A missed opportunity

By Harsh Sethi

DESPITE THE heightened global talk about human rights, the inaugural South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR) convention held in New Delhi on November 11 and 12 went virtually unnoticed. It is not always that we have a gathering of close to 600 leading peace and human rights activists of the region, including over 250 from Pakistan. The latter in itself should have constituted big news, more so at a time when our relations with our western neighbour have touched a new low. So, if despite attracting a plethora of big names and managing plenary addresses from Ms. Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and Prof. Amartya Sen, and even a tea reception for the delegates from the President, Mr. K. R. Narayanan, the event suffered a virtual blackout, it does call for some introspection.

One possible reason for this relative inaudibility may be the deep shift in the climate of the country towards the right. Neo- liberalism has come to be crowned as the reigning ideology. There is far more interest in the functioning of the sensex than the fate of the poor. It is not surprising that a gathering of political dissenters, for that in essence is what marks human rights activism, should face a cold reception. It is also that our youth, the primary mainstay of the sectors of dissent, are caught in a culture of careerism and consumption. The veritable destruction of our university campuses as vibrant sites for debate and discussion has ensured that. Nevertheless, these, in my view, constitute at best partial explanations.

There is, one suspects, a deeper problem marking human rights discourse and activism, of which this conference was a reasonable exemplar. At a time when the region is facing one of its biggest- ever challenges in the continuing war in Afghanistan, a conflict, which though not of our choosing has sucked every South Asian country into redefining its external and internal policies, there was immense expectation from the gathering. While no one present expressed any sympathy for the Taliban - if anything they were keen on seeing the last of it - there was widespread unease about the impact of the bombing, in particular the deepening of the humanitarian crisis. Equally strong was the apprehension of the spill-over effects of this global war against terrorism in Pakistan and also India.

In failing to centrally focus on the implications of Afghanistan - the shifts in regional power balances, the strengthening of the internal security apparatus in each country, as also the likely growth of sectarian/communal sentiment - the conference clearly disappointed. The contrast with the response to the many public engagements of Prof. Noam Chomsky, his trenchant critique of U.S. duplicity as also the doublespeak of our regimes, could not have been starker. As against the behaviour of our governments, which have chosen to line up behind the U.S.-led alliance and seek differential benefits by undercutting their neighbours, here was a chance to articulate a non-partisan regional response. The opportunity, unfortunately, was not grasped.

More problematic than the specifics of the convention - timing, agenda, participation and tone - are the difficulties in formulating an authentic regional response in a human rights framework. Despite regular assertions of civilisational unity, it is evident that regional ties, interactions and, therefore, frameworks remain weak. The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), for instance, has still to emerge as a viable regional arrangement. Visas are difficult to get and cross-border trade and equity flows minuscule, particularly if we compare them to East and South East Asia. If anything, our governments work hard at restricting the fragile people-to-people interaction. The circular by our Home Ministry placing curbs on foreign scholars, more so from the region, is a case in point. The Musharraf regime has gone further, explicitly forbidding any collaboration between Pakistani scholars and their Indian counterparts. It does appear that our human rights fraternity has not been immune to these tendencies.

Take any of our conflicts which involve more than one country viz. Kashmir. The human rights discourse seems unable to transcend national divisions. It is difficult to come across Pakistani human rights statements which admit the validity of, even partially, the Indian concern about cross-border terrorism. Even the various Indo-Pak. fora, which undoubtedly have rendered a signal service in reducing the atmosphere of mistrust and hostility, have been unable to go beyond appeals for peace and resumption of dialogue and condemnation of state terrorism. Violence by non-state actors remains a sticky point, not just its classification - whether these are militants, freedom fighters or terrorists - but its role in continuing the imbroglio.

More disappointing than the lack of consensus on issues of state terrorism, the role and behaviour of anti-insurgency forces, or the need and otherwise of draconian legislation is the record of actual intervention on humanitarian issues - the rights of displaced persons, widows and children. Only of late are we witnessing some effort by human rights communities and NGOs in both pressuring and working along with official agencies in ensuring adequate space and resources to non-combatants for leading a secure life.

As important as evolving a regional framework and charter on issues of conflict resolution is the need to address structural and socio- cultural discrimination marking each of our societies. Despite claiming a legacy of tolerance, pluralism and multi- culturalism, we can hardly deny that our linguistic, cultural and religious minorities face systemic discrimination and exclusion. At least the recent WCAR meet at Durban saw all South Asian groups bring the issues of untouchability and Dalits to the fore. But why is it that our progressive groups have little to say about the violation of human rights - torture, rape, economic boycott, forced dislocation and eventual out-migration - of the Hindu community in Bangladesh. Surely not because this does not easily square with our normal secular discourse. The net result is that the issue is left free for appropriation by right-wing, often fanatical Hindu, formations, further adding to communal tension. It is insufficiently appreciated that unless this issue, as also that of Kashmiri Pandits, Quadianis in Pakistan, Chakmas in the Chittagong Hill Tracts and the Nepali speakers in Bhutan is taken up by a non-partisan regional forum, it will be difficult to rescue it from a majority-minority framework or from the tactical responses of the concerned nation-states. We have seen how atrocities on the Indian Muslim communities, which do excite external concern, are perceived as an illegitimate intrusion into a nation's sovereign affairs.

We have referred to Afghanistan, Kashmir and the situation of religious minorities not because they are the only or even the most important problems facing the region. The Neemrana Declaration, which preceded the SAHR conference, provides a detailed listing. And these range from broader concerns of militarism and nuclearism, distorted developmental priorities resulting from an uncritical acceptance of globalisation and privatisation, the growing tendency to short-circuit democratic procedures and undermine institutional accountability to more specific issues like the rights of cross-border migrants, the trafficking of women and children and so on.

The danger is that in an effort to be comprehensive we may so overload the agenda that in the end all we will be left with is a politically correct, right-sounding declaration, one that has no teeth. A movement and an organisation, to be efficacious must grasp and build on the specificities of the moment. Alongside outlining broad principles, it must equally lay out a plan of intervention, that is if it desires to build and energise a wider community.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : India and Pak. in the new scenario
Next     : Ready a reserve team