Tag: UNHRC

Situation in Myanmar Has Led to Influx of Thousands Into Northeast States: India to UNHRC

‘The ongoing situation also has direct implications in the form of increased transnational crimes.’

New Delhi: India has said in a statement at the UN Human Rights Council that the “precarious humanitarian situation and escalation of violence” in Myanmar has led to influx of thousands of persons into India’s northeastern states.

The statement was delivered by Kshitij Tyagi, First Secretary of the Permanent Mission of India, during the interactive dialogue on the Oral Update of the High Commissioner on the situation of human rights in Myanmar.

India said that as “an immediate neighbour, and friend of the people of Myanmar,” it is deeply concerned with the situation in Myanmar.

New Delhi also claimed that the situation has bearings on crimes.

“The ongoing situation also has direct implications in the form of increased transnational crimes such as drug and human trafficking. We are doing our best to deal with this situation,” the Indian statement said.

India is in the process of fencing its border with Myanmar and discontinue the free movement agreement.

It added that India has always accorded a “high priority to maintenance of peace and stability in Myanmar” and its economic development.

“India remains steadfast in its support to Myanmar’s transition towards inclusive federal democracy. We also reiterate the need for arriving at peaceful solutions that are Myanmar-led and Myanmar-owned,” India’s statement further said.

India Urges Canada to Abide By Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations

India’s fresh call to Ottawa comes days after pro-Khalistan groups allegedly disturbed a camp set up by the Indian consulate in Vancouver.

New Delhi: India on Thursday (November 16) reiterated its call for Canada to abide by the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations after pro-Khalistan groups allegedly disturbed a camp set up by the Indian consulate in Vancouver.

The Indian consulate had set up a camp to provide life certificates to pensioners on November 12 as part of a routine exercise. External affairs ministry spokesperson Arindam Bagchi, during a media briefing, said that the event was held successfully despite attempts by a few radical elements to cause trouble. 

Days after the event, India called on Ottawa to ensure a conducive environment in line with provisions of the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations so that its officials can discharge their duties without any hindrance or security concerns, the Tribune reported. 

“We reiterate the need for nations to respect the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations so that our diplomats can discharge their diplomatic obligations,” Bagchi was quoted by the paper as saying.

India’s diplomatic relations with Canada had soured after Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accused India of being involved in the killing of pro-Khalistan activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in September. 

India strongly rejected the allegations and responded by temporarily suspending visa services to Canadian citizens and asked Ottawa to downsize its diplomatic presence in the country to ensure parity. 

Bagchi was also asked about an incident that occurred near Brampton on Diwali which he called an “unrest” between two groups. 

“As regards to events that you alluded to near Brampton on Diwali. I think that was more in the nature of unrest between the two groups. I don’t think there has been any complaint that our consulate has received… I saw some social media reports. We also understand that the authorities there are looking into that incident,” he said.

India’s fresh call to Ottawa comes days after it urged Canada to stop the “misuse” of freedom of expression to incite violence and prevent activities of extremist groups during Canada’s review of human rights record at the UN Human Rights Council.

This call by India was presented as part of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process, under which member states of the United Nations undergo a periodic evaluation of their human rights records.

At UN Human Rights Review, India Calls on Canada to Prevent ‘Misuse’ of Freedom of Expression

Member states of the UN undergo a periodic evaluation of their human rights records by the 47 members of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.

New Delhi: Amidst strained relations, India urged Canada during the review of its human rights record at the UNHRC to boost its legal framework to stop the “misuse” of freedom of expression to incite violence and prevent activities of extremist groups.

This call by India was presented as part of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process, under which member states of the United Nations undergo a periodic evaluation of their human rights records conducted by the 47 members of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.

On November 10, Canada underwent the UPR process for the fourth time, receiving evaluations from the UPR working group, consisting of all UNHRC members. Canada was among the 14 countries reviewed during the current session.

India offered three suggestions to Canada “in the spirit of constructive dialogue”.

“One, further strengthen the domestic framework to prevent misuse of freedom of expression for inciting violence and disallow activities of groups which are promoting extremism,” said Indian diplomat Mohammed Hussain K.S.

He also called on Canada to “effectively prevent attacks on places of worships of religious and racial minorities” and “strengthen legislative and other measures to address hate crimes and hate speech”.

“Third, put an end to structural discrimination against children belonging to indigenous groups. And address disparities in access to services by all children,” added the Indian representative.

Since Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau publicly accused India of being involved in the killing of a Sikh Canadian citizen, relations have gone into deep freeze. Both countries expelled a diplomat in a tit-for-tat move, with India taking additional measures of halting visa services for all Canadian nationals. New Delhi further insisted on diplomatic parity, resulting in the departure of 41 Canadian diplomats from India.

India has vehemently rejected the allegations as “absurd” and asked for Canada to share the evidence. Indian officials have also complained that Canada does not take New Delhi’s concerns about activities of Khalistani separatists seriously.

In a recent interview with a Canadian newspaper, India’s high commissioner to Ottawa, Sanjay Kumar Varma said that there had been no action taken on 26 requests made to Canada to extradite people to India.

India had especially umbrage at the posters and banners put up by Khalistani groups in Canada that specifically targeted Indian diplomats. Canadian officials had, however, expressed their inability to put charges because the language used in those posters had been within the legal threshold of permissibility. 

On November 10, Indian foreign secretary Vinay Kwatra claimed that India had “core security concerns” after the United States Secretary of State Anthony Blinken again asked New Delhi to join the Canadian investigation.

During the previous UPR cycle that Canada underwent in 2018, India put forth six recommendations, which had also included calling for prevention of “misuse of freedom of expression” and “glorify[ing] terrorists as martyrs”.

From China to AI: How India Voted at the UN’s Human Rights Body

Out of the ten UNHRC resolutions that were put to a ballot, India voted in favour five times, abstained four times, and opposed one resolution.

New Delhi: From China’s oldest recurring resolution to bringing human rights into the realm of artificial intelligence (AI), India has had to make some policy adjustments at the recently concluded UN Human Rights Council which continue to signal its current geo-political and domestic policy concerns.

The UN’s human rights body, based in Geneva, holds three regular sessions during a year. The mid-summer session ended on Friday, passing 30 resolutions – a majority of which were adopted without a vote or a consensus. However, two of these resolutions which were adopted without a vote, however, had to face amendments from several countries that were rejected by voting.

Out of the ten UNHRC resolutions that were put to a ballot, India voted in favour five times, abstained four times, and opposed one resolution. Additionally, India issued six statements regarding the adopted resolutions, with only one statement providing an explanation for its vote.

Here is a look at the notable signals in India’s voting pattern in the 53rd UNHRC session that ended on July 14.

A change in its position on a China-sponsored resolution

India’s sole Explanation of Vote was on a resolution tabled by China on “Contribution of Development to the Enjoyment of All Human Rights” which was passed by 30 votes in favour, five abstentions and 12 votes against.

The Western nations, led by the US, the UK and the EU, voted en bloc against the resolution, while India, Paraguay, Georgia, Chile and Costa Rica abstained.

In its explanation of vote statement, India said that it had made proposals for amendments “related to the terms and concepts that are not universally accepted and we believe that they should have been taken on board”.

“As we continue to have reservations on use of such terms and concepts in the text instead of already agreed language within the SDG Framework, India will abstain on this resolution,” said the Indian representative on July 14.

This vote is significant as it is a recurring resolution that China tables every other year in the Council since 2017. It is the first ever solo resolution authored by China in the UNHRC.

India has previously always voted in favour of the Chinese-authored resolution when it was tabled in 2017, 2019, and 2021.

When it was tabled four years ago, India had in fact commended the Chinese for “accommodating different perspectives and presenting a balanced text”. “We hope the resolution under consideration will be adopted by consensus,” an Indian diplomat had said at the UNHRC in July 2019.

The Wire has learnt India altered its stance in response to China’s introduction of new language in the text this year. The modified draft resolution now incorporates the phrase “high-quality development”, a term promoted by Chinese President Xi Jinping.

While this is the oldest resolution in the UNHRC that China has drafted alone, it also introduced a second resolution – “promoting mutually beneficial cooperation in the field of human rights” – in 2018. After India returned to the UNHRC following a break, it voted against this resolution when it was introduced in 2020 and 2021, due to its more blatant references to President Xi’s favourite phrases in the title itself.

China had not re-tabled the ‘mutually beneficial’ cooperation resolutions at any of the sessions last year in the UNHRC, when it was largely pre-occupied over the draft resolution moved by the western countries on Xinjiang. India had abstained on the draft resolution which was rejected by the majority of countries, but later said that China should “address” the human rights concerns.

Also read: The Unravelling of Prime Minister Modi’s Posturing on Democracy and Human Rights

India calls for “incremental’ steps on AI and human rights

The UNHRC adopted a resolution by consensus on “new and emerging digital technologies and human rights”, which sought to take a rights-based approach into the field of AI.

While China disassociated from the entire resolution but did not ask for a vote, India specifically disagreed and disassociated with a substantial paragraph that gave a number of directions on protecting vulnerable groups from use of AI.

Among the various issues highlighted in the resolution’s operative paragraph (OP) 3 was that data for AI systems are used in ways that are consistent with member state’s obligations under the international human rights law. It further called for ensuring transparency and accountability so that the use of AI systems does not lead to the spread of disinformation and hate speech – and ensure freedom of speech, especially if deployed to support content moderation.

The resolution also called in OP6 for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to expand its capacities to advance human rights in the context of new and emerging technologies, including AI and to aid member states upon their request.

While noting that OP3 has “non-consensual language”, India said that the ambitious expansion of capacity of the OHCHR envisioned in OP6 “may curtail its functions”.

The Indian diplomat expressed disappointment that India’s request to “to take an incremental approach to the resolution’s outcomes could not be fully accommodated”.

“For the reasons mentioned before, we are constrained to dissociate from OP3. However, in line with the importance we attach to the subject of this resolution, we will join consensus,” she said.

Country-specific resolutions

Out of the six country-specific resolutions, India has abstained on the resolutions adopted related to Ukraine, Syria and Belarus, as it has done consistently in the past.

The lone negative vote from India during the entire session was on the resolution which extended the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Eritrea, the strategically located country in the Horn of Africa. India has been voting against resolutions on Eritrea since 2019.

The resolutions in the UNHRC sessions, prior to 2019, pertaining to Eritrea had been unanimously adopted as they were sponsored by the African group, including the resolution to establish the mandate of the Special Rapporteur in 2012. Following Eritrea’s improved relations with Ethiopia, the African group subsequently withdrew its consent. However, starting in 2019, European countries began to table the resolution which led Eritrea and the African countries to rally votes against it.

India voted ‘yes’ on a resolution that called on the UN High Commissioner for human rights to produce database of all companies operating in Israeli settlements. The resolution garnered support from 31 countries, including India, who voted in favour. Thirteen countries chose to abstain, while only three nations – the US, the UK, and Czechia – voted against the resolution. It called for full implementation of the database, as per the mandate of the resolution 31/36 adopted in 2016, for which India had also voted affirmatively.

While India voted against the Eritrea resolution, it voted in favour of the resolution on Colombia as it was sponsored by the South American country itself. As per the resolution, the commissioner has to appoint an international human rights expert immediately to identify the obstacles in the implementation of the 2016 agreement.

However, before the resolution was passed, Pakistan, on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), had introduced an amendment that sought to remove the language on violence against “persons on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity” with “persons in other vulnerable situations”. Despite the decriminalisation of homosexuality by the Supreme Court, India abstained on the amendment, which was narrowly defeated due to combined votes of the European and Latin American countries.

In support of OIC-sponsored resolutions

During this session, India voted in favour of two resolutions brought by Pakistan, on behalf of the OIC group. One was the resolution on implementing the database for firms active in Israeli settlements, while the second one was the resolution against religious hatred in light of the Quran in Sweden.

While India did not give an explanation of its vote, it had taken part in the Urgent Debate called in the Council on July 11. While stating that the Council had to take account of “phobias” against “all religions”, India had not directly referred to the Swedish incident in its statement.

India has taken an antagonistic position publicly against the OIC, which has criticised New Delhi for not taking action to stop violation of human rights of Indian Muslims and in the now trifurcated state of Jammu and Kashmir.

Also read: Who Said What at Evaluation of India’s Human Rights Record: A Comprehensive Look

Polarisation on women and children rights

The OIC and Russia targeted two resolutions related to women and girls with numerous amendments. None of the amendments were approved, but India voted either in favour of them or abstained.

There were three amendments introduced after the tabling of Canada’s draft resolution on accelerating efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women and girls in criminal justice detention. While it abstained on two of them, India voted yes on Russia’s amendment. After the amendments were defeated, the draft resolution was adopted by consensus.

There was even more contentious hostile amendments to the draft resolution on ending child, early and forced marriages, which was sponsored by a cross-regional group of countries. India voted in favour of three of them.

While one was to align the draft to the UNGA outcomes, the other two amendments were to substantially modify the text.

Nigeria and Saudi Arabia sought to add that “appropriate direction” from parents had to be sought with regard to sexual health of girls and boys. Egypt also introduced additional language to clarify that “domestic and intimate partner violence” had to be addressed, as per national legal systems. India voted in favour of both of them, but all the amendments were rejected.

Sources pointed out that India voted in favour of the Egyptian amendment as marital rape is not recognised under Indian jurisprudence. The unamended draft resolution was also adopted without a vote.

NHRC’s Accreditation Deferred by Global Alliance, May Lose Top Level Ranking: Report

Lack of diversity in staff and leadership, political interference in appointments and police officers’ involvement in investigations of human rights violations are some of the reasons given for the move.

New Delhi: A global alliance of human rights organisations has deferred the accreditation of India’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) for the second time since it was first recognised by the international body in 1999, Article 14 reported. 

Lack of diversity in staff and leadership, political interference in appointments, police officers’ involvement in investigations of human rights violations, lack of cooperation with civil society and Insufficient action to protect marginalised groups are some of the reasons given by the alliance for NHRC’s deferred status, according to the report.

Global Alliance of National Human Right Commission (GANHRI) works with the UN Human Rights Office, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) as well as other international and regional organisations to review the performance of national human rights institutions across the world.

The alliance put NHRC’S ‘A’ status on hold during the latest round of accreditation in March this year. If the NHRC does not address the alliance’s concerns then it may be downgraded to a ‘B’ status during the next review in 2024, the report said.

Of the 13 countries up for review this year, the accreditation status of only two other countries–Costa Rica and Northern Ireland–was deferred. 

In 2016 too, the NHRC’s accreditation was deferred by a year after which it received an ‘A’ rating in 2017. 

All national human rights institutions that hold an ‘A’ status are subject to re-accreditation every five years. Decisions on accreditation are deferred when institutions fail to comply fully with the Paris Principles. GANHRI’s sub committee on accreditation meets in Geneva twice every year to consider accreditation applications.

Human rights groups and activists in India welcomed GANHRI’s decision, arguing that it reflected the deteriorating situation of human rights in the country, as well as the NHRC’s failure to come to the aid of human rights defenders, Article 14’s reported. The NHRC is currently headed by former Supreme Court judge Arun Mishra.

In its 2017 recommendations, the GANHRI sub committee has asked the NHRC to address its lack of diversity—there were no women or representatives from other marginalised social groups among five Commission members at the time, and only 20% of the staff were women, the report said. 

An amendment to the Protection of Human Rights Act in 2019 sought to address these concerns that increased members of the commission from five to sex, and made chairpersons of the National Commission for Backward Classes and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, and the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities deemed members of the NHRC.

UN Human Rights Council: India Votes Against Unilateral Sanctions on Countries

This is a break from its record number of abstentions on UN fora this last year. Though analysts say, India has always voted against unilateral sanctions. It is another matter that it chose to abide by US sanctions on Iranian oil. It stopped oil purchases from Iran in 2019.

New Delhi: The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) on April 3, Monday, adopted a resolution condemning the “negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights”.

India was among those that voted in favour of the resolution, a refreshing change from the abstentions India has recorded in the United Nations in the past year. But analysts say India has always voted against unilateral sanctions. It is another matter that it is abiding by sanctions on Iranian oil. India stopped importing oil from Iran in mid-2019 following sanctions on the country by the then Trump administration in the US.

The resolution was approved with 33 votes in its favour, 13 against, and one abstention (Mexico). Among the countries that rejected the text were, the United States and many of its NATO allies including the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Belgium, Finland, and also Ukraine.

The text titled A/HRC/52/L.18 was presented by Azerbaijan on behalf of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries.

The resolution held that unilateral coercive measures, legislation, and secondary sanctions were a violation of international law, norms and principles as well as the UN Charter. The text expressed “grave concern” over the negative impact of sanctions on human rights, including the right to development, which is recognised as a “universal and inalienable right” integral to all human rights.

The resolution called upon all states to “stop adopting, maintaining, implementing, or complying with unilateral coercive measures….in particular those of a coercive nature with extraterritorial effects.”

India Abstains as UNHRC Extends Investigation Into Ukraine War by One Year

This is the fourth time that the UN Human Rights Council has voted on a matter related to Ukraine since the invasion by Russian troops. India has abstained from voting in all of them, just as it has on other resolutions on the Ukraine war at other UN bodies.

New Delhi: India on Tuesday, April 4, abstained in the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) on a resolution that extended the mandate of the investigation into alleged war crimes by Russia during the ongoing Ukrainian war.

This is the fourth time that the UNHRC has voted on a matter related to Ukraine since the invasion by Russian troops. However, it is the third resolution to be adopted by the Council condemning Moscow. India has abstained from voting in all of them, just as it has on other resolutions on the Ukraine war at other UN bodies.

Sponsored by Ukraine and the West, the resolution was passed with 28 out of the 47 council members voting in favour. Only two countries, China and Eritrea, voted against it, while 17 others abstained.

After the start of the war, the UNHRC voted in February 2022 to hold an urgent debate on the human rights situation in Ukraine. India had been among the 13 countries that abstained, while 29 countries voted in favour.

Thereafter, India abstained from voting in the March 2022 resolution that established a commission of inquiry with 32 ‘yes’ votes. Then, at the UNHRC’s special session in May 2022, a resolution was passed that updated the mandate for the investigation. India took the same position once again. 

Russia was expelled from the Geneva-based UNHRC by a majority of the UN General Assembly in April last year.

India’s “explanation of vote” before the voting of the resolution on Tuesday was on similar lines as earlier, with no mention or direct criticism of Russia.

“The conflict has resulted in loss of lives and countless miseries for its people, particularly for women, children and elderly, with millions becoming homeless and forced to take shelter in neighbouring countries. We reiterate our grave concerns about the reports of attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure,” said counsellor, Permanent Mission of India to the UN in Geneva, Pawankumar Badhe.

He also stated that India called for the “respect for and protection of human rights of people in Ukraine and reiterate our abiding commitment to global promotion and protection of human rights”.

Reiterating Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statement that this is not an era for war, India called for an urgent return to dialogue and diplomacy.

“International principles and jurisprudence vest responsibility on parties to the conflict to ensure that civilians and civilian infrastructure are not targeted in situations of armed conflicts. The global order that we all subscribe to, is based on International Law, the UN Charter and respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all states. These principles must be upheld without any exception,” he said.

India noted the global impact of the Ukraine conflict, especially the economic adversity faced by developing countries.

After Viral Video, India Summons Swiss Ambassador Over ‘Anti-India Posters’ in Geneva

As per sources, the Swiss ambassador told the senior Indian diplomat that he would ‘convey India’s concerns to Berne with all the seriousness it deserves.’

New Delhi: A day after a video went viral on social media showing “anti-India posters” in Geneva, India protested by summoning the Swiss Ambassador to the Ministry of External Affairs on Sunday, March 5.

On Sunday, official sources stated that MEA’s secretary (west) Sanjay Verma “called in” the Swiss ambassador and “raised the issue of unfounded and malicious anti-India posters in front of the UN building in Geneva”.

The envoy was summoned after an anonymous Twitter user (with a Twitter Blue tick) shared a video it claimed was taken by an Indian student in Geneva. “A video shot by an Indian student in Geneva goes viral where a high level of propaganda can be seen unleashed against India near UNHRC HQ. Is this the new Toolkit or planned preparation for 2024??” the tweet said, which had been retweeted close to 6,000 times.

As per sources, the Swiss ambassador told the senior Indian diplomat that he would “convey India’s concerns to Berne with all the seriousness it deserves”. He added that the posters in Geneva “are part of space provided to all, but in no way endorses the claims, nor reflects the position of the Swiss Government”.

A statement issued on behalf of the Swiss ambassador to India, Ralf Heckner, said, “The Embassy has conveyed India’s concerns to Berne with all the seriousness it deserves”.

Incidentally, posters appear on the plaza in front of the UN building in Geneva during the sessions of the UN Human Rights Council to catch the eye-balls of officials and ministers arriving from all over the world. The fifty-second session of the UNHRC began on February 27.

As this tweet from state-run Pakistan Television shows, anti-India posters on Kashmir and Nagaland were apparently displayed in the plaza in front of the UN building in Geneva in 2017 to coincide with the 36th session of UNHRC. The Dawn reported on these posters in September 2017. It also noted that Pakistan’s representative to the UN in Geneva had written a week earlier to Swiss authorities to take action on “Free Balochistan” posters on buses in Geneva.

Two years later, during the 42nd UNHRC session in 2019, another Pakistani Twitter user claimed that posters and banners with anti-India slogans on Kashmir had been emblazoned on vehicles in Geneva. The state-run Prasar Bharati tweeted photos of signs against Pakistan’s treatment of Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa installed in front of the UN building in September 2019.

A Twitter search of tweets regarding posters in Geneva from previous years also showed an unverified photo of a couple of banners at the plaza in front of the UN building in 2020 accusing the Pakistan army of terrorism.

A tweet from 2021 by a Pakistani Twitter user showed that several anti-India posters were at the same venue.

While Pakistan had reportedly protested posters in 2017, India had, till now, not summoned the Swiss ambassador despite such signs appearing in time for various UNHRC sessions.

Following the BBC documentary on Gujarat riots, the Indian external affairs minister S. Jaishankar had said last month that there was a foreign conspiracy to target his government ahead of next year’s Lok Sabha elections. “I mean, come on, you think the timing is accidental?” he asked. “Let me tell you one thing. I don’t know if election season has started in India and Delhi or not but for sure it has started in London and New York,” he said in an interview to ANI.

Govt Forms Panel to Oversee Human Rights-Related Obligations to Treaty Bodies

The panel will function as the national mechanism for ‘human rights issues’ and will meet twice a year. It has been formed under the joint supervision of the home and foreign ministries.

New Delhi: The government has constituted a committee to create a structured mechanism to oversee human rights-related obligations to treaty bodies and the universal periodic review done by the UN Human Rights Council, Hindustan Times reported.

According to the newspaper, the panel will function as the national mechanism for “human rights issues” and will meet twice a year. It has been formed under the joint supervision of the home and foreign ministries.

The latest universal periodic review of India’s human rights record was done on November 10 last year, the daily reported.

It further said that India received close to 340 recommendations, though authorities in New Delhi are yet to decide how many of these will be implemented.

The secretary (West) in the external affairs ministry and special secretary in ministry of home affairs will co-chair the interministerial committee, the daily reported. Joint secretaries in the ministries of women and child development, social justice and empowerment, minority affairs, tribal affairs, rural development, housing and urban affairs, health and family welfare, labour and employment, school education and literacy, legal affairs, corporate affairs and NITI Aayog will be part of it, it added.

According to a gazette notification issued by the external affairs ministry on Friday, the panel said: “The committee shall function as the national mechanism for implementation, reporting and follow-up with the mandate to deliberate upon and oversee… all human rights reporting obligations to the treaty bodies, the universal periodic review and the special procedures; implementation of their recommendations; and modalities for engagement with national stakeholders.”

Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director at Human Rights Watch, told the newspaper: “It is very welcome that the government has set up a committee to enforce its international treaty obligation. Hope this will include bolstering the independence of institutions like the NHRC (National Human Rights Commission), NCW (National Commission for Women), NCPCR (National Commission for Protection of Child Rights) and other constitutional bodies, as well as robust engagement with civil society including government critics.”

Also read: ‘Collective Punishment for Muslims’: Human Rights Watch Slams Demolition Drives in BJP-Ruled States

The move comes a few days after the Human Rights Watch released its latest report highlighting the normalisation of various state governments’ drive to demolish homes of Indian Muslims and low-income groups, as a measure of extra-judicial punishment.

The Wire reported that it is perhaps for the first time that a global human rights body has expressed concern over the government’s use of a demolition drive against vulnerable groups.

The report noted multiple such incidents in 2022 which appeared to be cases of state governments targeting the Muslim community while carrying out punitive home demolitions.

“In April, authorities in Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and Delhi summarily demolished property mostly owned by Muslims in response to communal clashes. Although they tried to justify the demolitions by claiming the structures were illegal, the destruction appeared intended to be collective punishment for Muslims,” the HRW report said.

Added to that, the HRW also hit out at the majoritarian biases in the functioning of state institutions that are supposed to enforce human rights. It said that state authorities “misused” laws against prohibiting forced religious conversions to “to target Christians, especially from Dalit and Adivasi communities”.

The report also raised concern over the alarming rate of violence against women and girls that it said continued to grow even in 2022.

Ashwini K.P. Becomes First Indian to Be Appointed Independent Expert on Racism by UNHRC

A Dalit activist and former professor, Ashwini will be the sixth Special Rapporteur to hold this mandate and the first from Asia as well. All her predecessors have been from Africa.

New Delhi: On Friday, the UN Human Rights Council appointed the first Asian and first Indian as an independent expert on racism and related intolerance.

The 47-member UN human rights body, based in Geneva, endorsed the appointment of Dalit activist and professor of political science, Ashwini K.P. on Friday. The vacancy for the Special Rapporteur (SR) on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance came up unexpectedly as the incumbent, Zambia’s E. Tendayi Achiume, resigned before the completion of her three-year term.

Special Rapporteurs are independent experts appointed by the UNHRC who serve personally and report on human rights from a thematic or country-specific perspective.

Ashwini’s name was part of a three-member shortlist recommended by the Consultative Group for the selection of the mandate holders to the President of the Council. Besides Ashwini, the shortlist included Joshua Castellino, also from India, and Botswana’s Unity Dow.

The UNHRC president then nominated her to the Council, which officially appointed her just before the conclusion of its 51st session on Friday. Ashwini’s three-year term will begin on November 1.

Also read: Explained: What Is the UNHRC Resolution About Sri Lanka and How Will India Vote?

Created in 1994, the mandate of the SR on contemporary forms of racism is to “address racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance against Africans and persons of African descent, Arabs and Muslims, Asians and persons of Asian descent, migrants and non-nationals, persons belonging to indigenous peoples and minorities, as well as all other victims mentioned in the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action”. 

Ashwini will be the sixth SR to hold this mandate. All her predecessors have been from Africa.

The SR fulfils the mandate through communications with states and issuing urgent appeals over alleged violations of international human rights laws, fact-finding country visits and reporting to the UNHRC and General Assembly.

The Consultative Group had included her in the shortlist based on “practical experience relating to the mandate, particularly in the Asian region, and her commitment to the issues related to the mandate.”

Ashwini, who has worked as an assistant professor of political science at Bengaluru’s St Joseph’s College, is co-founder of a non-governmental organisation, Zariya: Women’s Alliance for Dignity and Equality.

She received her doctorate from Jawaharlal Nehru University and has previously worked as a senior campaigner in business and human rights with Amnesty International India.

“Belonging to a marginalised community myself, an Indian Dalit woman, working on issues related to descent and occupation based discrimination has been part of my professional space, research and activism and are not new to me. Whether it was working with indigenous communities in the state of Chattisgarh and Odisha who were victims of illegal land acquisition or in my present role on working as an academician, researcher and being part of several grassroots organisations that specifically focus on descent and occupation based discrimination,” she wrote in her application letter.

Note: This article has been edited to reflect that Ashwini K.P. was formerly (and isn’t currently) an assistant professor at St. Joseph’s College.