ABDUL BASIT: The 57 member Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is the second largest multilateral inter-governmental organization after the United Nations. Established in 1969, following the 1967 Arab-Israel war, the organization was meant to unite the Muslim world and to protect and promote its interests around the globe. Much to the chagrin of most Muslims, its overall performance leaves much to be desired.

Take the recently passed Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) in India, which, trashing the universal principle of non-discrimination on religious or ethnic grounds, has laid bare the Modi government’s visceral hatred against Muslims.  Protests in India continue.

The new law, which grants citizenship to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians, Jains and Parsis, but not Muslims who entered the country from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan until Dec. 31, 2014, is in clear violation of not only Article 14 of the Indian constitution but also the UN Charter and international law.

The law has understandably ignited worldwide concerns and raised questions about the future of democracy and secularism in the second most populous country in the world. So far, the right-wing BJP government is showing no signs of even a tactical retreat.

The reason for the Modi government standing its ground is not difficult to decipher. The world’s reaction by and large has been perfunctory.

Not a single government or multilateral organization has come forward to suggest some concrete steps against India should the latter refuse to revisit the law and amend it to bring it in kilter with its own constitution.

So far, only Bangladesh has reacted sharply to the discriminatory law by postponing the pre scheduled visits of its Foreign and Home Ministers to India.

Let’s not blame the OIC for inaction. All the 57 member countries are hostage to their bilateral relations and respective national interests.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit was mutually postponed as he was also to stay in Assam which is worst hit both by the new law and the National Registration of Citizens (NRC) which has left over 1.9 million Assamese literally stateless.

As for the domestic reaction, Prime Minister Modi and his right-hand man, Home Minister Amit Shah, look reasonably confident that the protests will lose momentum and taper off. Perhaps they also genuinely believe that their vote bank will remain intact, though the party has recently faced a humiliating setback in the state elections of Jharkhand where Congress and local allies have been able to form the new government.

Let’s revert to the OIC. In its statement issued by the General Secretariat of the OIC on Dec. 22, it expressed “concerns over the developments pertaining to both the issues of citizenship rights and the Babri Masjid case, reiterating its call to “ensure the safety of the Muslim minority and the protection of Islamic holy places in India.”

The statement added: “The General Secretariat reaffirms the crucial importance of upholding the principles and obligations enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and relevant international covenants that guarantee the rights of minorities without any discrimination. In this regard, any action, contrary to these principles and obligations may lead to further tensions and may have serious implications on peace and security across the region.”

The statement unfortunately did not tell us what the OIC would do if India refuses to budge since it considers the issue its internal sovereign decision expressed through the will of its parliament.

This lack of reluctance on the part of OIC to go beyond a mostly rhetorical statement can be explained on two counts. First, the three countries, namely, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan failed to get together for a joint response. Afghanistan and Bangladesh would not like to be seen joining hands with Pakistan against India as both the countries presently have far more robust relations with India than Pakistan. And this time is particularly inauspicious when Pakistan and India are not even talking to each other following India’s unconstitutional decision to strip Jammu and Kashmir of its special status in August last year.

When the three affected countries are not willing to discuss the matter trilaterally and approach the OIC jointly, the latter cannot be blamed for its pro forma approach. These countries have no real moral basis to upbraid the OIC for their own omissions.

India may already be working to turn this difficult situation to its advantage, contending that if the OIC is concerned about the nearly 200 million Muslims in India, then Delhi’s request to become an OIC member should not be opposed by some of its member countries.

Let’s revert to the OIC. In its statement issued by the General Secretariat of the OIC on Dec. 22, it expressed “concerns over the developments pertaining to both the issues of citizenship rights and the Babri Masjid case, reiterating its call to “ensure the safety of the Muslim minority and the protection of Islamic holy places in India.”

The statement added: “The General Secretariat reaffirms the crucial importance of upholding the principles and obligations enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and relevant international covenants that guarantee the rights of minorities without any discrimination. In this regard, any action, contrary to these principles and obligations may lead to further tensions and may have serious implications on peace and security across the region.”

The statement unfortunately did not tell us what the OIC would do if India refuses to budge since it considers the issue its internal sovereign decision expressed through the will of its parliament.

This lack of reluctance on the part of OIC to go beyond a mostly rhetorical statement can be explained on two counts. First, the three countries, namely, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan failed to get together for a joint response. Afghanistan and Bangladesh would not like to be seen joining hands with Pakistan against India as both the countries presently have far more robust relations with India than Pakistan. And this time is particularly inauspicious when Pakistan and India are not even talking to each other following India’s unconstitutional decision to strip Jammu and Kashmir of its special status in August last year.

When the three affected countries are not willing to discuss the matter trilaterally and approach the OIC jointly, the latter cannot be blamed for its pro forma approach. These countries have no real moral basis to upbraid the OIC for their own omissions.

India may already be working to turn this difficult situation to its advantage, contending that if the OIC is concerned about the nearly 200 million Muslims in India, then Delhi’s request to become an OIC member should not be opposed by some of its member countries.

Let’s not blame the OIC for inaction. All the 57 member countries have their bilateral relations and respective national interests. Intra-OIC divisions look intractable.

Abdul Basit is the president of Pakistan Institute for Conflict and Security Studies. He was previously Pakistan`s ambassador to Germany and Pakistan`s High Commissioner to India.