Rss

  • stumble
  • youtube
  • linkedin
United Nations Human Rights Council logo.

logo. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

4th June 2012, Pioneer

did not have many convincing replies to questions that it faced at a recently held UN human rights meet. Its representative was either evasive or simply did not respond to specific queries on caste and communal conflicts, says Suhas Chakma 

 

On May 24, the Human Rights Council reviewed India’s human rights record during the 13th session of the in Geneva. In his introductory remarks, head of the Indian delegation, Attorney General GE Vahanvati discarded the role of the UN by stating that India has self-correcting mechanisms in place. India by and large stuck to its 22-page National Report which was lettered mostly with constitutional provisions and success stories but failed to highlight human rights problems.

While Sudan, Uzbekistan, Bangladesh and the Philippines had only praise for India, a large number  of other countries raised questions including the status of the Prevention of Torture Bill, the ratification of the and visit of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture; ratification of the UN Convention on Enforced Disappearances; ratification of the ; abolition or moratorium on death penalty; ratifications of the ILO Conventions number 138, 155, 169, 173 and 182; withdrawal of India’s reservation to Article 16 of the UN Convenation Against All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and ratification of the Optional Protocol to the CEDAW Convention; protection/rehabilitation to victims of trafficking; comprehensive anti-discriminatory legislation and adequate means of redress; prevention of caste violence and implementation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act; repeal and review of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act.

Queries were also raised over the prosecution of security forces responsible for human rights violations; reform of the law enforcement bodies; strengthening control over the police forces and sensitisation of Armed forces towards human rights; human rights in school curriculum; access to justice and improvement of the judicial system; ; restriction on internet freedom; poverty alleviation, food security, health, sanitation, nutrition and drinking water, maternal and child mortality; protection of religious minorities, repeal of the anti-conversion laws and the status of the Communal and Targeted Violence Bill; status of the measures to address corruption; protection of the Human Rights Defenders and enactment of a law for protection of the HRDs; strengthening independence of National Human Rights Institutions; ratification of the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees; status of the NREGA; ratification of the Third Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child relating to communication procedures; allocation of more resources for enjoyment of economic and social rights especially in favour of vulnerable groups like women, children, poor people and minorities, etc.

It is not only the Western states but Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Iraq and Maldives from Asia, and Botswana and Ghana from Africa also asked India to ratify the UNCAT. Argentina and Chile from Latin America recommended a moratorium on the death penalty.

Among the issues raised, the Indian delegation replied only to those relating to the status of the Communal and Targeted Violence Bill, prosecution of the security forces, refugees, human rights education, the Right to Information Act, torture, restrictions on internet, MNREGA, children with disabilities, HIV, human rights defenders, the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, the AFSPA, National Human Rights Action Plan, child labour, domestic violence, marriage and women’s equal right to property, socio economic caste census, sanitation and safe drinking water and India’s reservation to the CEDAW.

The responses of the Indian delegation were evasive and misleading. India was not only evasive on the question of prosecution of the security forces but also on combating caste violence. Mr Vahanvati did not directly answer questions relating to caste discrimination, but in his final remarks he stated, “India is an ancient country with strong social traditions. Some of these traditions may now be out of tune with modern values. They have to change. But in a democracy, these can only be done in an inclusive manner involving all through persuasion, education, and development. We are conscious of the need for change and promoting it through legislation and social awareness.”

The statement did not reflect the fact that the Union Government had to convene the State Home Ministers’ Conference on Effective Implementation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in New Delhi on April 17 to discuss non-implementation of the Power of Attorney reflected from high pendency and low conviction rate of the cases.

India justified many of its questionable measures on the grounds of “terrorism and armed insurgency”. Regrettably, there was no specific question relating to violence in India manifested in armed conflicts in 21 out of 28 States. Throughout the examination, India appeared to be a land of peace and not ‘India: Million Mutinies Now’ as described by VS Naipaul much before the Maoists multiplied the armed conflicts in the heart of Indian. In all these conflicts, women have been victims of multiple violations but not a single question was raised on violence against women in conflict situations.

