Font size: 
The government of India has missed no opportunity to boast about itself whenever and wherever it has had a chance. This attitude was reflected in the interventions and representations made by the Indian government delegation during the fifth session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva. Quite surprisingly, the interventions made by the representative of the National Human Rights Commission in the same session were also of the same tone.
The NHRC made oral interventions during the session, praising itself and claiming success in promoting, protecting and fulfilling human rights and human values. It was evident that the NHRC was playing the role of a backbench supporter of the government than that of an independent agency monitoring human rights. The NHRC appeared to be the victim of its own false pride.
The NHRC depicted itself as an effective, authoritative and independent agency committed to rooting out human rights violations in India. Yet its work thus far challenges this claim. The NHRC and its state bodies lack precisely these two qualities -- independence and authority.
Appointments to the NHRC and state human rights commissions are done at the pleasure of the government. In most such commissions, the appointment of the chairperson is at the whim and fancy of the particular state government. For example, the appointment of the chairperson of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission was successfully challenged in court on allegations of nepotism and corrupt practices. The person whose appointment was challenged, however, still continues as a member of the commission.
Regarding effective redress for victims, the human rights commissions at both the national and state levels are not considered as a replacement for the courts. The role of the commission at all levels, among other duties, is to recommend to the government what action it should take in cases of human rights violations. The question is whether the government heeds these recommendations. The NHRC implied at the U.N. Human Rights Council that all its recommendations were followed by the government. A well-worded statement was made to the council to indicate that the government adheres to the recommendations of the commission and that the commission does have some influence upon the government and its actions and polices pertaining to human rights. Both statements are wrong and highly exaggerated.
The state human rights commissions, as well as the NHRC in India, do not even have enough resources to effectively investigate cases brought to their notice. The commissions usually refer cases to the respective state police. When the complaint is against the police, and referred for investigation to the same police department, the commission is functioning in a make-believe world.
The NHRC also made a false claim to the council by saying that 100 million Indian rupees (US$2.47 million) had been distributed to the victims of human rights abuses, or their next of kin. One may wonder where did all this money go? It is true that recommendations for payments were made, but there was no compliance. Hundreds of victims have not received compensation awarded by the commission. The recommendations of the commission seemly end in a black hole in the government; they are not implemented.
What if the government fails to comply with the recommendations of the commission? The aggrieved party, which includes the commission, can approach the court. What happens when a person approaches the court in India? It often takes decades for the court to finally decide the matter. Consequently, why is a person not able to go straight to the court instead of approaching the commission to save time?
If the commission enjoyed a privileged position with the government of India, as claimed at the U.N. Human Rights Council, why has the government not fulfilled the commission's request for more resources to investigate cases? If the government had provided the commission with the necessary physical and human resources to function effectively, the victims would have had a better chance for redress from the commission.
Despite its claims at the U.N. Human Rights Council session, no one believes that the NHRC of India is respected by the Indian government or that it receives full support from the government.
Forums like the United Nations, and the limited opportunities such forums provide, must be utilized by agencies like the NHRC to present facts, not fiction. This is required because one of the roles of such agencies is to provide redress to victims and to make recommendations to the government. However, when they reduce themselves to being blind supporters of the government due to false pride and self-deceit, what is suppressed is the possibility for victims to make their voice heard. In the process, human rights suffer.
--
(Bijo Francis is a human rights lawyer currently working with the Asian Legal Resource Center in Hong Kong. He is responsible for the South Asia desk at the center. Mr. Francis has practiced law for more than a decade and holds an advanced master's degree in human rights law.)
