Font size: 
India is no different. India has also denounced the practice of torture and is in fact a signatory to the U.N. Convention against Torture. However, India has not ratified the convention.
The practice of torture in a country indicates the strength of rule of law in the country. The widespread use of custodial torture in any state reflects a wilting judicial system. Torture is an external manifestation of an internal cancer that destroys the fabric of justice. A healthy justice system is a prerequisite for development. A simple glance at the states that do not practice torture, in theory or in practice, proves this.
Countries like India and China – which are allegedly gearing up to become the economic powerhouses of the new world order – cannot ignore this fact. Torture in its all manifest forms suggests impunity enjoyed by the law enforcement agencies. This promotes corruption, nepotism and injustice – all three factors that impede development.
A few months ago the Chinese administration in Beijing issued a statement that it would not tolerate the practice of torture by its law enforcement agencies. The administration has been carrying out studies to find ways of improving its justice system, including the courts, prosecutors and police.
The condemnation of the practice of torture and the statement declaring it intolerable is one big leap forward in China. Yet China has a long way to go to meet internationally accepted standards in its justice system, and in particular to root out the practices of torture and corruption. Without this China will not enjoy a healthy society to sustain its economic boom.
The same is true of India. The Indian administration has also declared its intolerance of the practice of torture. The prime minister, in a speech delivered a few months ago, stated that the country would be ratifying the Convention against Torture soon. But nothing much has been heard on this front since then.
Ratifying an international convention, though it carries certain international and domestic obligations, is nothing much as far as the ordinary citizen is concerned. For example, India has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as the one on economic, social and cultural rights. In fact, many of the rights outlined in these covenants are enforceable in India as fundamental rights. Yet, most of these rights do not help ordinary Indians. There are lists of issues that illuminate this point, ranging from extrajudicial executions to hunger deaths.
If a right is to be meaningful, it must be protected, promoted and fulfilled to the fullest possible means within a country. This requires political will, executive action and general intolerance of violations of that right. On this aspect the right against torture, like many other rights, stands on shaky ground in India.
The speaker of the Kerala Legislative Assembly is considered to be a people's leader. He is young, charismatic and well educated – three rare terms in Indian political circles. The speaker, K. Radhakrishnan, is an exception to the norm. Before taking up his current political post he was a student leader and social activist. He is known in his hometown of Thrissur as an advocate of the people.
Despite all this, a few weeks ago in a public speech the speaker was heard to say that violence used by the state police to enforce law and order is justifiable. To make matters worse, the speaker was addressing the entire state police force during an annual gathering.
The message is clear. The state administration is willing to tolerate violence perpetrated by law enforcement agencies. The speaker’s statement was: "To enforce law and order, the police will have to use some force. Norms of human rights cannot be applied against the police to condemn third degree methods. If they have to question an accused, they will have to do so using their own language and means."
The Kerala police are no better than any other law enforcement agency in India concerning the practice of custodial torture. In fact, if there are a relatively low number of instances where the local police use torture in Kerala, it is because of pressure kept up on the police by ordinary citizens.
The speaker's message unfortunately conveys the wrong message. Yet, among the politicians in India, Radhakrishnan is considered to be a reasonably good person. He has kept his hands clean so far, keeping away from corruption and various other malpractices Indian politicians are known for.
Had such a statement been made by a politician in a developed country, that person would be forced to resign. Lawsuits would be filed against the person, since such a declaration by a legislator in fact amounts to incitement for violence.
Even in China today, such a public statement might not be accepted. This is what makes China different from India. Probably that is why the Chinese have more hope for tomorrow than the Indians.
--
(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.)
