The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) appreciates India’s promise to protect and promote a pluralistic civil society. In a speech delivered in a parallel event during the 25th Human Rights Council Session, India said: “[a] pluralistic civil society complements government activities as it is often involved in local level development, advocacy, action research and social mobilisation.” India further reiterated that the “protection of civil society in all situations is the foremost responsibility of every state.”
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights organised the event that was held on 11th March 2014. The statement delivered by India, on behalf of what it termed a “Like Minded Group” (LMG) of states is available here.
What is concerning however is the membership of the LMG. 21 states that make up this LMG are: Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, China, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Uganda, UAE, Vietnam and Zimbabwe.
If association defines character to a certain degree, India acting on behalf of the other states forming the LMG is not only a bad sign, but also alarming. None of the countries in the list is known for their support to civil society work or for fostering a pluralistic society.
Civil society membership and social activism that has anything to do with human rights and democracy can cost a person his or her life in countries like China, Vietnam and Bahrain. Within 14 days after India’s sponsorship of the LMG, Egypt sentenced 528 persons in a two-day trial to death. In Singapore, criticising the government can bankrupt a civil society organisation. By presiding over this notorious group of countries, does it mean that India too subscribe to their polices that brutally supress independent voices?
It is in this context, the purpose of the constitution of the LMG, having as its members some of the notorious countries of the world, known for their suppressive and horrendous practices against civil society work, should be analysed.
The essence of the statement, speaks about caution and suspicion about civil society work. The statement calls for strict screening of the civil society by the government, and paints a grotesque picture of civil society organisations, calling them en bloc corrupt. While the statement denounces “donor-driven agendas” most member states in the LMG run their governments with donor-paid capital, for which they have killed civilians and, sold natural habitats to corporate entities.
Countries like China and India have exported their ‘silencing and evicting’ strategies to plunder natural resources in alien states, for instance into Africa, where both these Asian giants compete with each other, for appropriating wealth and resources of other countries. Both India and China support armed militia groups in African states to keep regions within countries in armed conflict, so that they could bribe their way through to steal natural resources in these countries. Both these Asian giants in this process also support the recruitment and deployment of child soldiers across Africa by various armed rebel groups, who have no concern for human rights.
Yet, the statement calls for ‘responsibility’, ‘openness’, ‘transparency’ and ‘accountability’, by the civil society, virtues none of the member states in the LMG are known to be practicing. Countries like China, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Zimbabwe are notorious for persecution of civil society actors. By joining such a group, India has degraded itself further to standards that apply to the other states in the LMG.
The statement calls upon the UN Human Rights Council and the international community, to assist national authorities in augmenting domestic mechanisms and their partnerships with the civil society. The AHRC is of the opinion, that the largest stumbling block, in building such partnership at the domestic level is the national policies of the member states in the LMG. A country like India, leading a group of states that are notorious for brute suppression of civil society actors in their respective jurisdictions is a shame upon the people of this great nation.
The states in the LMG lack morale to preach accountability and transparency to the civil society. These are virtues the states in the LMG do not follow. For instance, governance in Sri Lanka by now is reduced to nothing more than a family business of the Rajapaksas. At what stretch of imagination is transparency and accountability built into the Vietnamese or Chinese administrative setup?
By joining the LMG and speaking on its behalf, the Indian mission in Geneva has equated India’s much-cherished parliamentary democracy with dictatorships of Mr. Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus and Field Marshal Omar Hassan Ahmad Al-Bashir of Sudan. Yet claiming it as promoting civil society partnership is nothing but open dishonesty.
