The paradoxes of PM's human rights speech

Take the PM's silence on the Lakhimpur Kheri incident; silence and selective outrage on human rights violations have been the hallmarks of the current dispensation

Addressing the foundation day programme of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on Tuesday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said, "Some people see human rights violations in some incidents but not in others. Human rights are violated when viewed via political spectacles." He said, "Selective behaviour is harmful to democracy" and that some people "try to dent the country's image in the name of human rights."

While one could not agree more with the prime minister that selective outrage can be harmful to democracy, it is pertinent to point out that more than ever in the history of independent India, selectivity has been practised during his regime and leadership.

Let's start with the most recent example, the Lakhimpur Kheri violence, in which the son of his cabinet colleague is the prime accused. It has been more than two weeks since the horrific incident of human rights violation, and the PM is yet to utter a single word on it. Contrast it to the PM taking barely an hour or two to tweet or issue a statement when some real or supposed human rights violations occur in the non-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ruled states or in other parts of the world. Silence and selective outrage have been the hallmarks of the current dispensation. Hence, while listening to the PM speak, one wondered if he was talking about himself and the behaviour of his cabinet colleagues and party workers.

Also Read | PM Modi cautions against selective approach to human rights

Another subject that the PM spoke about at the event specifically and proudly was how his government bestowed "new rights" on Muslim women. Here again, his claim was both misleading and selective. Over the last seven years, the Modi government has been silent on important issues affecting Muslim women. Members of his party and others in the Hindutva ecosystem have actively violated Muslim women's rights across the country. This was the reason hundreds of women's rights activists and others denounced the Modi government's decision to commemorate the day of criminalisation of instant triple talaq as the "Muslim Women's Rights Day" in August. According to them, the passage of the anti-triple talaq law, which claimed to protect Muslim women's rights, "in reality, had a more sinister purpose – to show Muslim men their place in a new India." Moreover, they noted that the law was an abomination and nothing but a charade because no such law was needed to "protect Muslim women, or secure their rights" since the Supreme Court had already struck triple talaq down.

They went on to add, "This government has remained silent as Muslims have been lynched, and its leaders have garlanded the lynchers." The BJP has, they said, "both at the Centre and through its state governments, determinedly "gone after" Muslims under myriad laws, both old, new and proposed – beef bans, anti-conversion, including the recent UP Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, 2020, and its proposed UP Population Control Bill." They justifiably noted, "It has systematically tried to rob Muslims of their right to livelihood, and Muslim women of their agency." Furthermore, the government has remained silent on constant online and offline sexual violence and threat to Muslim women. For example, in the notorious "Sulli Deals" episode, Hindu right-wing activists sought to auction Muslim women's bodies online. One can list dozens of such blatant incidents of violations of human rights, if not hundreds, but the government has hardly taken any interest to fix them.

It seems the prime minister and his party colleagues are more interested in image building than actually fixing the problem and genuinely making India a human rights friendly country. It is not surprising that the government and its machinery spend more energy and money on image-making. Unfortunately, the NHRC, which is an independent body established by an act of Parliament, is increasingly and conveniently becoming the full-time public relations department of the government. More than anything, the speech of the NHRC chairperson Justice (retired) AK Mishra at the foundation day event is the latest testimony. It was nothing short of indulging in dog-whistle and dangerous on Justice Mishra's part to say it was inappropriate to call terrorists freedom fighters.

In other words, the NHRC chairperson was trying to convey that human rights activists are defending "terrorists." This is misleading and akin to putting human rights defenders' lives and liberty at further risks. The fact of the matter is human rights activists are not defending terrorists but those who are accused of such heinous crimes. There is a critical difference between the two as the right to defend the accused no matter how heinous is the alleged crime is enshrined in our constitution and all the international covenants on human and civil rights to which we are signatory. According to the fundamental provisions of Indian law, every person is innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And human rights activists are just upholding the rule of law. On the other hand, we have been witnessing on a regular basis that terrorists like Nathuram Godse, who was convicted beyond reasonable doubts for killing Mahatma Gandhi, is glorified. Justice Mishra had nothing to say about this dangerous trend.

The NHRC chief was well within his rights to appeal to social service organisations and human rights defenders to strongly condemn political violence and terrorism, which engenders "fundamentalism". However, appeals like these will only have any tangible impact when the NHRC stops acting selectively. It has been noted how the apex human rights body swings into action when human rights violations and political violence are reported from the non-BJP ruled states; it does hardly anything substantial in incidents reported from the BJP-ruled states. Perhaps, the starkest contrast in this regard is between West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh.

(The writer is a multilingual journalist and researcher)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH