In 1932 the Soviet authorities on the orders of Stalin increased the grain procurement quota for Ukraine by 44%. The Soviet secret police kept a watchful eye on peasants who might be hiding grain from the authorities. Grain obtained from Ukraine was collected and stored in grain elevators that were guarded by military units and the Soviet secret police. This move caused a severe shortage of grain for the local population and resulted in a devastating famine in Ukraine, the northern Caucasus and the Lower Volga River region in 1932-33. The famine took a toll of nearly 10 million people, mainly Ukrainians.

Recently declared KGB records on the Ukrainian famine reveal that the famine was deliberately engineered by Stalin. The man-made famine was aimed at breaking the spirit of Ukrainian peasants and forcing them into collectivized farming (which was introduced by Stalin during 1929-34). The famine was also used as an instrument to undermine and subvert the resurgence of Ukraine’s indigenous culture, which was blossoming during this period and was perceived as a threat to Soviet hegemony. Ukraine declared independence in 1991.

On 28 November 2006, the Ukrainian parliament passed a law declaring the 1932-33 famine as a deliberate act of genocide against the Ukrainian people.

On 28 November 2006, the Ukrainian parliament passed a law declaring the 1932-33 famine as a deliberate act of genocide against the Ukrainian people.

Oppression of Muslims during the Soviet era

The forced incorporation of the Muslim-dominated regions of Central Asia and Russia into the Soviet Union brought about untold hardships and suffering for tens of millions of Muslims. During the Stalin era, an extensive campaign of Russification was carried out by the Soviet authorities, which sought to erase all ethnic, religious and cultural diversities and distinctions in the population and to superimpose upon it a common language (Russian) and the atheistic and anti-religious ideology of communism.

Stalin sought to eradicate the presence of Islam in the former Soviet Union by ordering the closure of mosques, madrasas and Sufi hospices and by proscribing the observance of Islamic rites and rituals. Thousands of ulama and teachers were imprisoned, deported or shot dead. There were 26,000 mosques in the Soviet Union on the eve of the Russian Revolution in 1917. Their number was reduced to just 400 by 1984. The use of the Arabic script was banned and replaced by Latin and Cyrillic scripts.

Stalin sought to eradicate the presence of Islam in the former Soviet Union by ordering the closure of mosques, madrasas and Sufi hospices and by proscribing the observance of Islamic rites and rituals. Thousands of ulama and teachers were imprisoned, deported or shot dead. There were 26,000 mosques in the Soviet Union on the eve of the Russian Revolution in 1917. Their number was reduced to just 400 by 1984. The use of the Arabic script was banned and replaced by Latin and Cyrillic scripts.

The policy of Russification also entailed a systematically planned migration and settlement of ethnic Russians in the Central Asian republics. This move was aimed at taking over the fertile lands and mineral resources of these regions and to alter their demographic composition. By 1914 nearly half of the population of Kazakhstan was composed of Russians. Millions of acres of fertile land and grazing ground were captured by Russian immigrants with the connivance of the authorities. This created deep resentment in the local population, leading to the Central Asian Uprising of 1916, which was crushed by the Soviet authorities with an iron hand. In 1929 large tracts of Kazakh lands were forcibly taken over by the authorities, as a result of which more than a million people died of hunger and starvation. Large-scale killings and deportation of Kazakhs on the orders of Stalin led to a massive decimation of the Kazakh population. Between 1916 and 1934, 3.3 million Kazaks died and another 1.3 million were driven into exile, reducing the Kazakh population to about one-third of what it was in 1917.

Nemesis of China’s one-child policy

China is the most populous country in the world. Its current population is 1.3 billion, more than one-sixth of the total global population. Alarmed by the country’s escalating population growth, Chine authorities in the 1970s began emphasizing such methods as delayed marriages, intervals between births and fewer children to reduce high fertility rates. As a result, China’s total fertility rate—the number of children a woman is expected to have in her lifetime—was reduced from over five to slightly over two.

In 1979, Chinese government began enforcing a radical policy to curb population growth by allowing couples to have just one child. The aim of the one-child policy was not only to arrest population growth but also to provide better education, nutrition and healthcare to children. Couples have to pay heavy fines if they have a second child. It is estimated that, as a result of the one-child policy, some 400 million births have been prevented. The country’s current population growth rate is 0.7%.

The policy makes some exceptions in the case of ethnic minorities (which comprise about 10% of the country’s population) and families in rural areas. Nearly 53% of Chinese people live in rural areas, where couples are allowed to have a second child if the first one is a girl. Furthermore, couples who have no siblings are allowed to have a second child. As the accompanying graphic shows, nearly 36% of the population have one child while 53% have two children (because the first child happens to be a girl). About 10% people have defied the existing policy and have two children, and a miniscule minority (1.6%) has more than two children (largely due to the use of fertility drugs).

Demographers point out that in order to maintain the population at a stable level, a fertility rate of 2.1 births per woman is required. China’s current fertility rate is between 1.7 and 1.8 births per woman, well below the ideal level. China’s one-child policy has given rise to a set of demographic, social, economic and psychological problems. The sex ratio is becoming unbalanced. Males now outnumber females by more than 60 million. In the province of Hainan, there are 100 girls for 135 boys.

Like most Asian countries, Chinese parents have a clear preference for the male child, who is expected to look after them in their old age. Abortion of female fetuses is widespread in the country. It is estimated that nearly 90% of fetuses aborted in the country are female. A large number of female babies are handed over to orphanages. Boys far outnumber girls in schools and colleges. The number of young men who are unable to find wives is steadily increasing. According to an official estimate, by 2020 there may be some 30 million men of marriageable age who will not be able to find wives. In a small village in China’s tropical island of Hainan, there are more than a hundred men aged between 18 and 40 who are unmarried, unable to find a wife. A number of villages are faced with the same problem.

The population of the elderly is growing in the country, thanks to increased life expectancy and better healthcare facilities. In the next few years, China will have 400 million elderly people. There are few people of working age to support the growing number of elderly dependents. Before the era of economic reforms and liberalization, almost everyone in towns and cities worked for a state-run company, which provided benefits such as healthcare and housing. With privatization these benefits have largely been withdrawn, placing greater responsibility on younger people. Economic hardships and the search for better prospects lead large numbers of young people to migrate to cities, making elderly parents and other relatives more vulnerable. As extended families are crumbling, a growing number of elderly people turn to old age homes. Many schools are being converted into old age homes.

A particularly worrisome consequence of the one-child policy is the growing shortage of labour and workforce in factories and establishments. This problem is becoming acute as China has opened the gates of globalization and as the demand for the supply of labour has greatly expanded.

A particularly worrisome consequence of the one-child policy is the growing shortage of labour and workforce in factories and establishments. This problem is becoming acute as China has opened the gates of globalization and as the demand for the supply of labour has greatly expanded.

There is a growing resentment in China against the one-child policy. There have been occasional protests and demonstrations against the policy in some towns. During the parliamentary session in March 2007, 29 members of the Chinese Peoples’ Political Consultative Conference (a government advisory body) suggested that couples be allowed to have two children. However, this suggestion was turned down by the authorities.

Some families have tried to get round the one-child policy by taking recourse to fertility drugs—which are quite cheap and easily available—which enable them to have twins or even triplets. In recent years, there has been a huge increase in the number of twins in many villages.

Some families have tried to get round the one-child policy by taking recourse to fertility drugs—which are quite cheap and easily available—which enable them to have twins or even triplets. In recent years, there has been a huge increase in the number of twins in many villages.

Lessons for China

China’s one-child policy is fraught with alarming demographic, social and economic consequences. The country could perhaps take a lesson from the experiences of Japan as well as many European countries which are faced with rapid fertility decline. In Japan, the birth rate has been falling for nearly half a century. In the early 1970s it passed the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman and in 2005 hit a record low of 1.6. The current fertility rate is 1.4, the lowest in Asia and one of the lowest in the world. Japan’s population is projected to fall by more than 20% by 2050 and by more than half by the end of the present century. The country’s rapidly falling fertility rate will lead to a shortage of labour and will aggravate the burden on healthcare. Furthermore, it will have adverse consequences for the elderly population.

Fertility rates are steadily falling in most European countries as well as in South Korea and Taiwan. Italy, for example, has the lowest fertility rate in the world—1.2 births per woman. This decline is expected to result in a drop in the country’s population from the present 57.3 million to 51.3 million over the next 25 years. The fertility rates of Germany, Greece, Poland and Russia are, respectively, 1.4, 1.3, 1.3 and 1.3. Germany’s population is set to plummet from the current 82 million to 70.8 million by 2050.

Russia’s population is declining by at least 700,000 people each year, leading to an increasingly aged workforce and the emergence of hundreds of uninhabited villages. Official forecasts predict a decline of the country’s population from the current 140 million to between 80 and 100 million by 2050.

