STATEMENT BY H.E. AMBASSADOR H.S. PURI, PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF INDIA AT THE 59TH SESSION OF THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
AGENDA ITEM 9: QUESTION OF THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS IN ANY PART OF THE WORLD
Madame Chairperson,
The agenda item before us is of key importance in our common endeavour to promote and protect human rights around the globe. Unfortunately, the debate under this item has often led to sharp divisions. We need to ask ourselves if our shared objective of promoting
and protecting human rights across the world is best served by the approach that has evolved for the consideration of this item. Selecting the right approach, clearly, is as important as the objective it is intended to serve. It is crucial to the Commission's
credibility and effectiveness.
When this Commission was established by ECOSOC in 1946, it was conceived as a very different body from what it is today. It was envisioned, essentially, as a body for setting standards in different thematic areas relating to human rights. Since then a complex
Human Rights structure has emerged around it. Its ever expanding role and, some would add, its increasing intrusiveness into the sovereign space of member states, have led many countries to wonder if the present structure might be doing more harm than good
for the cause of human rights – a cause dear to my country as it is to many of those represented in this Commission.
To be sure, we recognise that whatever the original mandate of a body, it needs to evolve dynamically, to reflect the ever-changing nature of the problems that it is called upon to address. This, of and in itself, is unexceptionable. What does, however, cause
dismay – and, doubtless, impacts negatively on our Commission’s credibility and effectiveness - is the impression that this complex human rights edifice that has taken shape over the years is really an instrument for advancing the political objectives of those
who control its purse-strings. Unfortunately, this impression is reinforced when the Commission is used for selectively condemning those that are out of favour with the powerful, while others guilty of far more serious violations are protected, essentially
because they are viewed as allies.
Selective application of any principle cannot but breed contempt for an institution. This is true no less in the international arena as it is in the national. If the Commission comes to be viewed as the handmaiden of the powerful, it would do irreparable damage
to the cause of human rights. The standards we set for ourselves need to be uniformly applied. We cannot, for example, pronounce adversely on the alleged failure of democracy in Zimbabwe and, at the same time, overlook the contempt with which democracy, equality
and the rule of law continues to be trampled with impunity by the military rulers of Pakistan. The fact that its unfortunate citizens have had to suffer under dictators for most of its tragic fifty-five year history, is no reason why this Commission should
treat Pakistan’s military rulers with deference. Such an approach, predicated on short-term political expediency, does not enhance the credibility of the Commission.
The organs of the State must protect institutions that foster and nurture the inalienable rights that are a sine qua non for a civilised society - human dignity, democracy, equality, and the free expression of the will of the people. We must distinguish between
those societies that cherish and protect these values, and those that are fundamentally opposed to them. Needless to add, these rights cannot be a matter of charity doled out by some military ruler. The Commission has particular responsibility to act in countries
where the will of the people has been deliberately and repeatedly throttled by such military dictatorships. Phoney attempts at democratic window-dressing, with a military ruler acting for brief interludes through civilian surrogates is, of course, a mockery
of the process.
Madame Chairperson,
To avoid politicisation, and to promote durable solutions, instead of condemnation we should focus on dialogue, persuasion, introspection and technical cooperation. The annual ritual of handing out report cards or sitting in judgement over others does not move
us towards our desired goal. ‘Naming and shaming’ through country specific resolutions only serves to create acrimony and confrontation in the Commission. We remain steadfast in our view that true respect for human rights can only be assured in a political
environment that guarantees democracy and freedom.
India's experience in the promotion and protection of human rights is a good example of how democratic organisation of a pluralistic society ensures that the diversity that adds such richness to our national life does not get lost in a melting pot. Unity in
diversity is our inspiration. Our federal and secular polity has witnessed a continuous process of strengthening of democratic institutions. An independent judiciary, steady growth of civil society, consolidation of an independent media, independent Human
Rights Commissions at the national and state levels, empowerment of women and other vulnerable and disadvantaged segments of society, programmes to spread literacy, health care and other benefits of socio-economic development – all these collectively constitute
the edifice of human rights in India.
Madame Chairperson,
We do not claim to be perfect. No country can. Yet, our open and democratic socio-political system has the wherewithal to deal with problems that occur. There are instances where economic and social grievances have manifested themselves, sometimes violently,
and in some cases instigated and assisted by inimical external forces. That is why it is important for the international community, through this Commission, to send out the message of zero tolerance of military ruled States that seek to destroy the national
protection systems of other countries.
Today, the principal threat to the international human rights system emanates from such highly unstable societies, which are typically characterised by an explosive mixture of military dictatorship, obscurantism, and the export of terror as an instrument of
State policy. These are States with little or no stake in the stability of the international system These are also States which have little or no compunction in politicising the human rights agenda.
Madame Chairperson,
Let me conclude by reiterating my country's complete commitment to human rights, human dignity and fundamental freedoms. As the largest democracy we are committed to honour, uphold and cherish these values. We would, therefore, constructively engage with other
delegations for the promotion and protection of human rights during this session of the Commission.