Joe Athialy May 15, 2007

Tags: Human rights , Indian Government

href="/tag/Rights">Rights Council.

On the expiry of its one-year term, India is seeking a three-year term in the Council. Come May 17, in most probability India would be re-elected. There are only three more aspirants to the four vacancies from Asian States. In its last elections, India topped the Asian group, getting more votes than China and Japan.

Under the terms of UN General Assembly Resolution 60/251, the Council is a subsidiary body of the General Assembly that reports directly to the General Assembly. Established last year, it is a 47 member body of States, elected in a secret ballot by an absolute majority of the General Assembly, taking into account candidates’ contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights and voluntary pledges and commitments, and equitable geographic distribution amongst the five regional groups.

The responsibilities of the Council include undertaking a universal periodic review, based on objective and reliable information, of the fulfillment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments in a manner which ensures universality of coverage and equal treatment with respect to all States; address situations of violations of human rights, including gross and systematic violations and make recommendations to the General Assembly for the further development of international law [in the field of human rights]. Can delete?

The Council had four regular and special sessions in its first year. In its fourth session ended on March 30, the Council adopted seven resolutions and two decisions. Major among were on the right to development, adopted without a vote, wherein the Council decided to act to ensure that its agenda promotes and advances sustainable development and the achievements of the Millennium Development Goals. It agreed on a programme of work that will lead to raising the right to development to the same level and on a par with all other human rights and fundamental freedoms enshrined in the core human rights instruments.

One resolution India abstained from voting was on Combating defamation of religions. The resolution expressed deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations; intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions, and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities, in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001; urged States to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination including through political institutions and organizations of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to racial and religious hatred, hostility or violence. The resolution was adopted by a vote of 24 in favour, 14 against, and nine abstentions.

In its voluntary pledges and commitments to the Council – a requirement for seeking election – India did not leave anyone guessing. It did well, as anyone could imagine, while talking about human rights.

India begins with reminding the world about its long tradition of promoting and protecting human rights and the “privilege to be in the forefront of the struggle against apartheid since even before India’s independence”.

It lists down all ‘progressive’ laws that are passed in the recent past, while mentioning about special provisions for the progressive realization and enforcement of economic, social and cultural rights which has been provided for constitutionally. Initiative for the empowerment of women by reserving one-third of all seats for women in urban and local self-government, thus bringing over one million women at the grassroots level into political decision making; launch of the National Rural Employment Guarantee programme and Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act enacted by the Indian Parliament in 2005 are some of them.

India commits to maintain the independence, autonomy as well as genuine powers
of investigation of national human rights bodies and foster a culture of transparency, openness and accountability in the functioning of the Government, as enacted in the Right to Information Act.

In the context of instances mentioned at the beginning, the two baffling commitments India has made are to “continue to encourage efforts by civil society seeking to protect and promote human rights” and “work for the world-wide promotion and protection of human rights, based on the principles of cooperation and genuine dialogue”.

The response of the governments in Nandigram, Singur, Kalinganagar, Dadri, or Raigarh do not reflect the commitments made to the Council. These are only some of the well reported cases. What is happening in Chattisgarh in the name of Salva Judum for the past some years must put India in shame, let alone being a member of the Council. The innumerable serious false cases charged against human rights defenders around the country can no way be encouraging them to promote and protect human rights. Nearly after a quarter of centaury, the survivors of Bhopal are still awaiting justice. The responsibility of addressing their issues is tossed between the centre and the state governments. How could the country justify retaining Armed Forces Special Powers Act in North East and Jammu and Kashmir, where the abuses on ordinary citizens are on rise and the army is enjoying impunity?

These are not isolated issues in the country. Farmer suicides or agitations at different parts of the county because of Special Economic Zones are not unfortunate and unforeseen developments. They are the consequence of a lopsided planning and policy changes in favour of a few. If the commitment of ‘genuine dialogue’ was implemented and choices were given to people, many a lives could have been saved.

Talking tall on human rights in the international forums alone cannot ensure its promotion and protection at home. The talk has to be followed by genuine steps.