If what they say about the proof of the pudding lying in the eating is true, then the Geneva-based International Coordinating Committee of the National Human Rights Institutions' decision to re-accredit India's National Human Rights Commission as an 'A' grade institution is evidence enough of its effectiveness and organisational value. The decision, which was taken by the Accreditation Sub-Committee of the ICC-NHRI in early June, allows the NHRC to enjoy the high status it has had with the ICC since 1999. It also reiterates the organisation's status as an NHRI that is fully compliant with the 'Paris Principles' that govern activities undertaken for the promotion and protection of human rights.
This affirmation also serves as a major boost for the NHRC which had come under much criticism in the months leading up to the accreditation session in Geneva. In fact, a coordinated 'public awareness' campaign was undertaken to malign the NHRC by a group of individuals and organisations, who called themselves the 'All-India Network of NGOs and Individuals'. A subsidiary of the NGO People's Watch, the AiNNI was set up to monitor human rights institutions such as the NHRC, the National Commission for Women, National Commission for Minorities, etc, for their compliance with the Paris Principles. The AiNNI in its wisdom decided that the NHRC was not an effective and efficient enough organisation and, therefore, did not deserve an 'A' status with the ICC.
In support of its view, the AiNNI brought out a 99-page long report explaining why the ICC should downgrade the NHRC to a 'B' status institution so as to provide an impetus to the latter to improve itself. The report, titled An NGO Report on the Compliance with the Paris Principles by the National Human Rights Commission of India, even enjoyed a multi-city release: In New Delhi, former NHRC chairperson Justice JS Verma presented the report at a Press conference while in Mumbai a former High Court judge, Justice H Suresh, did the honours.
Thankfully the ICC chose to overlook the presence of political and judicial heavyweights who had associated themselves with the AiNNI report and gave it only its due credence which was of not much value at all. One, the report had several factual errors as a result of which the AiNNI had to pay a heavy price in terms of credibility. For example, the report notes that Chapter II, Section 3(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, which delineates the composition of the commission, calls for the inclusion of the chairpersons of the National Commission for Minorities, the National Commission for Women, the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes as ex-officio members so as to make best of their valuable experience while also ensuring that the concerns of these special interest groups are addressed.
However, according to the report, the NHRC failed to work together with other 'thematic commissions' — it points to the solitary reference of the NCM in the NHRC's first annual report as proof of inadequate collaboration. Yet, in reality the fact remains that the NHRC works very closely with its sister organisations. Indeed, the chairperson and members of the NHRC, together with the chairpersons of the National Commissions for Minorities, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Women, constitute the NHRC. They also meet on a regular basis and participate in all major functions of the NHRC. Clearly, the report was prepared by a person who lacks insight into the daily functioning of the commission.
Similarly, the report points out that following the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna which was convened around the same time that the NHRC was established, the commission was mandated to prepare a National Human Rights Action Plan, which till date has not been released. While this is true, the report conveniently does not mention that it was the Union Government and not the NHRC's duty to prepare Action Plan. It also ignores the fact that the NHRC has consistently undertaken measures to put the formulations of a National Human Rights Action Plan on the Government's agenda but has received only lukewarm response. Worse still, the NHRC even called on NGOs, some of whom were involved in the preparation of the bogus report, to put forth suggestions for the Action Plan but not one organisation came forward. This point to two disturbing trends: First, it shows that the AiNNI purposely hid crucial facts and manipulated its narrative to depict the Commission in poor light; second, it also turns the spotlight on the AiNNI itself and raises questions about its integrity and commitment.
One of the major allegations put forth in the AiNNI report — and one of the most important reasons why it believed that the NHRC should not be granted 'A' status — was that the NHRC was no longer an institution independent of Government influence or control. Of course, the report fails to clearly mention why it believes that such is the case; nonetheless, the AiNNI contention is surprising given that the Commission has consistently taken up the Government on issues of human rights abuse and similar concerns. For example, following the assault on Baba Ramdev and his supporters at Ramlila Ground in the wee hours of June 05, the NHRC immediately demanded an explanation from the Government. Similarly, the Commission, along with the NCW, also investigated claims that policemen had raped women in Bhatta-Parsaul in Uttar Pradesh. With specific regard to the Commission's financing, the AiNNI report alleged that its finances are controlled by the Ministry of Home Affairs, which again is untrue. The aforementioned Ministry only serves as the conduit through which the NHRC presents its Budget to the Government.
Such falsities and half-truths litter the AiNNI report which has now been exposed as a blatant tool to malign the NHRC. But what is far more worrying and dangerous is that such groups and their dubious claims and reports have been allowed access to international organisations such as the ICC. Consequently, not only does this do harm to the organisation in question, it also tarnishes the country's reputation on the international forum. This must stop.
This affirmation also serves as a major boost for the NHRC which had come under much criticism in the months leading up to the accreditation session in Geneva. In fact, a coordinated 'public awareness' campaign was undertaken to malign the NHRC by a group of individuals and organisations, who called themselves the 'All-India Network of NGOs and Individuals'. A subsidiary of the NGO People's Watch, the AiNNI was set up to monitor human rights institutions such as the NHRC, the National Commission for Women, National Commission for Minorities, etc, for their compliance with the Paris Principles. The AiNNI in its wisdom decided that the NHRC was not an effective and efficient enough organisation and, therefore, did not deserve an 'A' status with the ICC.
In support of its view, the AiNNI brought out a 99-page long report explaining why the ICC should downgrade the NHRC to a 'B' status institution so as to provide an impetus to the latter to improve itself. The report, titled An NGO Report on the Compliance with the Paris Principles by the National Human Rights Commission of India, even enjoyed a multi-city release: In New Delhi, former NHRC chairperson Justice JS Verma presented the report at a Press conference while in Mumbai a former High Court judge, Justice H Suresh, did the honours.
Thankfully the ICC chose to overlook the presence of political and judicial heavyweights who had associated themselves with the AiNNI report and gave it only its due credence which was of not much value at all. One, the report had several factual errors as a result of which the AiNNI had to pay a heavy price in terms of credibility. For example, the report notes that Chapter II, Section 3(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, which delineates the composition of the commission, calls for the inclusion of the chairpersons of the National Commission for Minorities, the National Commission for Women, the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes as ex-officio members so as to make best of their valuable experience while also ensuring that the concerns of these special interest groups are addressed.
However, according to the report, the NHRC failed to work together with other 'thematic commissions' — it points to the solitary reference of the NCM in the NHRC's first annual report as proof of inadequate collaboration. Yet, in reality the fact remains that the NHRC works very closely with its sister organisations. Indeed, the chairperson and members of the NHRC, together with the chairpersons of the National Commissions for Minorities, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Women, constitute the NHRC. They also meet on a regular basis and participate in all major functions of the NHRC. Clearly, the report was prepared by a person who lacks insight into the daily functioning of the commission.
Similarly, the report points out that following the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna which was convened around the same time that the NHRC was established, the commission was mandated to prepare a National Human Rights Action Plan, which till date has not been released. While this is true, the report conveniently does not mention that it was the Union Government and not the NHRC's duty to prepare Action Plan. It also ignores the fact that the NHRC has consistently undertaken measures to put the formulations of a National Human Rights Action Plan on the Government's agenda but has received only lukewarm response. Worse still, the NHRC even called on NGOs, some of whom were involved in the preparation of the bogus report, to put forth suggestions for the Action Plan but not one organisation came forward. This point to two disturbing trends: First, it shows that the AiNNI purposely hid crucial facts and manipulated its narrative to depict the Commission in poor light; second, it also turns the spotlight on the AiNNI itself and raises questions about its integrity and commitment.
One of the major allegations put forth in the AiNNI report — and one of the most important reasons why it believed that the NHRC should not be granted 'A' status — was that the NHRC was no longer an institution independent of Government influence or control. Of course, the report fails to clearly mention why it believes that such is the case; nonetheless, the AiNNI contention is surprising given that the Commission has consistently taken up the Government on issues of human rights abuse and similar concerns. For example, following the assault on Baba Ramdev and his supporters at Ramlila Ground in the wee hours of June 05, the NHRC immediately demanded an explanation from the Government. Similarly, the Commission, along with the NCW, also investigated claims that policemen had raped women in Bhatta-Parsaul in Uttar Pradesh. With specific regard to the Commission's financing, the AiNNI report alleged that its finances are controlled by the Ministry of Home Affairs, which again is untrue. The aforementioned Ministry only serves as the conduit through which the NHRC presents its Budget to the Government.
Such falsities and half-truths litter the AiNNI report which has now been exposed as a blatant tool to malign the NHRC. But what is far more worrying and dangerous is that such groups and their dubious claims and reports have been allowed access to international organisations such as the ICC. Consequently, not only does this do harm to the organisation in question, it also tarnishes the country's reputation on the international forum. This must stop.
(The article was published in the Oped section of The Pioneer on July 04, 2011.)
