major
threat to the safety and security of the country. “Among the Cox’s Bazar
population, 20-25 per cent people are now Rakhine Muslims. Such huge Rakhine
Muslims may become a threat for national security in the future,” he said.
Only
recently his junior Minister Shariar Alam echoed the same sentiments when he
said that the Rohingya crisis is both a humanitarian and security issue. He further
said that the possibility of links between the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army
(ARSA) and foreign terror groups cannot be ruled out. India also shared a
similar view point.
New Delhi
had sent relief material to the refugee camps in Bangladesh housing Rohingya
refugees as humanitarian aid. But humanitarianism and national security cannot
be viewed from the same prism, particularly when India is a victim of global
jihadi terror.
As soon as
the police began to round up the illegal immigrants in Jammu recently, the
pro-Rohingya lobby became active as they have a solid support base in Kashmir
among the separatists. In the past, whenever protests were held in Jammu to
deport the Rohingyas, there used to be a severe backlash in Kashmir because the
whole issue of national security was communalised by portraying it as a
religious vendetta. The Hurriyat at one time had threatened of a Valley-wide
agitation on the issue.
The Gupkar
Alliance, too, has begun to criticise the Government’s move to deport the
Rohingyas and said that India, being a signatory to the UN charter, must abide
by it and work on humanitarian grounds. While his party spokesperson accused
the then Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led NDA Government of settling the refugees in
Jammu, Dr Farooq Abdullah also supported him indirectly by saying, “Nobody can
settle here without the permission of the Government of India.”
Having
failed in its ambitious plan of overhauling Jammu’s demography, the National
Conference (NC) is now trying to create a new narrative. But everybody in Jammu
is aware of the truth and the NC, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) or the
Congress cannot wish away their involvement in facilitating the Rohingyas to settle
here illegally and, in the process, facilitate the nefarious designs of
Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence
(ISI). Incidentally, India is not a signatory to the 1951 UN convention on
refugees.
Where was
the humanitarian conscience of Farooq Abdullah and his party that had turned a
blind eye to the persecution and ethnic cleansing of the Hindu Kashmiri Pandit
community from their ancestral land by blood-thirsty, slogan-shouting and
gun-toting locals to convert Kashmir from a multi-ethnic, peace-loving,
multi-religious society to a monolith? Till date except for lip service, they
have made no sincere effort for the exiled people’s safe and honourable return
to their homeland. Consequently, Kashmiri Pandits continue to lead the life of
refugees in different parts of India and long to return to their homeland.
The clear
aim of these political parties is to draw the necessary political mileage
through polarisation for petty vote bank politics. But the Government of India
is sincere and uncompromising on the issue of national security; hence it is
not going to blink or get bogged down by such actions.
The police
need to be complimented but it faces a long haul. The number of illegally
settled Rohingyas is not in hundreds but thousands. Many of them are missing or
possibly have mixed and settled with the local population through fraudulent
means. The police have an arduous task ahead to identify, locate and deport
them.
However,
one thing is crystal clear, the Rohingyas have to go back to their country. This
is non-negotiable. Their exit from Jammu is mandatory. The nation can
ill-afford to let the design of the ISI succeed in the strategically vital
Jammu.
https://www.dailypioneer.com/2021/columnists/the-rohingyas-must-go-back-from-india.html
-----
India Is Strangely Silent About Myanmar’s Coup
— There Are Two Strategic Reasons
By Subir Bhaumik
16 March,
2021
With China
announcing plans to mediate between Myanmar’s military junta and political
parties, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations stepping up the
pressure on its return to parliamentary democracy, India seems to be standing
out as a reluctant neighbour with neither the heft nor the intent to play any
role in the biggest ongoing crisis in the region. Chinese ambassador to the
United Nations made a significant statement this week, saying that it was “time
for dialogue” and not confrontation in Myanmar.” Clearly the Chinese, after the
adverse impact their handling of Covid-19 had on their global image, do not
want to be seen as backing a military takeover. They would seek to make a
virtue out of necessity and play the role of mediator in Myanmar’s conflict
resolution matrix — a role one would imagine India to play, given our
credibility with Burmese political parties and the positive military relations
between the Indian Army and the Tatmadaw.
India’s
Ministry of External Affairs, in its first and only statement after the 1
February military takeover, did express ‘deep concern’ over the developments in
Myanmar. “India has always been steadfast in its support to the process of
democratic transition in Myanmar. We believe that the rule of law and the
democratic process must be upheld,” said the statement.
But since
then, India has been strangely silent on Myanmar, avoiding direct criticism of
the military junta that has unleashed a fierce 1988-style repression of
peaceful democratic protests.
Now India
has joined China, Russia, and Vietnam to oppose and water down a UN Security
Council (UNSC) resolution drafted by the United Kingdom that was much more critical
of the military junta than the one that was finally issued on 12 February.
Diplomats of these four countries say they want to give dialogue a chance. Is
democratic India in the right company on this may well be asked.
