PRIOR to his departure for India to attend its Republic Day parade on January 26 as chief guest, Saudi King Abdullah gave an interview to a private Indian TV channel. In this interview, it was suggested that India be granted observer status at the OIC as has been given to Russia which, like India, is also a non-Muslim country but with a sizable Muslim population — although Saudi authorities later said that the monarch had been misquoted.

It may be recalled that following an arson attack on Al Aqsa mosque in August 1969, which outraged Muslims all over the world, an Islamic summit was held in Rabat in September 1969 to condemn the sacrilege against one of the most venerated places of Islam and to coordinate efforts for safeguarding Islam’s holy places. However, the Muslim leaders, who gathered in Rabat, also decided to institutionalize cooperation among Muslim states in economic, social, cultural, scientific and other vital fields of activities by establishing a permanent organization for this purpose. A charter of the proposed body of the Islamic countries, named Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), was adopted in 1971 which specified its objectives and principles laying great emphasis on promoting Islamic solidarity.

According to its charter, the OIC is composed of the states which participated in the summit of kings and heads of state/government held in Rabat in September 1969 and also attended the foreign ministers conferences held in Jeddah and Karachi in March 1970 and December 1970 respectively. Every other Muslim state is, however also, eligible to join the OIC on submitting an application expressing its desire and preparedness to adopt this charter.

India made every possible effort to participate in the Rabat summit in 1969 on the basis of having a large Muslim community in its population. However, Pakistan opposed this move and argued that India was not an Islamic country and that it also had a record of treating its Muslim population ruthlessly. Some Arab states still favoured India’s participation in the summit. However, Pakistan’s strong opposition, based on its principled and logical stand, forced them to capitulate and India was kept out of the Islamic summit.

This setback did not, however, deter India from making relentless efforts, albeit in vain, to make inroads into the OIC apparently with no cogent reason except that it probably wanted to deprive Pakistan from enjoying unequivocal support in the Islamic world through this platform for the Kashmir cause. India’s case has, however, gone from bad to worse, particularly after the destruction of the historic Babri mosque in 1992 and the killing of thousands of Muslims in its aftermath as well as its growing intimate relationship with Israel which is considered an arch-enemy of the Islamic world.

The charter of the OIC clearly stipulates that only the Muslim countries willing to promote the organization’s objectives were eligible to become its members. In this context it may, however, be of interest to note that Turkey, which has an overwhelming Muslim population, did not seek OIC’s full membership as its constitution did not allow it to join an organization that has religious undertones. The Turkish parliament, therefore, had to make suitable amendment in the Turkish constitution to remove this snag and only then did Turkey apply for the membership of the OIC. It follows from this that India cannot become a member of the OIC as it cannot promote its objectives as that would be inconsistent with its secular constitution.

When the second Islamic summit was held in Lahore in February 1974, the then president of Uganda, Idi Amin, declared that he would also attend the summit. Uganda was not an Islamic country and, therefore, its participation in the summit was in conflict with the OIC charter. However, those who were at the helm of the state affairs in Pakistan at the time allowed Idi Amin to attend the summit and admitted Uganda as a member of the OIC.

Regrettably, non-adherence of the criteria laid down in the charter for admission of members into the organization led a number of other non-eligible countries, like Benin and Sierra Leone to join the OIC as full-fledged members which not only set an undesirable precedent but has also created an anomalous situation which needs to be rectified. However, one does not really know how it would be possible to do so at this stage.

There is an increasing number of requests for obtaining observer status at the OIC. The case of Islamic states eligible for membership of the organization, according to the provisions of the charter and wishing to follow the activities of the OIC in observer capacity provisionally, prior to applying for membership, is simple and would present no difficulty. Similarly, governmental organizations, both international and regional, can also be granted observer status, in accordance with the conditions and regulations provided for in the statutes and on the basis of reciprocity.

However, the admission of non-Muslim countries seeking accession as observers at the OIC necessitates a thorough review. It is believed that the OIC has already set up a committee to review the current procedures for the grant of observer status to non-Muslim states. It is understood that under the existing rules full membership may be granted on the fulfilment of some prescribed conditions which are not included in the rules pertaining to the grant of observer status.

As a matter of fact, all non-eligible countries and organizations applying for observer status at the OIC should also be asked to express their willingness and capability to work for the realization of the objectives of the organization enunciated in its charter. After all, observer status is quasi-membership to the OIC and therefore, the observers are also expected to fulfil their obligations. Observer status should be suspended or withdrawn from an observer if it fails to fulfil its obligations.

The writer is a former ambassador