Human Rights Different Perceptions - Essay, UPSC MAINS | Course for UPPSC Preparation - UPPSC (UP) PDF Download

Human Rights Different Perceptions

structure

(1) Opening    —    Asian commitments to the Human Rights issue.

(2) Body    —    UN and HRC

    —    India, Pakistan and UN

    —    The UN in the past

  —    Latest UN move on environment issue as HRS integral part—biased against Asia.

    —    South Asia’s position.

  —    The international support for the political and economic reforms in India.

(3) Closing    —    The increasing defence expenditure can never ensure peace and order at the same time.

In the past few months Human rights issue has become a contentious one between the West and the East. The East this time, however has retorted vehemently and stuck to its stance. The ultimate result of the tussle is yet to be realised. Many senior leaders of Asia have consistently maintained that West is using the Human Right issue only to gain access to its growing affluent consumer markets. Intellectuals and industrialists appreciated his view.

Human Rights envisage the civil and political rights as visualised by the world in the UN convenant ‘Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The covenant was adopted by the General Assembly on December 16, 1966 at its plenary session. The preamble in the last reads “a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of greatest importance for the full realisation of this pledge.” These words are very relevant in order to asses the full and final implementation of the 30 Articles of the Universal Declaration. 

The most important political and international forum evolving consensual approach on the Human Rights is UN. The establishment of the Committee on Human Rights and later the UNHRC as documentation agency on HR : Change this abbreciation in all places wherever it is used as Human Rights is significant. The activist UN is yet to emerge. The growing consensus in the international community on Nuremberg-type trial for the guilty in the Bosnian War is an ominous sign. Some UN critics view it essentially as a European Affair. The critics base their arguments on the composition of peace brokers. The reason being that Europe has established its own hierarchy of official HRC and the whole range of watch Committees as NGOs dealing with the HRs issue.

The concept of Human rights at the UN is considered an integral part of its agenda. The convenants on civil and political rights provide for special permanent supervisory organ. This is the Human Rights committee to be distinguished from the Commission on Human Rights that consists of 18 persons of high moral character and recognised competence in the field of Human Rights. Nominated by governments, they serve in their personal capacity. The parties must submit reports to the committee on any national assurances to give effect to the relevant rights and on the progress made in the enjoyment of those rights.

The much debated Capital punishment is now restricted to the most heinous of all crimes; as retributive justice of HRs declaration. It is indeed surprising to see the United States ratifying the Covenant on Civil and political rights, attaching a number of ‘reservations’ and ‘understandings’ the UN as early as in 1950 declared December 10 of each year as Human Rights Day.

In fact both India and Pakistan decided to have their own National Human Rights Commission, to further their commitment to Human rights Convenant. The UN Commission for Human Rights, also deals with full agenda of alleged violations. It has even looked into the alleged violations in various countries who have been rated very low by some notable NGOs specialising in HRs. In fact, both the Committee and the Commission have been paying close attention to the reports and ratings prepared by organisations such as the Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists.

The UN documents and recommendations and even comments to various governments have been more of an accepted norm. The governments then remain conscious while formulating civil and political agenda for their polity. An example to cite is the Preservation of Human Rights Act of Indian Parliament of 1993. The NHRC formed as per the provisions of the Act has three retired Judges as its members.

The NHRC is a documentation agency whose recommendations and annual reports are important to haul-up Indian government in case of similar violations being filed with the UN Committee on Human rights. The success of any such agency ultimately depend on the host government’s attitude. The UN realises its tremendous handicap in handling such a difficult agenda. In one of UNHCR Ad it included Human rights issue as one of the “useless issue to a refugee; who has been uprooted”. It can be argued that the UN, despite its agenda fixing role, still has the job of clearing the international mess; as the sole visible role in the international area.

The UN in the past has passed conventions on apartheid which unfortunately were never backed by the permanent members of the Security Council. The convention was ratified in mid-92 by 91 votes to 54. This convention required the adopting nations to enact anti-aparthied laws and also supports boycott. India always backed sanctions against the erstwhile apartheid regime in South Africa. The UN also established a centre against apartheid in the UN secretariat. The UN also created a special monitoring centre for violations of human rights by the Israeli-occupation forces in Palestinian territories. However, the lack of Western support for these efforts hampered the quest for broadening the permanent members base of the Security Council which is essential for UN’s success.

Over the years the scope and contents of human rights have increased to the hither unprecedented levels. The inclusion of indigenous people rights is the latest. In fact, quite a number of Asian and Pacific countries have to make serious efforts to accommodate this latest UN move on environment issue as HRs integral part. This is perceived as biased against Asia by some countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, even Burma. The former two nations have sophisticated economy; but the political and civil agenda is still some steps behind. Indeed in both the Far East and South-East Asia the experiment with democratic norms is quit recent. Thus, obviously, they are in search of a proper and suitable model. The only possible exception to the rule is Philippines. It is believed that the political reforms will succeed in ushering the economic development and growth.

It is not that South Asia has good track record in HR issue; but such a contention is an 

exaggeration. The development problems are more pressing than the political reforms or civil reforms. The position in South Asia is very different for all the nations have common law system and Westminster political set-up, except Bhutan. The legal foundations of society are very strong even if archaic in their contents and in their method of implementation. The governments of these region are sensitive about the international norms. One reason perhaps is that it has significant presence in international organisations as English is the primary communication language in the key and major government circles. Thus there is some integration of thought between international community and South Asian governments. The Judiciary is more or less independent in almost all the Nations in South Asia.

The international support for the political and economic reforms in India is must even after the stage of structural adjustment programmes are over. This will in the long term ensure the assimilation of HRs as political and social agenda. It is quite possible that through an osmosis regulation the rest of sub-continent may visualise the sanctity of Human Rights. The democratic governments of Asian nations are  by any standard an achievement worth appreciation and support. This is so given the size of population, lack of resources and lastly, the highly competitive Electoral system. Asian efforts must always be viewed against this back-drop.

The Human Rights issue is perceived as insurer of international peace and order. The purpose though gets negated by the arms race in the region. The increasing defence expenditure can never ensure peace and order at the same time, it questions the HRs role in international peace and order. There is desperate need to explain the schism in the philosophy of peace in Asia.