Human Rights Day 2024 Observed on December 10

 Human Rights Day is observed annually on December 10, which commemorates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted in 1948. This year’s theme is Our Rights, Our Future, Right Now, which emphasizes the practical importance of human rights.

Significance of the UDHR

The UDHR asserts that all individuals are born free and equal, which guarantees rights to life, freedom, security, and equality before the law. It also upholds freedom of thought, conscience, religion, opinion, and expression. These principles are enshrined in India’s Constitution and the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

NHRC’s Role in India

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of India promotes and protects human rights. It was established to address civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. The NHRC engages with various stakeholders, including NGOs and government officials, to raise awareness and influence policies.

Focus Areas and Initiatives

The NHRC reviews laws and issues advisories on various human rights issues. It addresses child sexual abuse, environmental pollution, and the rights of vulnerable groups. Special Rapporteurs assess conditions in shelters and prisons.

The NHRC conducts training programs for All India Services officers. It raises awareness through workshops, moot court competitions, and internships for students. These initiatives aim to embed human rights education in various sectors.

Online Complaint System

The NHRC has streamlined the complaint process via its online portal. This system connects with state authorities and allows tracking of complaints. It links to over five lakh Common Service Centers, enhancing accessibility for the public.

 GKToday Facts for Exams:

1. UDHR The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948. It asserts that all individuals are born free and equal, guaranteeing essential rights and freedoms globally.
2. NHRC The National Human Rights Commission of India was established to protect and promote human rights. It addresses civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights through various initiatives.
3. Mental Well-being Conference The National Conference on ‘Mental Well-being’ will address mental health challenges. It focuses on stress management across different life stages, promoting awareness and solutions for mental health issues.

Human rights begin at home

Once, human rights were understood as the simple principle that one person’s rights should never extend beyond the tip of another’s noseunless invited. On December 10 each year, the world comes together to observe International Human Rights Day, a day that underscores the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family. First recognized in 1950 under the guidance of the United Nations, this day has evolved into a global call to action for the protection and promotion of human rights worldwide. Yet, despite decades of progress, violations persist across the globe, reminding us that the fight for human rights is far from over. The debate on human rights dates back centuries, and two of the most prominent figures in this discourse Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine left a lasting legacy that continues to resonate today.

Burke, a supporter of the monarchy, saw the preservation of tradition and hierarchy as essential to societal stability, while Paine, a revolutionary thinker, championed liberty, equality, and the rights of individuals. One of Paine’s most famous lines, “We pity the plumage, but forget the dying bird,” directly addressed the hypocrisy of focusing on superficial issues while ignoring the deeper, more urgent concerns. In modern times, these words still carry weight, highlighting how we often address surface-level concerns while systemic injustices persist, unnoticed or unchallenged. The observance of Human Rights Day invites us to reflect on the progress made and the work still to be done. It is a reminder that the principles outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948, remain crucial in shaping a more just and equitable world.

However, despite the ground-breaking achievements of the UDHR, widespread violations continue, and the fight for human dignity remains on-going. Throughout history, the struggle for human rights has been a journey fraught with obstacles. One notable turning point in this struggle occurred in the United States during the 19th century. The abolition of slavery, a monumental achievement, came about through the tireless efforts of leaders like Abraham Lincoln, who, in 1863, led the nation to abolish the institution through the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. This was a transformative moment in the history of human rights. Despite the victory, however, African-Americans continued to face systemic discrimination and segregation for many years after.

The 1954 landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, where the US Supreme Court declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional, was another significant victory for human rights in America. But even after this, African-Americans had to fight for basic rights like access to education, the vote, and an end to discriminatory laws. It was only in 1965, after decades of struggle and advocacy by civil rights leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., that African-Americans were granted the right to vote under the Voting Rights Act. These achievements were monumental, but they were hard-won, demonstrating the lengths to which marginalized communities had to go in order to claim their human rights. Internationally, the story of human rights has also been one of continuous struggle and progress.

The United Nations’ adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 was a defining moment. It set out, for the first time, a global standard for human rights, affirming the rights of individuals to life, liberty, and security, among other freedoms. The UDHR became the foundation upon which many countries would base their own human rights frameworks. But the road to realising these rights in full has not been easy. Over the decades, the UDHR has been supplemented by two essential covenants – the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights – passed in 1966 to reinforce and clarify the rights outlined in the UDHR.

One of the key figures behind the development of the UDHR was Eleanor Roosevelt, who, as the chairperson of the UN Human Rights Commission, played a pivotal role in its creation. Known as the “mother of modern human rights,” Roosevelt’s vision for a world where all people were treated equally and with dignity shaped the discourse on human rights for generations. Unfortunately, she did not live to see the full impact of the UDHR, passing away in 1962, but her legacy lives on. Since 1998, the Eleanor Roosevelt Award for Human Rights has been awarded annually to individuals who have made significant contributions to the protection of human rights. As we reflect on the history of human rights, we must also acknowledge the many challenges that remain today.

In the United States, for example, despite significant progress, debates about gun control and mass shootings continue to spark deep divisions. The United Nations and various human rights organizations have called for greater restrictions on firearms, but powerful interest groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA) continue to push back against any form of regulation. The on-going violence in schools and public places is a stark reminder that the struggle for human rights continues, and that the protection of human life and safety is an essential component of human rights. In India, human rights protections are enshrined in the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life, liberty, and equality. However, even in a country with such a strong legal framework, violations of human rights are not uncommon.

Discrimination based on caste, religion, gender, and disability continues to affect millions of people across the country. While the Constitution guarantees equal rights for all, the reality often falls short. The National Human Rights Commission, which works to address these issues, plays an important role, but there is still much work to be done. The issue of discrimination remains one of the most pervasive challenges to human rights. Genderbased violence, including domestic abuse, sexual assault, and trafficking, continues to devastate the lives of women and girls around the world. In many countries, LGBTQ+ individuals face violence, discrimination, and the denial of basic rights.

Refugees and migrants, fleeing war, persecution, and poverty, are often subjected to inhumane conditions and denied their rights to safety and protection. The most vulnerable members of society, including those who are stateless, face some of the most extreme forms of discrimination, and the international community must do more to protect them. On a global scale, poverty and inequality are also significant barriers to realizing human rights. Despite progress in some areas, the gap between the rich and the poor continues to widen. Economic inequalities, along with the challenges posed by climate change, pose major threats to the realization of human rights for millions of people around the world. The struggle for human rights is far from over.

While progress has been made, there are still millions of people around the world who are denied their basic rights and dignity. The world must come together to address the root causes of discrimination, inequality, and violence. Human rights are not just abstract concepts; they are the foundation of a just and peaceful world. As we observe International Human Rights Day later this month, we must renew our commitment to these principles and work to ensure that they are upheld for all people, everywhere.

The fight for human rights is not just the responsibility of governments or international organizations. It is a responsibility shared by all of us, whether through advocacy, education, or simply standing up for justice. We must remember the words of Eleanor Roosevelt, “Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home.” It is in our homes, our communities, and our everyday actions that the future of human rights will be determined.

SANTHOSH MATHEW

Source:The Statesman, 1/12/24

What is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is marking its 75th anniversary?

 

A relatively compact document, the declaration consists of a preamble and 30 articles setting out fundamental rights and freedoms.

Seventy-five years ago on Sunday, the UN General Assembly approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at a meeting in Paris – laying one of the foundation stones of the international order that emerged following the horrors of World War II.

The declaration was proclaimed as “a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations.” In practice, it hasn’t always turned out that way over the subsequent decades. As the document turns 75, U.N. human rights chief Volker Türk said this week that the world is at a “somber moment in history,” wracked by conflicts and crises. But he insisted that “human rights have not failed.”

What is the Universal Declaration?

A relatively compact document, the declaration consists of a preamble and 30 articles setting out fundamental rights and freedoms. Article 1 states that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” And Article 2 says that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms the declaration sets out, “without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” Other articles state that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person,” and that no one “shall be held in slavery or servitude” or “subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

The declaration says that “all are equal before the law” and that everyone is entitled to “a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.” And it says that “everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” The declaration enshrines the rights to freedom of religion; to freedom of opinion and expression; and to freedom of peaceful assembly. And it says that everyone has the right to education.

Why and how was it drawn up?

The declaration was born of the “never again” sentiment among political leaders after two world wars and the Holocaust. On top of the U.N. Charter, the document that founded the United Nations in 1945, countries decided to draw up what the U.N. calls a “road map” to guarantee the rights of every individual.

A formal drafting committee was chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, the widow of U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and consisted of members of the new Commission on Human Rights from eight countries, selected to reflect geographical distribution.

Over 50 U.N. member countries participated in the final drafting in 1948, and the U.N. General Assembly approved the result on Dec. 10, 1948, with eight countries abstaining but none voting against. Human rights group Amnesty International notes that the declaration was drawn up at a time when much of the world’s population lived under colonial rule but says that “its drafting ultimately could not be controlled by the powerful alone.” It says that smaller nations “outmaneuvered the large,” ensuring that the final text promised human rights for all without distinction, and that female delegates ensured equal rights for men and women were affirmed.

The declaration isn’t a treaty and isn’t legally binding in itself, but the principles it sets out have been incorporated into many countries’ laws and it is viewed as the basis for international human rights law.

It is recognized as having inspired and paved the way for more than 70 human rights treaties at global and regional levels, according to the U.N. “It inspired the decolonization movement, it inspired the anti-apartheid movement and it inspired freedom fighters all around the world, be it on gender issues, be it on LGBTIQ+ issues, be it against racism,” U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Türk said on Wednesday.

“If we did not have it, we would be even in a more serious situation because then you would have different standards, and let’s also be very clear: It is the universal standard,” he said. He acknowledged that some have said it doesn’t apply to a specific religion, culture or region, but called that “absolute nonsense.” Türk’s own job emerged from one of the agreements that built on the 1948 declaration: the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action of 1993.

What is the situation now?

The 75th anniversary comes as human rights are challenged in the war between Israel and Hamas, Russia’s war in Ukraine, internal conflicts in Myanmar and Sudan and in a host of other places and situations.

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the universal declaration has been “too often misused and abused.” “It is exploited for political gain and it is ignored, often, by the very same people,” Guterres said in a speech in February to the U.N. Human Rights Council – itself frequently criticized because of some member countries’ own poor rights records. “Some governments chip away at it. Others use a wrecking ball.” Still, Amnesty International says the declaration “is living proof that a global vision for human rights is possible, is doable, can be realized.” And Türk says despite the many times the declaration has been ignored or exploited, it is still relevant, and the world should honour its successes and learn from its failures. “Human rights are inherent to every human being. Leaders who ignore this truth imperil the people they are meant to serve,” he said.

Source: Indian Express, 10/12/23

A prison diary from Tihar, by Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita

 

In these times of suffering brought on by the pandemic, it is imperative for the Indian judiciary and the state to ensure the right to life of the people it continues to hold in its custody and not let prisons become graveyards of human rights and dignity.

“Aisa lagta hai kabr mein aa gaye hain, na koi awaaz bahar ja sakti hai, na koi awaaz andar aa sakti hai” (It feels like we have entered a grave, no one can hear us and we cannot hear anyone) — a piercing observation made by one of our co-inmates last year, as we lived the deadly second wave of the pandemic inside Tihar’s women’s prison, Jail No.6. With the third wave currently unfolding, urgent attention must be paid to the terrible conditions under which one of the most neglected groups of this country is surviving — India’s prison population. The latest NCRB data tells us that 76 per cent of prisoners are undertrials with a stark overrepresentation of Dalits, Adivasis, Muslims and other minority communities amongst both undertrials and convicts.

The days of incarceration when the second wave was devastating lives outside and inside, its pain and horror, continue to haunt us. Tihar’s women’s prison witnessed a massive spread of the virus. We watched helplessly as cases emerged from one overcrowded ward after another. We mourned the deaths of our co-inmates far away from their homes. We waited in restless dread for the next day’s five-minute phone call for what news it may bear of our loved ones outside. We began to confront the fear of our own deaths inside that wretched place. On contracting the virus, a prisoner would be shifted to the “Corona ward”, while the barrack where the case was detected would become a “quarantine” barrack for the next 14 days where the inmates inside were locked up 24/7. Since cases kept emerging from every barrack, most of us lived in a state of permanent quarantine. We spent many heart-breaking days and nights listening to the shattering cries of little children when their barrack came to be quarantined.

Our barrack mate and co-accused, Gulfisha, suffered high fever, severe head and body ache, sleeplessness and loss of appetite. Identified as “symptomatic”, she was put in a tiny suffocating cell with two other inmates. Her Covid was never detected because no RTPCR tests were available — only a limited number of antigen tests were being conducted. Testing kits were in short supply, along with all other equipment such as sanitisers, masks, gloves, PPE suits. Barracks full of symptomatic patients were given a liberal supply of paracetamols, cetirizine, cough syrups and various other drugs through untrained inmates who had to work as paramedics in the absence of a requisite number of trained medical staff.

During the initial days of the outbreak, access to mulaqaats/phone calls/letters/newspapers was terminated. Imagine contracting the virus, being shoved into an overcrowded diseased barrack or a lonely cell all alone, provided negligible medical attention and allowed no contact with your family or friends at a time when you most desperately need it. It was only after the intervention of the Delhi High Court that some of these facilities were resumed inside prison and vaccination of inmates was undertaken. Family and legal mulaqaats in prison have remained suspended through most of the last two years. Even as the facility of e-mulaqaats came to be instituted in August 2020, families of most inmates do not possess smartphones or the digital literacy for accessing the same. Additionally, as a result of courts becoming online and visits by judges or government bodies being discontinued during the pandemic, the impunity that rests in the hands of the jail administration has come to be strengthened. The minimal mechanisms of redressal available to prisoners with regard to discrimination and abuse by prison staff have thus ceased to exist.

Indian prisons have always been overcrowded. In Delhi for example, against a sanctioned prison population of 10,024, the three jails — Tihar, Mandoli and Rohini — have around 19,000-20,000 prisoners. The infrastructure and facilities simply do not exist inside prisons to be able to handle and mitigate a pandemic of this scale. The Supreme Court of India took suo motu cognisance of this issue and on March 23, 2020, issued guidelines for state/UT-wise formation of High Powered Committees (HPC) for the decongestion of prisons. However, the criteria decided by the HPCs of different states for interim release of prisoners, instead of being based on the fundamental principle of equality of all human life, create an arbitrary categorisation of prisoners that deserve to live, based on nature/severity of offence, number of years of sentence but not factors like age, health, comorbidities and other vulnerabilities. So, despite being at “high risk” of mortality, because an undertrial/convict may be charged under certain laws like UAPA, sedition, NDPS or is a foreigner, they are not entitled to interim bail/parole. The online functioning of courts meant that trials couldn’t commence or remained suspended, further prolonging the incarceration for undertrials charged under these sections.

Such unfair criteria in the grant of interim bail are the reason why Father Stan Swamy was not granted bail last year and died in custody, and G N Saibaba, a 90 per cent disabled former Delhi University professor continues to be incarcerated after having contracted Covid once again in Nagpur Jail. These are the names we know but our prisons are filled with hundreds of such undertrials and convicts who are most at risk from the virus but have been denied access to any form of interim relief. Like Elsie, who was from Bolivia and lived in our ward. Despite her co-morbidities, as a foreigner and an NDPS undertrial, she was not eligible for the HPC’s interim bail criteria and died inside prison, thousands of miles away from her two little children whose faces she longed to see. She was put to rest inside prison premises as her family did not have the resources to reclaim her body. Even in death, there was no freedom.

In these times of suffering and despair brought on by the pandemic, it is imperative for the Indian judiciary and the state to ensure the right to life of the people it continues to hold in its custody and not let prisons become graveyards of human rights and dignity.

Written by Natasha Narwal , Devangana Kalita

Source: Indian Express, 24/01/22

The right to sit must be the beginning

 The lack of access to seating works as a strong impediment to women’s participation in India’s workforce.

On September 13, the Tamil Nadu (TN) assembly passed the amended Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, making it mandatory for shops, storefronts, and commercial establishments to provide employees with seating facilities. TN is the second state to do so after Kerala. With most establishments having no chairs or stools for salespersons who work for over 10 hours a day, often with no toilet or tea breaks, workers developed various physical ailments (and most of the workers are women). These rules defy every tenet of labour rights and human dignity, and are often compounded by paltry wages and scant benefits.

While granting workers the right to sit is a positive move, India has a long way to go. The shops and establishments acts are state-specific, and regulate the terms of employment and conditions of service of employees. However, labour rights experts are demanding more: National legislation to protect the fundamental rights of employees because issues such as the lack of access to seating and toilets are related to occupational health and safety. Such provisions should have been added to the Occupational Safety Health Working Conditions Code, 2020. At present, the Code is applicable to establishments that have more than 10 employees.

The lack of access to seating works as a strong impediment to women’s participation in India’s workforce. Indian women face many barriers to their entry into the labour market. The denial of basic working conditions adds to those problems, and forces them out of the workforce. This not only undermines India’s economic growth and development trajectory, but denies a chance for 48% of its population to fulfill their dreams and potential.

Source: Hindustan Times, 26/08/21

Nobel Peace prize to World Food Programme recognises hunger as violation of human rights

 

Amidst all the media attention to the exceptional violence of wars, terrorism and genocides, we tend to forget the millions of hunger victims who die in a slower, less spectacular form of violence. Hunger is not inevitable: It is man-made and there are victims and perpetrators.

In May 2018, a remarkable addition was made to the UN Security Council resolutions on civilian protection in armed conflicts. Building on previous UN resolutions on humanitarian laws, human rights and protecting civilians and vulnerable populations, Resolution 2417, for the first time, recognised the need to “break the vicious cycle between armed conflict and food insecurity”. This pathbreaking resolution also added credence to the Sustainable Development Goal of eradicating hunger adopted by the UN in 2015.

The recent announcement of the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize to the World Food Programme (WFP), one of the largest humanitarian organisations addressing hunger and promoting food security, is a step forward in recognising the seriousness of the global food crisis. It draws attention to the sustained efforts to fight hunger and famine from the grassroots to the highest levels of global governance. While recognising those who struggle to ban nuclear weapons, restrict arms production and arms trade, and prevent conflict through diplomacy may seem directly relevant for the peace prize, putting focus on the consequences of war is also an important part of working towards peace and the well-being of people.