An illegal
coup
At least
126 Myanmar citizens have died so far during the protests against the coup,
with more than 400 injured, and close to 2,000 arrests reported across the
country. The Myanmar military, the Tatmadaw, has especially targetted Aung San
Suu Kyi’s party, National League of Democracy (NLD), in a determined bid to
weaken its organisation so that it cannot repeat its landslide win from
November 2020 in the next election.
The
Tatmadaw knows it has to let Myanmar return to electoral democracy but it is in
damage control mode, trying desperately to weaken the NLD.
If Suu
Kyi’s party fails to repeat its last performance in the polls, it will not be
able to bring about key amendments to the 2008 military-drafted constitution,
which gives the Tatmadaw control over three ministries of Home, Defence, and
Border Affairs, 25 per cent of parliament seats, and total control of the
country’s administration during an Emergency, which it forcibly declared on 1
February this year.
When
President Win Myint refused to sign the proclamation of Emergency, that he
alone was authorised to sanction, the army threw him in prison, and made
military-backed Vice President Myint Swe hastily sign the proclamation as
‘Acting President’. So, the military takeover based on this very flawed use of
emergency powers is completely illegal.
India’s
reaction
The fierce
protests within Myanmar have been spurred by strong global, especially Western,
criticism of the military takeover. Led by the United States, which has
announced sanctions against Burmese military leaders, the leading democracies
are up in arms against the Tatmadaw. The ASEAN, though more restrained, has
pushed for a return to democracy in Myanmar without much ado.
India’s
silence, regardless of its realpolitik constraints, makes it stand out in the
global community of democracies, which the West is trying to forge to control
and combat an assertive, authoritarian China.
India has
two primary considerations in avoiding direct criticism of the Myanmar military
junta. First, it does not want to upset the Tatmadaw so as to not provoke it
into inaction against the rebel groups from India’s Northeast based in
Myanmar’s Sagaing Division, the last trans-border base area for these groups.
Second, it
does not want to push the military junta into the waiting arms of the Chinese,
who will do business with whoever runs the country, obviously unconstrained by
hangups about democracy.
Both these
concerns are misplaced. The Tatmadaw needs the Indian Army more to fight the
Arakan Army, which has challenged Burmese control of the conflict-scarred
Rakhine province, than Indians need the Tatmadaw to fight the weakened
insurgencies of Northeast. India’s Home Ministry has reported an eighty per
cent drop in insurgent-related violence in Northeast, and the Assam Rifles and
the Army can take credit for it.
An
opportunity for India
The rebels
have been denied use of Bhutan and Bangladesh’s territory since the first
decade of this century. The Tatmadaw has traditionally avoided any major action
against Northeast Indian rebels because it has had to focus on more powerful
insurgencies challenging Burmese authority over regions populated by ethnic
minorities. Only in the last few years has it resorted to some action,
primarily as a quid pro quo for Indian military action (Operation Sunrise)
against the Arakan Army.
The Chinese
stole a march on India by backing, and arming, both the Burmese military
(overtly) and the Arakan Army (covertly), and its ambitious Kyaukphyu port and
SEZ project was not disturbed by the Arakan Army (AA). The AA has, in contrast,
disrupted India’s Kaladan Multi-Modal project because it resents both Indian
military action like Operation Sunrise and its 1998 double-cross of the
National Unity Party of Arakans (NUPA), the AA’s precursor organisation in
Rakhine.
Burmese
democratic parties, civil rights groups, and freedom-loving citizens have
communicated to Indian diplomats that popular opinion in the country was very
strong against China. Placards during the protests in Myanmar read “Myanmar
military coup, Made in China”. One leading NLD minister said the Burmese people
will soon go on a ‘complete boycott’ of Chinese products, and they would love
to replace them with Indian products.
Burmese
traders have been approaching Indian companies for agency to sell their products
in Myanmar in ever-increasing numbers, sensing a potential business boom. But
corporate India is oblivious to this opportunity — and politicians, diplomats
and military leaders have done nothing to exploit this.
After the
hit its global image took post Covid, and keen as Beijing is to play a global
role as a responsible power, there is no way China can shamelessly support a
murderous campaign by the Tatmadaw against its own citizens, especially in the
era of the internet and social media. One-third of Myanmar’s population is on
Facebook. That explains China’s proactive mediation plans targetting all
stakeholders in Myanmar.
By not
joining other democratic nations in pushing strongly for a restoration of the
dissolved Parliament, India risks losing its way towards a diplomatic no man’s
land on a critical regional issue. If India believes it is an important power,
it must start behaving like one.
https://theprint.in/opinion/india-is-strangely-silent-about-myanmars-coup-there-are-two-strategic-reasons/622680/
------
India Needs Hate Crimes Law On Lines Of
Scotland
By Sunanda K Datta Ray
Mar 17,
2021
India, with
its increasingly assertive majoritarian culture, would benefit from an
equivalent of the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill that the Scottish
Parliament in Edinburgh’s Holyrood House passed last week by 82 votes to 32,
following the previous day’s five-hour debate when legislators considered a
raft of amendments. In a nutshell, the controversial new measure will extend
protection to vulnerable groups and take a far stricter view of the offence of
“stirring up hatred”.
