|
Don’t Blame Human Rights Defenders
Maja Daruwala
| |
When the State fails to stop the tide of terrorism because of
its political bankruptcy and ineffective police and intelligence
mechanism, it starts reproaching human rights defenders and
blaming them for the spread of terror in society. The author
who is a leading advocate for rights and social justice and head
of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative debunks the theory
and upholds the need for good governance and realizing human
rights. |
|
 In
response to the finding of the
Gujarat
government that the accused bombers involved in the recent Ahmedabad
blasts were trained in the south and mostly in Kerala, the Kerala
government came back with an instant knee jerk reaction that the
State’s efforts to curb terrorism were somehow being prevented by
human rights activists who raised a ‘hue and cry.’ Broad statements
like these show the work of human rights groups in a bad light and
create real misgivings about human rights activists whose limited
intention is merely asking the state to uphold the law and follow
the due process. Statements against human rights defenders deflect —
as they are often intended to do — a real look at why terrorism
thrives in our country and also help, again as they are intended to,
to put one more nail in the coffin of the little understood and less
appreciated work of human rights defenders, who struggle to keep us
all safe from unbridled state power and societal prejudice.
Human rights
defenders don’t espouse, support or defend violence and certainly
not terrorism. But they would like to fashion a more effective
response to it. A state by its very definition is the embodiment of
lawful behaviour. It demands legal behaviour from citizens and
itself always acts only through law and as a sentinel of human
rights. This is the fundamental difference between state action and
the acts of terrorists.
| |
Terrorists by definition and intention act outside the law to
terrorise. The state cannot do that. There can be no greater
defender of human rights than the state, so it is hard to see it
blame human rights defenders for its inability to provide
society with reasonable levels of safety and security. |
|
|
Terrorists by
definition and intention act outside the law to terrorise. The state
cannot do that. There can be no greater defender of human rights
than the state, so it is hard to see it blame human rights defenders
for its inability to provide society with reasonable levels of
safety and security. What perhaps irks the authorities into seeing
human rights defenders as one with the enemy is their constant
insistence that the agencies of state act only in accordance with
the law and do not take short cuts, nor indulge in illegal
practices, nor use public prejudice and stereotypes to shape their
response.
In their
frustration with the state’s inability to assure them a peaceful
life, the public too is often tempted into wanting its government to
forget the niceties of legal process and just go and blast those
damned people into perdition. It is understandable that people,
suffering the effects of evil doing, ask why terrorists should be
given a fair trial and not just killed or locked away forever.
The answer lies
in our right to make a defence for ourselves against our accusers.
Our Constitution requires that we don’t do what terrorists do, kill
or deprive people of liberty without a fair process. So, a so-called
‘terrorist’ must first be proved to be a terrorist and then get his
just deserts, again at the hands of the state.
This is the
process we would all want if our sons were suddenly declared
‘terrorist’. We don’t want the police or the para-militaries to
decide in their own secret wisdom that you and I are terrorists and
shoot us in our beds or take us into secret hideouts to question us
for days on end without ever telling our families or the court where
we are or what is being done to us, all in the name of law and
order! Human rights defenders wish all our systems of justice were
faster, fairer, efficient, honest, responsive and more certain in
outcome. This must be the debate as to why we are unable to deal
with terrorists, instead of taking rhetorical potshots at our most
law abiding citizens.
 This
system may allow the real terrorist to get away and hence calls for
improvements in policing standards and a quick and easy access to
justice. But if we don’t want this process for every single one of
us then we must abolish the courts and become a police state. But
right now the system is designed as a uniform system of law which
can protect all equally.
Courtesy: The
Hindu
17 September 2008
|
Read Also