Email
Print
ShareHuman Rights Watch, a leading international human rights organisation had its board meeting and retreat in the nation's capital for five days in mid-October. For over thirty years, Human Rights Watch has worked on the global stage and in close collaboration with nationally based groups to advocate for human rights.
HRW chose New Delhi as the location for this meeting in recognition of India's role as an emerging leader in international affairs, with the potential to be a powerful moral voice in defense of human rights.
It seems fitting to use this occasion to examine some arguments that are commonly raised when discussing human rights in the context of the developing world: Are human rights principles a tool of western imperialism?
This criticism certainly rings true and was especially highlighted by American domestic and foreign policy during the Bush administration. However, it also serves to underscore the importance of freely functioning local and international organisations that can "name and shame" governments in western democracies as much as they do in other parts of the world.Organisations such as Human Rights Watch are vigilant and vocal critics of US domestic and foreign policy and have been active in areas such as the use of extralegal detentions, the death penalty and US immigration policy. Double standards on the part of some countries are not a justification for other countries to violate human rights.
Should human rights advocacy inform foreign policy?
The question for many developing countries, especially one as populous and significant as India, is whether to make human rights advocacy an integral part of foreign policy.One view is that given the double standards of western democracies, nations such as India and China must reserve a right to their own realpolitik. Separately, most countries (including India) have spotty human rights records of their own andare reluctant to set precedents that impair their sovereign right to continue these violations.
There are a few rebuttals to these views. While, India must certainly weigh its strategic interests, a blanket dismissal of the human rights perspective is not necessarily a prescription for an effective foreign policy.India has a robust tradition of innovative and principled leadership on the world stage going back to Mahatma Gandhi's framework for non-violent resistance and Nehru's arguments for the right of newly independent nation states to be non-aligned. Judicious advocacy for human rights can arguably be a distinguishing feature for India's international persona, especially as it vies for influence with China and other world powers.Moreover, such advocacy can also help India assemble some positive coalitions of allies that could be helpful in other matters.
On the issue of India's own imperfect internal track record, hiding the facts and acting defensively, does not benefit its own citizens or the citizens of the world.Like the western democracies, India, the world's most populous democracy hasa robust civil society advocating for human rights and holding the government accountable. Achieving human rights for all is a continuum and an aspirational ideal. One does not have to be perfect to engage in this effort.
Human rights or economic development: A real choice or a false dilemma?
The Indian economy has achieved strong GDP growth in recent years by freeing up its control over economic structure while maintaining its current political and civil liberties.India may actually be an interesting and evolving case study of how strong civil liberties and political rights and the unhindered ability of individuals and groups advocate for themselves to create more stable, accountable and perhaps more equitable development.