Just the way coalition political compulsion has become the excuse at national level, at the UN the Union Government sought to hide itself on its inability to speculate on parliamentary process and federalism with respect to pro-human rights bills. While that is true of the Women’s Reservation Bill and the Communal and Targeted Violence Bill, with respect to the Prevention of Torture Bill, it is the Union Ministry of Home Affairs which simply failed to introduce the Bill despite an all- party Parliamentary Select Committee submitting the draft in December 2010.

The Indian delegation also misled the UN on internet freedom. India’s delegation responded that the current restrictions imposed by the Information Technology Act deals with normally accepted restrictions on “cyber security and removal of illegal contents like child pornography” but did not respond to the pointed questions on the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 which permit private censorship through the service providers.

During the UPR examination of India in 2008, 18 recommendations were made but India implemented only one recommendation — extending standing invitation to the Special Procedures mandate holders. On May 24, India made no commitment to enhance human rights legal framework in the country but has received over 80 recommendations to act upon in four years.

As the same recommendations pile up due to lack of action, India will increasingly face credibility crisis at the UN despite assertion that it is committed to protect and promote human rights of its citizens.

Related posts

Comments (2)

  1. Thanks for the above. More people need to know about what transpired — and what did not — at the UPR hearings.
    A look at the Indian official delegation via the following link raises the question as to whether there is any connect between that lot and the policymakers of India, including parliament, not to speak of the PEOPLE of India.

    “Human Rights Council, Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Thirteenth session, Geneva, 21 May–4 June 2012, Draft report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review* INDIA”

    http://www.wghr.org/pdf/A_HRC_WG.6_13_L.8_India.pdf

    Best Regards
    Jayaram

  2. The UN is just another powerless body who just look on and only talk but do nothing. Sometimes I wonder why they exist at all and have to write their objectives and policies painstakingly when its only in theory. India or any country for the matter has no right to condemn violations of human rights when India is doing the same thing on its backyard.
    Referring to AFSPA, let me share something which has been running in my mid for long.
    I will not blame my ignorant friends when they support AFSPA leaving aside other human rights violation by India. I am a Naga by birth and by blood and we know our history very well. If you want to know what I mean, read the history of the Nagas where we were never a part of India but a free people and a people who fought against the Japanese, British and Indian invasion. Today we would not have witnessed what people called ‘Rebels’ in the Northeast or Nagaland if India had been wise enough yesterday. I applaud Mahatma Gandi, a great leader who said “”Nagas have every right to be Independent. We did not want to live under the domination of the British and they are now leaving us. I want you to feel that India is yours. I feel that the Naga Hills are mine as much as they are yours, but if you say, it is mine’, then the matter must stop there. I believe in the brotherhood of man, but I do not believe in forced unions. If you do not wish to join the Union of India, nobody will force you to do that. The Congress government will not do that”. When the Naga delegates pointed out that Sir Akbar Hydari, the then governor of Assam was threatening to do so exactly that, Gandhi exclaimed, “Sir Akbar is wrong. He cannot do that. I will come to the Naga Hills; will ask them to shoot me first before one Naga is shot”. If The great Gandhi would have taken the place of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, India would have been much better. Nehru tortured the Nagas and massacared thousands of Nagas without any mercy and remember, at that point in time there were no rebels but just another normal organization which represented the Nagas. My forfathers were tortured, murdered, mothers and sisters were raped and killed, our houses and granaries were burnt down by the Indian armies with the power of AFSPA. I recall the bodies of my prople being hung upside down at the Kohima local ground for days by the India armies after killing them in cold blood. Will anyone stand and watch such atrocities? I believe not. That is how the birth of resistance took place, that is how we stood to defend our rights to self determination just as India stood against the British. Today, in the Northeast, the India army still torture the people in the name of maintaining peace and order in the region. I thought I will grow up to be a normal India citizen but what my people go through in the hands of the India Govt. and its armies does not allow me to be one.
    I remember one night traveling with my father back home for my summer vacation. An army patrolling party stopped us on the highway in Assam and demamded we step down from the bus. In the process, an army jawan abused and beat my father just because he walked slowly being old. I have never forgetten that incident and never will. Many only watch and read in the medias about incidents and encounters in Jammu & Kashmir and The Northeast but few know the truth that most of these are not true but made up by the India armies. If anyone want to witness the truth, go to these places and you will realize what I am writing about. Atrocities by the India army happens everyday in the vallies. I write this being very straight forward and will never stoop to to say what I have witnessed.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: