D Ravi Kanth: Whose truth?

TRADING THOUGHTS

Indians routinely talk of human rights and other violations in different parts of the country""witness Sonia Gandhi's "merchants of death" remarks in the run up to the Gujarat elections. Strangely, for some inexplicable reason, the government invariably becomes hypersensitive when any violation of human rights in the country is subjected to scrutiny abroad.

India was subjected to what is called the first-ever Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the Geneva-based UNHCR last week. This is an event that enables each member of the Council to undergo thorough scrutiny of its human rights record. It is also a platform to review whether UN members are adhering to international treaties and conventions on racial discrimination, prohibition of torture, elimination of child labour and crimes against women. Members as well as human rights pressure groups can also comment on gross violations in the country under review. The UPR is seen as a jewel in the crown of the Council "" a break from the previous practice of selectivity in which countries avoided an overall assessment of how they implemented basic human rights.

A panel of three countries (Troika) is selected to oversee the review. For India, the Netherlands, Indonesia and Ghana were chosen. The country under review is required to present a report cataloguing how basic rights and their enforcement mechanisms have evolved over time, and indicate progress in regard to their actual implementation.

The 16-page report prepared by the Indian government stated unambiguously "how pluralism and respect for diversity inform all aspects of the polity and society in the world's largest democracy." It went on to provide a plethora of its actual successes in fostering "an inclusive, open, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual society." "Human rights in India are to be viewed in the backdrop of this diverse social and cultural ethos, the country's development imperatives and also the fact that for over two decades, it has faced the scourge of terrorism which is aided and abetted from outside," the government maintained. Despite grave challenges, "India's approach towards protection and promotion of human rights has been characterised by a holistic, multi-pronged effort," it maintained.

The solicitor general, Goolam E Vahanvati, claimed proudly in his statement to the Council that "the transition from a colony to independent nation is bound to be fraught with problems and aberrations," arguing that "we have the maturity to recognise what goes wrong and we also have the capacity, willingness and the ability to embark on the course of correction and rectification."

In sharp contrast to such bold assertions, the reports presented by the office of the High Commissioner for human rights offered a different assessment. They indicate that all is not well with the implementation of various international human rights conventions in India. The two reports pointed to a range of lacunae compiled from reports submitted by various treaty bodies as well the complaints lodged by 37 stakeholders.

"India has failed to properly implement laws and policies to protect its marginalised communities, particularly Dalits, tribal groups, religious minorities, women and children," said the New York-based Human Rights Watch. It argued vehemently about the pervasive "impunity" in which "serious crimes perpetuated by security forces are rarely investigated or prosecuted," resulting in custodial deaths, disappearances and torture.

An Indian Civil Society Coalition comprising several human rights groups, including those representing Dalits, claimed the government's response to issues raised about the deteriorating climate of lawlessness in the country as half-truths and lies. Its main criticism against the government is that it chose to "sidestep" uncomfortable issues by categorising them as "internal" despite "the pervasive issues lack of accountability for implementation of commitments under international agreements, and the institutionalised impunity for state actors involved in violations of human rights."

While neighbours such as Cuba, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal and Sri Lanka praised the government's overall track record, others such as the UK, Germany and Canada, among others, poked holes as regards the non-implementation of treaties on torture or elimination of child labour.

Clearly, there is a gap between what the government's assertions on its strong constitutional underpinnings of the human rights edifice and the day-to-day implementation of those laws whether it is in Gujarat, Nagaland or Jammu & Kashmir. In a globalised world, there is is no harm in publicly admitting about some major failures in protecting basic rights. It is difficult to conceal the reality centring the loss of lives due to impunity.