India’s continuing transfer of materials used in surveillance, artillery, and, probably, missiles— all manufactured by State-owned entities— arguably runs afoul of its obligations under customary international law and international humanitarian law.
—
THE self-styled “mother of democracies” has supplied US $51 million worth of arms to the jackboots in Naypyidaw since the coup in 2021. Of this, US $49 million of the trade is directly with the Myanmar military through Myanmar-based military suppliers or sanctioned arms dealers, along with US $2.2 million through 22 unique suppliers. This is according to a new report from the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar. This works out to 422 crore in Indian rupees.
The Asia–Pacific regional national human rights institutions network is represented by India’s National Human Rights Commission on the management committee of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions. This, despite the membership of the commission to the alliance having recently been deferred for a year.
—
THE Sub-Committee of Accreditation (SCA) of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI), at its meeting from March 20 to 24, deferred the re-accreditation application of the National Human Rights Commission of India (NHRC) for twelve months (or two sessions). This was done pursuant to Article 15 of the GANHRI Statute.
The SCA considered applications for re-accreditation from the national human rights institutions (NHRIs) of India and eight other countries.
Shh! Silence does not beget transparency
The silence of the NHRC, the Union government, most Indian non-government organisations (NGOs), the overwhelming genuflecting Indian news media, the Asia–Pacific Forum (the Asia–Pacific regional NHRI network), and the GANHRI has been curious, to say the least.
Pursuant to Article 14.1 of the GANHRI Statute, the SCA took a decision regarding the re-accreditation of the NHRIs of India, and two other countries.
The NHRC surprisingly enjoyed ‘A’ status at GANHRI. This, in spite of the same recommendations in 2017. The process of re-accreditation is done every five years.
Supreme Court must give full effect to the 44th amendment to the Constitution
It has been more than 43 years since the 44th constitutional amendment regulating preventive detention was passed by both Houses of the Parliament and signed by the President, but it is yet to be given effect.
—
THE Supreme Court’s recent comments on the need to check the abuse of the State’s power of preventive detention are welcome. However, its periodic wringing of its hands is vexing. The remedy lies with it, but it has so far not grabbed the bull of executive caprice by its horns.
The use and abuse of long-term preventive detention in India continues to blight the human rights record of a country that claims to be an open constitutional democracy. Explicitly authorised by the Constitution and exempted from other constitutional protections such as the right to counsel, the right to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of being taken into custody, and the presumption of innocence, various pieces of legislation continue to be enacted and abused by the Union and state governments to preventively detain individuals for years on end without even charging them with a crime.
The Hindutva juggernaut has stumbled quite a few times, and it can and will be stopped by the will of the Indian peoples exercised through the ballot. 2024 is D-Day. This is not a pious hope but an assertion of faith in the common Indian.
—
INDIAN National Congress parliamentarian and United Progressive Alliance Chairperson Sonia Gandhi, in a thoughtful piece in The Hindu published on April 11, 2023 has sketched out some of the issues that confront the nation as the Hindutva juggernaut moves on, seemingly invincible.
All messianic political movements think they can go on forever. Myth and myth building, rather than an appreciation of history, is their forte. Hindutva is no different. They have stumbled quite a few times, and they can and will be stopped by the will of the Indian peoples exercised through the ballot. 2024 is D-Day. This is not a pious hope but an assertion of faith in the common Indian. A rider, of course, if we get out of our comfort zones and hit the dusty lanes of rural India.
Since the Armed Forces Special Powers Act came into force in Jammu and Kashmir in 1990, the Indian government has not granted permission to prosecute any security force personnel in civilian courts.
ONE would have liked to join the hoi polloi in welcoming the decision of the General Court Martial to recommend imprisonment for life to Captain Bhoopendra Singh, alias Major Bashir Khan for staging the encounter killings of three men in Shopian, Kashmir in 2020. The sentence will be final if and when it is confirmed by the Northern Army Commander. However, the brooding presence of the past cautions one’s reaction.
The concept of voluntary repatriation is the most preferred one by host nations, but it is also made sure that the consent for repatriation is not taken involuntarily. For Sri Lankan Tamil refugees, however, the most durable solution would be local integration.
THE United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in India is coy at its best and devious at its worst.
In a piece in The Hindu on February 16, Oscar Mundia, the Head of Mission, UNHCR in India hides more than he reveals as to its actual position relating to the long-term resettlement of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees in India. Apart from wrong usage (or perhaps a Freudian slip) of the English language in describing young Sri Lanka Tamil refugees born and brought up in India as “cohorts”, he seems to infer that the refugees themselves seem to be undecided and, contrary to international refugee law, that the refugees could be sent back to Sri Lanka against their expressed wishes. He also makes a faux pas by referring to the Hill Country repatriates, who are not part of the UNHCR’s remit.