UNSCR 2417 had very clearly prepared the ground to focus world attention on the after-effects of war, including continued suffering of food-insecure people and severely undernourished children. The Nobel committee has further stressed the link between armed conflict and hunger — something that the WFP also recently reminded us of. Almost 80 per cent of all chronic malnourished children inhabit countries affected by armed conflict. The ongoing coronavirus pandemic has exacerbated the problem of food insecurity and famines. It is anticipated that the number of hungry people could increase to 270 million under the impact of the pandemic, with the most acute suffering and starvation experienced in conflict zones.

Wars constrain people’s mobility, create black markets and restrict people’s access to food, making it either unavailable or too expensive. War-related displacement causes people to be removed from their cultivable land so that they cannot grow food, and it diverts resources from people’s welfare towards the war effort. War parties control what goes in and out of areas under their jurisdiction, and can use withholding of food as a weapon of war. Providing people with food in an emergency situation may seem like a very short-term measure. At the same time, providing for basic needs is necessary for promoting trust in society and for the focus to shift to education, work and rebuilding lives. This is also important for preventing the outbreak of new hostilities and armed conflicts.

Apart from the significance of the connections between war and hunger, we also believe that eradicating hunger needs to be a focus in its own right. Amidst all the media attention to the exceptional violence of wars, terrorism and genocides, we tend to forget the millions of hunger victims who die in a slower, less spectacular form of violence. Hunger is not inevitable: It is man-made and there are victims and perpetrators. Those perpetrators include — but are not restricted to — state actors who, through what they do or what they fail to do, contribute to starvation.

Hunger has been India’s bane in colonial times and also since Independence. While debates about the Bengal and other British-era famines are getting some attention now, we need to focus on the hunger threats and food insecurity that independent India continues to face. In 1947, India’s biggest challenge was to find enough grains to feed its population of around 300 million, when only 10 per cent of the cultivated area had access to irrigation, and mineral fertilisers were an unaffordable luxury. Though a modern, technology-driven economy was introduced, the lack of domestic food production continued to be supplemented by importing grains from all over the world — an embarrassing situation for a proudly non-aligned nation that became the largest importer of food aid, especially from the US.

The Green Revolution changed the situation drastically since the late 1960s but acute hunger crisis, famines and malnourishment are reported regularly, along with farmer suicides. State policies and accountability are the bigger part of the problem, along with the occurrence of frequent natural disasters and lack of public attention to this issue. The ongoing coronavirus pandemic has further exacerbated the threat of hunger, ever since the lockdown was introduced and millions of daily-wage earners lost their livelihood, giving rise to massive reverse migration. To add to these known precarities, the impact of climate change on the future of crop production is not even fully known yet.

The World Food Programme has delivered food aid and worked to alleviate hunger in many parts of the world, including India. Recognising its work at this critical juncture is not only a much-needed act of appreciation, but an urgent warning that we all need to heed. The world faces a severe food crisis as the threat of famines and starvation is magnified during the ongoing pandemic. This slow violence on vulnerable populations will weigh on our collective conscience, if we do not recognise hunger as the ultimate violation of basic human rights and dignity, and join hands to eradicate it.

This article first appeared in the print edition on October 13 under the title “A prize for waging war on hunger”. Parashar is Associate Professor in Peace and Development Research at the School of Global Studies, Gothenburg University, Sweden. Orjuela is Professor in Peace and Development Research at the School of Global Studies, Gothenburg University, Sweden

Source: Indian Express, 13/10/20

What is Human Rights Day?

Human Rights Day 2019: The theme for this year is 'Youth Standing Up for Human Rights', under which the UN aims to celebrate the potential of youth as agents of change, amplify their voices and engage a broad range of global audiences in the promotion and protection of rights.

Human Rights Day is observed on December 10 every year. It is the day when the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

UDHR is a document proclaiming the inalienable rights which everyone is entitled to as a human being, irrespective of race, colour, religion, sex, language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or any other status. It is the most translated document in the world, and is available in over 500 languages.

The theme for the year 2019 is ‘Youth Standing Up for Human Rights’, under which the United Nations aims to celebrate the potential of youth as agents of change, amplify their voices and engage a broad range of global audiences in the promotion and protection of rights.

Youth have been chosen for the campaign led by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) since their participation is essential to achieve sustainable development for all, they play a crucial role in positive change and empowering them to better know and claim their human rights will generate benefits globally.

Human rights and sustainable development are correlated to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the sense that human rights are driven by progress on all SDGs and SDGs are driven by advancements on human rights.

📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

Source: 10-12-2019

A national register of exclusion

There are few parallels anywhere else of the state itself producing statelessness in the manner that it is doing in Assam

By requiring long-term residents of Assam to prove their citizenship by negotiating a thicket made up of bewildering and opaque rules and an uncaring bureaucracy, the Indian state has for the past two decades unleashed an unrelenting nightmare of wanton injustice on a massive swathe of its most vulnerable people.

Distressing cycle

The official presumption that they are foreigners has reduced several million of these highly impoverished, mostly rural, powerless and poorly lettered residents to a situation of helplessness and penury. It has also caused them abiding anxiety and uncertainty about their futures. They are required to persuade a variety of usually hostile officials that they are citizens, based on vintage documents which even urban, educated, middle-class citizens would find hard to muster. And even when one set of officials is finally satisfied, another set can question them. And sometimes the same official is free again to send them a notice, starting the frightening cycle afresh.

On February 2 and 3, I was in Guwahati listening to heart-breaking accounts from 53 people from 13 districts of Assam. This was as part of a people’s tribunal on the National Register of Citizens (NRC), along with Justice Venkate Gopala Gowda, Colin Gonsalves, Monirul Hussain and Sanjoy Hazarika. What emerged were numbing stories of unyielding official bias and arbitrariness, of the denial of elementary “due process” and, above all, the complete absence of public compassion. Even old men frequently broke down as they spoke of all that they had endured.

It emerged that the names of many persons were dropped from the draft NRC only because of minor differences in the spelling of Bengali names in English in different documents. We encountered several instances where the variation of a single letter, for example between Omar and Onar, was enough to rule that a person is a foreigner. Likewise, the rural unlettered are typically vague about their dates of birth. A person could be excluded from citizenship if she told the tribunal that she was 40 when her documents recorded her to be 42.

Tougher on women

Women are especially in danger of exclusion from the citizenship register. Typically, they have no birth certificates, are not sent to school, and are married before they become adults. Therefore, by the time their names first appear in voters’ lists, these are in the villages where they live after marriage, which are different from those of their parents. They are told that they have no documents to prove that they are indeed the children of the people they claim are their parents. There were cases of being excluded from citizenship on this ground alone.

Impoverished migrant workers often travel to other districts of Assam in search of work, as construction workers, road-builders and coal-miners. In the districts to which they migrate, the local police frequently record their names as illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. The police then mark them out as illegal immigrants. They receive notices from foreigners’ tribunals located in districts where they might have worked years earlier, far away from their home districtsthey have to travel to for every hearing, adding further to their costs.

The NRC is not the only institution through which the state challenges them to prove their citizenship. A second process began in the mid-1990s when the then Chief Election Commissioner T.N. Seshan, as a one-time measure, directed officials to identify “doubtful voters” by marking a “D” against their names on the voters’ list. This would temporarily bar them from voting or standing for elections, until an inquiry was completed.

But this temporary measure became permanent. The power was vested permanently with junior officials who could doubt the citizenship of any person at any time without assigning any reason. Those with the dreaded “D” beside their names had no recourse for appeal under the rules, with years passing without any inquiry. The “D” also debarred them from being included in the draft NRC.

A third process empowers the Assam Police to identify anyone it suspects to be a ‘foreigner’. Again, all that the police claim in most cases is that the person was unable to show them documents establishing his or her citizenship. People consistently deny that the police even asked them from documents. Why would they not show them these, when they all know the dangers of not allaying the suspicions of the police?

Opaque processes

All cases referred by the police are heard by Foreigners’ Tribunals (FTs). Earlier, retired judges were appointed to these tribunals. The Bharatiya Janata Party government has appointed many lawyers (often members of the ruling party or the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) who have never been judges. There are now FTs in which not a single person has been declared an Indian citizen over several months. Many allege that both the police and presiding officers in FTs work to fulfil informal targets to declare people foreigners.

Even if a person finds her name in the NRC, the police can still refer her case to an FT; an election official can even deem her to be a “D”-voter. Article 20 of the Constitution includes as a fundamental right that “no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once”. But this principle has been waived for FTs. We found that even after an FT had confirmed a person to be an Indian citizen, another FT and often the same FT can again issue notice to the same person to prove her legitimate citizenship once more. A person is never be allowed to feel secure that the state has finally accepted that she is an Indian citizen.

In this way, the sword permanently hangs low over their heads. Who will be challenged before which institution to prove that they are Indian citizens? Will they or their loved ones be stripped of their citizenship rights, and by processes that are opaque, unreasonable and discriminatory?

No person in any one of the testimonies that we heard was given legal aid by the state, which is bound to deploy lawyers paid by the state to fight their cases in the FTs and higher courts. People instead spoke of panic spending, of enormous amounts of money to pay lawyers, as well as for costs of travel of witnesses who they bring with them to testify in their favour. For this, they have had to sell all their assets or borrow from private moneylenders. The large majority of them are poorly educated and very impoverished, doing low-paid work such as drawing rickshaws, or working as domestic work or farm labour.

With the entire burden of proving citizenship on their shoulders and the arbitrary and opaque multiple forums to which they are summoned, people deprived of both education and resources are caught in a Kafkaesque bureaucratic maze from which they find it hard to emerge.