As Victoria
Atkins, a junior minister in the British government, said in another context
recently, the minorities and marginalised communities need such protection.
Such Indian groups need it far more than quotas and reservations which, as wise
observers have pointed out repeatedly, create a vested interest in
backwardness. Indians who would qualify under Ms Atkins’s definition are
Muslims, the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, Sikhs and people from the Northeast
who do not fit into the common man’s notion of the national stereotype.
Myanmar’s Rohingyas are a tragic illustration of the outsider in this sense, as
were Jews and the gypsies in pre-World War II Europe.
“Through
the passing of this landmark bill, Scotland’s Parliament has sent a strong and
clear message to victims, perpetrators, communities and to the wider society
that offences motivated by prejudice will be treated seriously and will not be
tolerated”, declared Scotland’s justice minister Humza Yousaf. Around 18 hate
crimes are committed every day in the kingdom; 6,448 were recorded in 2019-20.
“I am delighted Holyrood has backed this powerful legislation that is fitting
for the Scotland we live in” Mr Yousaf added.
Although
born in Glasgow, Mr Yousaf is of Pakistani origin and can be expected to bring
a measure of personal commitment to the cause of equal treatment for people of
all creeds and colours. “The bill’s passage has shown Holyrood at its very best
-- a collaborative, diverse and determined Parliament which we should all be
proud of”, he says. “Robust scrutiny has ensured we have met the right balance
between protecting groups targeted by hate crime and respecting people’s rights
to free speech.”
He has been
at pains to reassure everyone that the new law will not try to instigate any
kind of witch hunt. Nor will it curb free speech. Asked about racist jokes and
drunken anecdotes, he was quick to stress that the “behaviour has to be
threatening or abusive and intended to stir up trouble, so a racist joke is
clearly not going to reach that threshold. There will be no prosecutions under
the new law.
“If your
unreconstructed uncle comes in, has too many sherries at Christmas dinner and
says something they shouldn’t do, which creates great offence to his bisexual
niece, for example, that is not going to be prosecuted.” He fleshed out the
point by recounting an abusive tweet he had received but would ignore. “The
beauty of the Hate Crime Bill is that you can say that all day long (not that
I’d encourage it!) and it would not be a criminal offence.”
That may
seem like a tolerant and sensibly lenient attitude to take. Yet, leniency can
be mistaken for tacit official sanction or condonation. Nazi anti-Semitism did
not spring up overnight. German and Austrian culture had a long history of
anti-Semitic witticisms which may have concealed a real societal bias. Nirad C.
Chaudhuri recalls a Bengali rhyme in which the people of Odisha and Bihar are
presented in negative terms to illustrate insularity. Similarly, the English
have “jokes” at the expense of the Scots and the Welsh.
Believing
laughter to be the best antidote to hatred, the British once offered prizes to
comedians who could tell jokes about their own communities. The 1968 Race
Relations Act made it illegal to refuse housing, employment, or public services
to anyone on the grounds of colour, race, ethnic or national origins. The
deeper expectation was that the law would change people’s outlook because the
law-abiding British would avoid anything illegal. And, indeed, race relations
and social attitudes have been completely transformed. The three Race Relations
Acts (two others followed in 1976 and 2000) accomplished what the old laws
could not.
Stirring up
racial hatred has been an offence in Scottish -- and British -- law for
decades. But the old laws were not regarded as providing adequate protection to
minority groups. Hence Scotland’s Hate Crime Bill was introduced in April 2020
following an independent review by Lord Bracadale, a distinguished Scottish
judge, who recommended that all the old laws on the subject be consolidated
into one new bill. The measure updates the list of entities protected by the
law while also expanding the list. It also identifies new “stirring up of
hatred” offences that apply to all the categories -- age, disability, race,
religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity and variations in sex
characteristics –that the bill mentions.
It is also
noteworthy that the bill anticipates religious bigotry and defangs bigots in
advance by abolishing the offence of blasphemy. Actually, modern Scotland is a
liberal, secular and civilised nation which has not known any blasphemy
prosecution for more than 175 years. But the authorities are taking no chances.
“I look
forward to overseeing the implementation of this legislation which will ensure
Scotland’s justice system can bring perpetrators to account and provide
sufficient protection for individuals and communities harmed by hate crimes” Mr
Yousaf promises.
There is no
reason why he should be disappointed provided freedom of speech is not curbed
and justice is speedy and effective. India has not forgotten the 1968
Kilvenmani massacre when 44 Dalit men, women and children were burned alive,
and an appeal court acquitted the convicted murderers on the ground that
landlords of their status did not commit such crimes. A new law must also
punish rumour mongering about beef, killing cattle and romance across religious
borders.
India
demonstrates that the law by itself is simply not enough. It must also be
administered by politicians of goodwill and integrity.
https://www.asianage.com/opinion/columnists/170321/sunanda-k-datta-ray-india-needs-hate-crimes-law-on-lines-of-scotland.html
-----
URL: https://newageislam.com/indian-press/indian-press-waseem-rizvi,-myanmar/d/124559
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic
Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism