Human rights in India

The situation of human rights in India is a complex one, as a result of the country's large size and tremendous diversity, its status as a developing country and a sovereign, secular, democratic republic, and its history as a former colonial territory. The Constitution of India provides for Fundamental rights, which include freedom of religion. Clauses also provide for Freedom of Speech, as well as separation of executive and judiciary and freedom of movement within the country and abroad. It is often held, particularly by Indian human rights groups and activists, that members of the Dalit or Untouchable caste have suffered and continue to suffer substantial discrimination. Although human rights problems do exist in India, the country is generally not regarded as a human rights concern, unlike other countries in South Asia. India also has an influential, independent and vibrant media which has played a crucial role in upholding human rights in India. Based on these considerations, the report Freedom in the World 2006 by Freedom House gave India a political rights rating of 2, and a civil liberties rating of 3, earning it the designation of free

Chronology of human rights in India

• 1829 - The practice of sati was formally abolished in British India after years of campaigning by Hindu reform movements such as the Brahmo Samaj of Ram Mohan Roy against this orthodox Hindu funeral custom of self-immolation of widows after the death of their husbands.
• 1929 - Child Marriage Restraint Act, prohibiting marriage of minors is passed.
• 1947 - India achieves political independence from the British Raj.
• 1950 - The Constitution of India establishes a sovereign democratic republic with universal adult franchise. Part 3 of the Constitution contains a Bill of Fundamental Rights enforceable by the Supreme Court and the High Courts. It also provides for reservations for previously disadvantaged sections in education, employment and political representation.
• 1955 - Reform of family law concerning Hindus gives more rights to Hindu women.
• 1973 - Supreme Court of India rules in Kesavananda Bharati that the basic structure of the Constitution (including many fundamental rights) is unalterable by a constitutional amendment.
• 1975-77 - State of Emergency in India - extensive rights violations take place.
• 1978 - SC rules in Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be suspended even in an emergency.
• 1984 - Operation Blue Star and the subsequent 1984 Anti-Sikh riots
• 1985-6 - The Shah Bano case, where the Supreme Court recognised the Muslim woman's right to maintenance upon divorce, sparks protests from Muslim clergy.
• 1989 - Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is passed.
• 1989-present - Kashmiri insurgency sees increasing violence between militants and security forces, resulting in heavy loss of lives.
• 1992 - A constitutional amendment establishes Local Self-Government (Panchayati Raj) as a third tier of governance at the village level, with one-third of the seats reserved for women. Reservations were provided for scheduled castes and tribes as well.
• 1992 - Babri Masjid demolished by Hindu mobs, resulting in riots across the country.
• 1993 - National Human Rights Commission is established under the Protection of Human Rights Act.
• 2001 - Supreme Court passes extensive orders to implement the right to food.
• 2002 - Violence in Gujarat, chiefly targeting its Muslim minority, claims many lives.
• 2005 - A powerful Right to Information Act is passed to give citizen's access to information held by public authorities.
• 2005 - National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) guarantees universal right to employment.
• 2006 - Supreme Court orders police reforms in response to the poor human rights record of Indian police.

India has a strong and vibrant media which does not allow any atrocity to go totally unnoticed. The Indian media has, if not helped the cause of propagating human rights, at least created channels to let human rights violations come to the notice of the public consciousness.

Custodial death

Under the Constitution of India, the police are the responsibility of state governments with the organisation and operations of police forces governed by rules and regulations framed by state governments[1]. In India, torture is widespread in police custody, which is a major reason behind deaths in custody.. The Asian Legal Resource Centre alleges that the police often torture innocent people until a 'confession' is obtained to save influential and wealthy offenders.However, recent advancements in technology, as well as the increasing adoption of modern law-enforcement methods from western examples seeks to improve this situation.

G.P. Joshi, the programme coordinator of the Indian branch of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative in New Delhi for issues relating to the police and prisons, summarizes the issue of police abuses. He notes that the main issue at hand concerning police violence is a lack of accountability of the police, a feature characteristic of many developing nations.[2] However India in this regard has a stong press with sufficient freedom which is abile to criticize police brutalities effectively, as has happened numerous times in recent years.[3]

In response to widespread criticism by activists and organizations, especially ones in India itself, of police abuses and extrajudicial killings, the Supreme Court of India delivered an historic judgment in the Prakash Singh vs. Union of India case in 2007 (for further details on this case, see Indian Police Service#1996-2006 Reforms ordered by the Supreme Court). The judiciary ordered central and state governments with seven directives to begin the process of police reform. The main objectives of this set of directives was twofold, providing tenure to and streamlining the appointment/transfer processes of policemen, and increasing the accountability of the police, which was severely lacking in the past. The central government has formally committed to the initiative.. Also, Several states in India have taken the initiative, drafting new pieces of legislation to reflect the judgment of the national Supreme Court.The judgment is the first tangible step towards police reform in a long time but also only an initial step..

Press Freedom

According to the estimates of Reporters Without Borders, India ranks 120th worldwide in press freedom index (press freedom index for India is 39.33 for 2007).The Indian Constitution, while not mentioning the word "press", provides for "the right to freedom of speech and expression" (Article 19(1) a). However this right is subject to restrictions under subclause (2), whereby this freedom can be restricted for reasons of "sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, preserving decency, preserving morality, in relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence". Laws such as the Official Secrets Act and Prevention of Terrorism Act (PoTA) have been used to limit press freedom. Under PoTA, person could be detained for up to six months for being in contact with a terrorist or terrorist group. PoTA was repealed in 2006, but the Official Secrets Act 1923 continues.

For the first half-century of independence, media control by the state was the major constraint on press freedom. Indira Gandhi famously stated in 1975 that All India Radio is "a Government organ, it is going to remain a Government organ..." With the liberalization starting in the 1990s, private control of media has burgeoned, leading to increasing independence and greater scrutiny of government. Organizations like Tehelka and NDTV have been particularly influential, e.g. in bringing about the resignation of powerful Haryana minister Venod Sharma. In addition, laws like Prasar Bharati act passed in recent years contribute significantly to reducing the control of the press by the government.

LGBT rights

Main article: Homosexuality in India

Traditionally, Indian culture was relatively tolerant of homosexual activity. However, Victorian Era laws passed by the British in British India cultivated negative views towards alternative sexual lifestyles.

Homosexuality is criminalised in India by interpretations of the ambiguous Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The punishment ranges from ten years to lifelong imprisonment.While formal indictments or convictions of homosexuals are virtually unheard of, the law has been used to harass HIV/AIDS prevention efforts, as well as sex workers, men who have sex with men, and other groups at risk of the disease. Scott Long, director of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights Program at Human Rights Watch send a letter to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh regarding the arrests of 4 men in 2006 in Lucknow and another 4 in 2001.

The People's Union for Civil Liberties has published two reports of the rights violations faced by sexual minorities and, in particular, transsexuals (hijras and kothis) in India.

In recent years, both due to increasingly liberal attitudes and the need to control the spread of HIV/AIDS, several non-government organisations, National Aids Control Organization, the union ministry of women and child development, the Law Commission of India and the planning commission of India have all demanded legalisation or at least de-criminalisation of homosexuality and acceptance, tolerance and equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered people. Political parties, including members of right-wing ones, are slowly warming to the idea of LGBT rights. Criticism of the anti-LGBT law(s) comes primarily from the educated urban middle class.

Human trafficking

Human trafficking is a $8 million illegal business in India. Around 10,000 Nepali women are brought to India annually for commercial sexual exploitation. Nepali girls below 10 years are forced into prostitution. Each year 20,000-25,000 women and children are trafficked from Bangladesh..

However, the United States observes that India is "not" among the worst human-trafficking nations in the world, a conclusion that has sparked controversy among activists. Mark Lagon, ambassador at large for the State Department's Trafficking in Persons office, explains the US's official position as one where many different variables played into the decision. He said: "I would be perpetuating a fraud to say that we don't look at multiple factors in our relationship with countries any time we take a step on a particular issue like human trafficking," [4]

Recent improvements in Indo-US relations has led the United States to offer cooperation in combating this problem. U.S. Assistant Attorney-General, Alexander Acosta, said that India faced a handicap in the fight against such crimes due to the lack of an adequate federal law enforcement agency.The National Human Rights Commission of India has establishing anti-trafficking centres for better coordination in this venture.[5]

Indias Minister for Overseas Indian Affairs , Vayalar Ravi, declared on September, 2007 that the Indian government is gravely concerned about growing human trafficking by criminal elements and that "India will impose ‘severe and exemplary’ penalties on those indulging in human trafficking and launch a nationwide awareness campaign on the risks of illegal migration".Ravi pointed out that his ministry’ effort ‘has been to transform international migration into an efficient, transparent, orderly and humane process and at the same time to actively discourage and prevent illegal migration’.[6]

Communal violence

Main article: Religious violence in India

Further information: Communalism (South Asia)

Communal conflicts between ethnic and religious groups (mostly between Hindus and Muslims) have been prevalent India since around the time of it's independence from British Rule. Among the oldest incidences of communal violence in India was the Moplah rebellion, when Militant Islamists massacred Hindus in Kerala. Communal riots took place during the partition of India between Hindus/Sikhs and Muslims where large numbers of people were killed in large-scale violence.

The 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots, a four-day period during which Sikhs were massacred by members of the secular-centrist Congress Party of India; some estimates state that more than 4,000 were killed. Other incidents include the 1992 Bombay Riots and the 2002 Gujarat violence —in the latter, more than 2,000 Muslims were killed following a militant Islamist attack on a train full of Hindu pilgrims in the Godhra Train Burning, where 58 Hindus were killed. Lesser incidents plague many towns and villages; representative was the killing of five people in Mau, Uttar Pradesh during Hindu-Muslim rioting, which was triggered by the proposed celebration of a Hindu festival.. other such communal incidents include the 2002 Marad massacre, carried out by the militant Islamist group National Development Front, as well as communal riots in Tamil Nadu executed by the Islamist Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham against Hindus.[7][8][9]

Human Rights Watch and India

Human Rights Watch has recently published several reports attacking the Human rights situation in India. Allegations have been made of anti-India and anti-Hindu bias on the part of this and other organizations.

Allegations of bias against India

Yatindra Bhatnagar, chief editor of "International Opinion", has criticized Human Rights Watch representatives and those of related organizations of having an anti-India bias with regards to their reports of communal riots in India between Hindus and Muslims, particularly in reference to the 2002 Gujarat violence. He writes that, instead of trying to heal the wounds of such incidents, organizations like Human Rights Watch focus disproportionately on blaming Hindus exclusively for the incident and trying to deflect attention from the violence perpetrated by Islamists in the Godhra Train Burning that precipitated the riots. In particular, he criticizes Human Rights Watch representative Smita Narula and her colleagues for providing a "blatantly one-sided" account of events and dismissing his concerns to that effect.

In addition, the reports on the Gujarat riots compiled by Human Rights Watch have been criticized by Arvin Bahl, a guest contributor to the "South Asia Analysis Group", as "one-sided" and "biased". He claims that the reports generally "are based on half-truths, distortions and sometimes outright falsehoods". He points out that Human Rights Watch's claims about the Bharatiya Janata Party advocating a Hindu Nation as its core ideology are false. He further says that his analysis of the reports accuse the Gujarat government for planning the riots but do not provide any evidence to back those assertions. He also criticizes Human Rights Watch's labeling of the attacks on Hindus by Muslims during the riots as "retaliatory". In his analysis he states that while he does not deny that Hindu extremists were responsible for the riots, he "objectively analyze[s] the complexity of communal conflict in India and avoid[s] the generalizations associated with Human Rights Watch reports."

See also

• Homosexuality in India
• Prostitution in India
• Censorship in India
• Indian Emergency (1975 - 77)

External links

• "Nothing to Go Back To - The Fate of the Widows of Vrindavan, India WNN - Women News Network Nov 5, 2007
• Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929
• Dalit Human Rights (DHR)
• Freedom of Expression in India - IFEX
• Street Children
• Human Rights Law in India