Trapped at the crossroads of history, their destinies depend on institutions that treat them with undisguised hostility and bias. There are indeed few parallels anywhere in the world of the state itself producing statelessness on the scale and in the manner that it is doing in Assam.

Harsh Mander is a human rights worker, writer and teacher

Source: The Hindu, 5/02/2019

The view from the outside

As a democracy, India must have a better record of upholding human rights

The role that India can and should play on the world stage is a topic that elicits much excitement and, of late, hyper-nationalism. It is often stated that it is time for India, as the world’s largest democracy, to take on an increasingly significant mantle in the international realm. Aspects such as economic and military power have been the usual focus of this debate. However, an important component of this enhanced stature necessarily relates to the safeguarding and protecting of human rights. In India, there is a blind spot in relation to rights and the intersection with foreign relations and policy discussions, and ignoring this has its perils.

Track record on human rights

Recently, India’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations expressed concern over the “politicisation of human rights as a foreign policy tool”, while addressing the work of the UN and the Human Rights Council. If part of the argument that India seeks to make is that it is a torchbearer of democracy and should therefore have a greater say, including on issues such as UN reform, an integral part of the case to be made relates to upholding international laws and standards pertaining to human rights. So, how does this stand up to scrutiny?

Within the country, many lawyers, activists, academics and human rights organisations have pointed to the deteriorating climate in relation to human rights. But how is the track record on human rights perceived outside the country, particularly by international law and human rights experts appointed as part of the UN human rights machinery? It is instructive to assess the record of UN independent experts towards India. For clarity, this assessment excludes the Human Rights Council, made of a group of states which can run the risk of allegations of partisanship based on membership. Instead, only statements of UN Independent Experts or Special Rapporteurs are examined, being thematic or subject matter experts on specific aspects of law (such as freedom of expression, extrajudicial executions, human rights defenders, etc.).

Negative statements

On January 11, four UN Special Rapporteurs — on summary executions, torture, freedom of religion, and the situation of human rights defenders — issued a statement drawing attention to “extrajudicial” killings in Uttar Pradesh. In a strongly worded call, the UN experts expressed concern about the “patterns of events”, including arrest, detention and torture prior to summary executions of 59 individuals since March 2017. This enhanced and negative scrutiny by Independent Experts follows on the heels of the first ever UN report on human rights violations in Kashmir, conducted by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights — an indicator of how far the situation has deteriorated, as well as the inevitable enhanced scrutiny. A review of the press releases by the UN human rights office from 2010 to date shows that there have been 26 critical statements (mostly by UN experts, with some by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights). Nine were issued in 2018, which was the year that saw the highest number of negative statements on India in the period examined. The statements have dealt with a number of issues, including the Assam National Register of Citizens process (in photo), online hate speech, the killing of journalist Gauri Lankesh, jailing of human rights defenders, deportation of Rohingya refugees, and excessive police response to protests.

These statements indicate a few things. First, there has been enhanced scrutiny by international experts of the deteriorating human rights environment in India, particularly in 2018. Second, the magnification of domestic rights violations in the international sphere is inevitable. Third, the metric of human rights and compliance with international law cannot be dismissed.

Inevitably, there will be the counterarguments, many of which can be addressed. Yes, this is not a comparison to other countries, but based on self-made claims of enhanced stature in the international arena — so how we fare in the eyes of international experts is important. No, this is not a question of external interference which can be dismissed out of hand — these statements are extremely serious, not issued lightly and are an integral part of the machinery of accountability for human rights violations in the international realm and will be a part of India’s human rights record for posterity.

India’s record of upholding human rights is abysmal; it must do better. The primary consideration should be the welfare and rights of individuals within the purview of the state. The secondary consideration should be perception and the place that India wants for itself in terms of stature and prestige. From both perspectives, the respect of the rights of individuals must be non-negotiable.

Priya Pillai is an international lawyer, with expertise in human rights 

Source: The Hindu, 18/01/2019

Manipur shows the way

Its anti-lynching law breaks important ground in attempting to control hate crimes and ensure police action 

Six months have passed since the Supreme Court — anguished by what it described as ‘horrific acts of mobocracy’ — issued a slew of directions to the Union and State governments to protect India’s ‘pluralist social fabric’ from mob violence. The court felt compelled to act in the shadow of four years of surging hate violence targeting religious and caste minorities. It also urged Parliament to consider passing a law to combat mob hate crime.

The Union and most State governments have done little to comply with the directions of India’s highest court. But Manipur became the first to pass a remarkable law against lynching, late last year. It did this after a single horrific video-taped lynching of a Muslim youth with an MBA degree stirred the public conscience.