Freedom of expression and hypocrisy

The Western world considers itself the most ardent and uncompromising advocate of freedom of expression. In practice, however, a great deal of hypocrisy and doubletalk surrounds the issue.

A Spanish court in November 2007 convicted Manel Fontdevila, cartoon editor of the popular satirical weekly magazine El Jueves, and cartoonist “Guillermo” on charges of “damaging the prestige of the crown.” The journalists, who were fined 3,000 euros, had published a cartoon in July 2007 which made fun of Prince Filipe, heir to the Spanish crown, and of the government’s scheme to encourage women to have more babies. Within a few hours of the cartoons’ appearance, the court ordered the confiscation of all copies of the magazine.

In France, a newspaper report during this year’s presidential election campaign revealed that Cecilia Sarkozy (the former wife of the French president) did not cast her vote. The journalist who wrote the story was sacked on orders from the newspaper’s owner, a close associate of the president.

A recently released survey of media freedom in 20 European countries entitled Goodbye to Freedom?, published by the independent Association of European Journalists, found that within the past year alone, journalists in 18 out of 20 European countries have faced criminal prosecution, or been jailed for breaking various laws involving libel or secrecy.

A recently released survey of media freedom in 20 European countries entitled Goodbye to Freedom?, published by the independent Association of European Journalists, found that within the past year alone, journalists in 18 out of 20 European countries have faced criminal prosecution, or been jailed for breaking various laws involving libel or secrecy.

Sacrilegious cartoons of the Prophet

On 30 September 2005, Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper, published a series of 12 highly derogatory cartoons of Prophet Muhammad. In one of them he was shown wearing a bomb-shaped turban, portraying him as a terrorist. The cartoons were accompanied by a text which read: Some Muslims reject modern, secular society. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with secular democracy and freedom of expression, where one has to be ready to put up with scorn, mockery and ridicule.

It is interesting to note that Jyllands-Posten had earlier refused to print cartoons of Jesus Christ because it involved the risk of hurting the religious sentiments of Christians.

It is interesting to note that Jyllands-Posten had earlier refused to print cartoons of Jesus Christ because it involved the risk of hurting the religious sentiments of Christians.

On October 14, some 5,000 Muslims held a protest demonstration against the sacrilegious cartoons. In early February 2006, several newspapers in 22 European countries, including Spain’s Catalan daily El Periodico, republished some or all of the cartoons. The publication of these cartoons generated an enormous amount of anger and resentment among Muslims across the world and led to massive protests in several Muslim countries. Danish embassies in Iran, Beirut, Syria and Libya were attacked and vandalized. By and large, European writers and intellectuals and the media justified the publication of these cartoons in the name of freedom of expression.

No country, including those of Europe, allows complete, unfettered freedom of expression, as the two recent instances cited in the foregoing testify. Freedom of expression in nearly all countries is restricted by prohibitions against defamation, libel, blasphemy (as in the UK and Denmark), obscenity, national security, incitement to hatred, and judicial and parliamentary privilege. The European Convention on Human Rights , while recognizing that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, allows European nations to impose restrictions “in interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others.”

No country, including those of Europe, allows complete, unfettered freedom of expression, as the two recent instances cited in the foregoing testify. Freedom of expression in nearly all countries is restricted by prohibitions against defamation, libel, blasphemy (as in the UK and Denmark), obscenity, national security, incitement to hatred, and judicial and parliamentary privilege.

Freedom of expression and social responsibility

The right to freedom of expression needs to be tempered with social responsibility and sensitivity towards the beliefs and sentiments of others. An unbridled right to freedom of expression is fraught with socially disruptive consequences.

A recent report of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia points out that freedom of expression is not an absolute right. International law and the legal order of EU Member States lay down certain limits that democratic societies consider important and necessary in order to protect other fundamental rights. The report adds that freedom of expression and the protection against racist and xenophobic language can, and have to, go hand-in-hand.

A recent report of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia points out that freedom of expression is not an absolute right. International law and the legal order of EU Member States lay down certain limits that democratic societies consider important and necessary in order to protect other fundamental rights. The report adds that freedom of expression and the protection against racist and xenophobic language can, and have to, go hand-in-hand.

During a meeting of media professionals hosted by the International Federation of Journalists on 15 February 2006, a consensus was reached on the following statement: All media, on all sides, must act professionally in dealing with religious and cultural issues and rights of minorities, and should not do anything that would create unnecessary tension by promoting hatred or inciting violence.