<p>The criticism made by Prime Minister Narendra Modi of selective reading of human rights issues and the linkages he has made between rights and duties and rights and basic needs are problematic, and will not promote the cause of human rights. On the 28th foundation day of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) last week, Modi cautioned against the “selective interpretation of human rights and using human rights to diminish the image of the country.” But the Prime Minister is as guilty of selective flagging of human rights as others whom he accuses of that fault. He cited the enactment of the triple talaq law by his government to honour the rights of Muslim women but has been silent on the growing attacks on and suppression of constitutional and human rights in the country. His government and its agencies cannot escape responsibility for them. </p>.<p>Political contestation of rights and values is natural in a democracy. It is not right to claim that looking at human rights through the political prism is their biggest infringement. Politics might actually make violations more visible, and take the right into the more active democratic conversation. The government should in any case not be selective, even if politicians tend to be so. The problem actually arises when the violation is judged on the basis of the identity of the victim and of the person who raises the issue. That risk has risen in the country of late. The statement that human rights are used to harm the country’s image is dangerous and seems like a warning. From there, it is only a short step to saying that advocacy of human rights is anti-national. </p>.<p>The Prime Minister made other untenable propositions, too. He said the duties of a citizen were closely linked to human rights and they should not be discussed separately. But such a linkage would work against the rights of the citizen because the State, which is a powerful entity, would be inclined and well-placed to extract duties out of the citizen before respecting her rights. It should be noted that the Constitution originally had no provision for fundamental duties and they were incorporated into it in another time of authoritarian rule, the Emergency. Duties are important, but linking them with rights would give primacy to them and limit the salience of rights. Similarly, the linkage between the basic needs of people and human rights is unacceptable. The Prime Minister said that the government has acted well and done much to meet the basic needs of the people. But it's the people's right to have their needs met, and there can be no trade-off between needs and rights.</p>
<p>The criticism made by Prime Minister Narendra Modi of selective reading of human rights issues and the linkages he has made between rights and duties and rights and basic needs are problematic, and will not promote the cause of human rights. On the 28th foundation day of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) last week, Modi cautioned against the “selective interpretation of human rights and using human rights to diminish the image of the country.” But the Prime Minister is as guilty of selective flagging of human rights as others whom he accuses of that fault. He cited the enactment of the triple talaq law by his government to honour the rights of Muslim women but has been silent on the growing attacks on and suppression of constitutional and human rights in the country. His government and its agencies cannot escape responsibility for them. </p>.<p>Political contestation of rights and values is natural in a democracy. It is not right to claim that looking at human rights through the political prism is their biggest infringement. Politics might actually make violations more visible, and take the right into the more active democratic conversation. The government should in any case not be selective, even if politicians tend to be so. The problem actually arises when the violation is judged on the basis of the identity of the victim and of the person who raises the issue. That risk has risen in the country of late. The statement that human rights are used to harm the country’s image is dangerous and seems like a warning. From there, it is only a short step to saying that advocacy of human rights is anti-national. </p>.<p>The Prime Minister made other untenable propositions, too. He said the duties of a citizen were closely linked to human rights and they should not be discussed separately. But such a linkage would work against the rights of the citizen because the State, which is a powerful entity, would be inclined and well-placed to extract duties out of the citizen before respecting her rights. It should be noted that the Constitution originally had no provision for fundamental duties and they were incorporated into it in another time of authoritarian rule, the Emergency. Duties are important, but linking them with rights would give primacy to them and limit the salience of rights. Similarly, the linkage between the basic needs of people and human rights is unacceptable. The Prime Minister said that the government has acted well and done much to meet the basic needs of the people. But it's the people's right to have their needs met, and there can be no trade-off between needs and rights.</p>