Comprehensive in definition

The Manipur law closely follows the Supreme Court’s prescriptions, creating a nodal officer to control such crimes in every State, special courts and enhanced punishments. But its weighty significance lies in that it breaks new ground in some critical matters concerning hate violence in India, and shows the way in which the Union and other governments need to move if they are serious about combating hate crimes.

Its definition of lynching is comprehensive, covering many forms of hate crimes. These are “any act or series of acts of violence or aiding, abetting such act/acts thereof, whether spontaneous or planned, by a mob on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, language, dietary practices, sexual orientation, political affiliation, ethnicity or any other related grounds .…”

The law, however, excludes from its provisions solitary hate crimes. For the law to apply instead it requires that these hate crimes are undertaken by mobs (defined as a group of two or more individuals, assembled with a common intention of lynching), thereby excluding from its provisions solitary hate crimes. When we look back at the last four years, the majority of hate crimes were indeed by mobs of attackers and onlookers, but we also saw solitary hate murders, such as of the Bengali migrant Mohammad Afrazul in Rajasthan. This restriction of numbers is arbitrary, since the essence of what distinguishes these kinds of crimes is not the numbers of attackers but the motivation of hate behind the crimes; therefore, provisions of this law should apply to all hate crimes, not just lynching, regardless of the numbers of persons who participate.

On the public official

The most substantial and worthy contribution of the law is that it is the first in the country dealing with the protection and rights of vulnerable populations which creates a new crime of dereliction of duty of public officials. It lays down that “any police officer directly in charge of maintaining law and order in an area, omits to exercise lawful authority vested in them under the law, without reasonable cause, and thereby fails to prevent lynching shall be guilty of dereliction of duty” and will be liable “to punishment of imprisonment of one year, which may extend to three years, and with fine that may extend to fifty thousand rupees”.

Equally pathbreaking is that it removes the protection that is otherwise extended to public officials charged with any offence committed while acting in their discharge of official duty. At present, no court can take cognisance of such an offence except with the previous sanction of the State government. The Manipur law means that now no prior sanction is required to register crimes against public officials who fail in their duties to prevent hate crimes such as lynching.

In almost every incident of hate crime that the Karwan e Mohabbat, a campaign of solidarity for victims of such crimes, has investigated, the police acted brazenly in ways that would have been deemed crimes by public officials if a law such as the Manipur law had been in force. They arrived late deliberately, or watched even as the crimes were under way without restraining the mobs; they delayed taking those injured to hospital and on occasion even ill-treated them, ensuring their death; and after the hate crimes, they tended to register criminal cases against the victims and to defend the accused.

If police officers knew that they could be punished for these crimes (which would also put them at risk of losing their jobs), it is very unlikely that they would have acted in this way. They would have prevented, or stopped in their tracks, these hate crimes, and protected the victims.

I would also include in the crimes of dereliction of duty deliberately protecting criminals during investigation after the hate crime. I would also, most importantly, incorporate command responsibility, so that officials and also those who have directed them to betray their constitutional duties are criminally liable..

The second momentous contribution of the Manipur law is that it does away with the requirement of prior state sanction before acting on a hate crime. All hate crimes today should attract Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, which is related to fostering enmity between people on the basis of religion, race, language and so on. But registering this crime requires prior permission of the State government, and most governments use this power to shield perpetrators of hate crimes who are politically and ideologically aligned to the ruling establishment. The Manipur law does away with this requirement, which would make acting against hate crimes far more effective and non-partisan.

The third substantial feature is that it clearly lays down the duty and responsibility of the State government to make arrangements for the protection of victims and witnesses against any kind of intimidation, coercion, inducement, violence or threats of violence. It also prescribes the duty of State officials to prevent a hostile environment against people of the community who have been lynched, which includes economic and social boycott, and humiliation through excluding them from public services such as education, health and transport, threats and evictions.

Rehabilitation

The last substantial contribution of the law is requiring the state to formulate a scheme for relief camps and rehabilitation in case of displacement of victims, and death compensation. Again, in most cases of lynching, we have found that States have only criminalised the victims, never supported the survivors who live not just in loss and fear, but also in penury.

But the law needs to prescribe a much more expansive framework of mandatory gender-sensitive reparation on an atonement model, requiring the state to ensure that the victim of hate violence is assisted to achieve material conditions that are better than what they were before the violence, and that women, the elderly and children are supported regularly with monthly pensions over time.

Even with these caveats, the Manipur government has broken new ground, being the first government in the country to hold public officials criminally accountable if they fail to prevent hate crimes. If emulated by the Union and other State governments, such a sterling law could substantially prevent hate attacks, ensure public officials are faithful to their constitutional responsibilities and victims, and that their families and communities are assured of protection and justice.

This is the India we must claim — of safety, fairness and fraternity.

Harsh Mander, a human rights worker, writer and teacher, convenes the Karwan e Mohabbat

Source: The Hindu, 17/01/2019