Open Forum
New Delhi, 10 December 2013
Human Rights
INDIA REVIEWS, BUT NOT WITHIN
By Dr S Saraswathi
(Former Director, ICSSR, New
Delhi)
The Asian Centre for Human Rights, in a report issued
recently has observed that India’s
performance in the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) has improved in terms of
participation and contributions of comments and reviews. The improvement has
been noted in the expansion of its attention geographically. It’s a review of a
reviewer.
UPR is the mechanism of the UN Human Rights Commission
(UNHRC) to scrutinize human rights records of all the Member-States of the UN.
It was instituted in 2008. In the first cycle between 2008 and 11, India
participated in the deliberations on 107 countries and refrained from doing so in
the cases of 84 countries. It made 38 recommendations pertaining to 28
countries out of which 16 were from Europe.
In the second cycle which started in 2012, India, so far is
said to have reviewed the performance of 55 countries and has made 37
recommendations to 19 countries. In
this, the focus is enlarged so as to include several Asian countries including
the criticism and the report of the Sri Lankan Commission of Enquiry “Lessons
Learnt and Reconciliation.” The issue of
freedom of religion has been raised with France,
Germany and the Netherlands.
This periodical exercise of review of the track record in
human rights of other countries in a general way actually puts the reviewer in
an embarrassing situation. For, no country can boast of a clean record of its
own performance in the field of human rights and confidently conduct the role
of a critic of the performance of other members of international fraternity.
Human rights encompass a variety of political, economic, and
social rights besides many individual rights that are universally
applicable. According to a UN definition
given in 1987, “human rights are those rights which are inherent in our nature
and without which we cannot live as human beings.” Like fundamental freedoms,
they “allow us to fully develop and use our human qualities, our intelligence,
our talents and our conscience and to satisfy our spiritual and other needs”.
What is “inherent in our nature” is a debatable subject
matter. It may differ as they grow from different historical, geographic,
economic, and cultural factors. Indeed, the universality of human rights beyond
the realm of physical care, comfort, and human dignity is itself questioned at
times.
However, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR),
1948 adopted by the UN assures the universality, indivisibility, and
interdependence of all rights – political, civil, social, cultural, or
economic. Vienna Declaration of 1993
confirms this and established the UNHRC. The UDHR contains 30 main articles
governing political rights and individual freedoms, minimum standard of living,
and international recognition of some collective rights.
Several international conventions have mentioned certain
specific human rights. Among these are the UN Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965, the Convention on the Elimination of
all Forms of Discrimination Against Women 1979, and the Convention on the
Rights of the Child 1989.
To be indicted for violation of human rights is resented
normally by any country. It is shameful
in the eyes of the world. At the same time, it is really difficult for every
country – developed, developing and under-developed – to be irreproachable in
safeguarding human rights. It is not just a question of affordability
economically or assertion of political authority.
Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that economic growth,
along with educational growth is a powerful means of improving the status of
human rights in the context of expansion of the contents of these rights. But,
it should be added that political motivations of affluent countries/groups can
and do lead to violation of human rights in the name of democracy and freedom.
Development is another factor that often turns unfriendly to
human rights. This can be seen in development-induced displacement, forced
eviction and relocation, land acquisitions, etc., that intrude into many facets
of normal life of millions of people. It follows that no country has an
impeccable record of its own performance to sit in judgement over the performance
of other countries in safeguarding human rights.
Human rights are considered sacrosanct since they can
promote desirable human values. They are
not means to achieve anything but are goals – ends in themselves. They have
existed before the birth of the State and Government. Our problem relates to identifying the rights
that are non-controversial and are universally applicable.
Culture shapes the attitude of individuals and groups to
view the human rights. Whether cultural relativism can be taken into account in
determining the universality of human rights is not an easy question. Many beliefs – political, religious, ethical,
etc. - are rooted in culture. Tremendous efforts are required to change beliefs
inconsistent with the prescriptions of human rights.
It is sometimes argued that western human rights principles
are based on individualism and are unsuited to Asian countries which give
priority to communities/groups over individual interests. In countries like India, social
justice is a cornerstone of good governance while personal freedom is the
foundation for all other freedoms in some democracies.
It had been an uphill task to firmly establish the right to
food, housing, healthcare and such social and economic welfare measures as
inalienable human rights in the face of opposition from some countries which
believe in absolutely competitive economic order. The UN Commission on Human
Settlement had faced opposition from the US in pushing forward the principle
of the right to shelter. These instances highlight the scope for different
viewpoints in asserting human rights.
However, India
cannot remain complacent to violations of human rights going on in this country
despite a number of protective and progressive laws and an efficient judicial
system. A wide gap between legal situation and actual conditions is noticeable.
In many cases, there is no justification or a reasonable ground for lapses.
Child marriage, bonded labour, manual scavenging, lingering
practices of “untouchability”, and gender discriminations, for instance, are
gross violations of human rights perpetrated in this country. They have to be
eliminated totally. The issue of human rights is not confined to international
relations or to incidents during military or civil war. These are very much
part of normal, daily life without which democracy and constitutional freedoms
will remain mere documents.
India has built a good record of
protecting human rights in its external relations. War prisoners, refugees, and
even illegal migrants find a friendly home in India. But, internally, we have to
fight a lot of social evils that are ingrained in our institutions. The country
has to address internal human rights issues so as to improve its credibility in
judging others. ---- INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|