Sri lanka is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, therefore, any inquiry into violations of human rights in its geographical jurisdiction should not be deemed as an infringement of the country’s sovereignty
The universality of human rights cannot be questioned. Danger to human rights anywhere is a danger to human rights everywhere. In 1948, the international community gathered for a conference in Paris and set common goals for all nations to achieve in the sphere of human rights. For the first time, human rights norms were integrated into resolving conflicts and peace-building measures. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was set up by the United Nations to monitor human rights violations, cause inquiries through Special Rapporteurs and other bodies into violations of human rights, and suggest redressal measures.
The current controversy over human rights violations in Sri lanka and Colombo’s refusal to probe the issue has made it necessary for the international community to address the issue in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is in the context of such unfortunate events that the faith of world bodies in human rights has to be demonstrably asserted. India has done this in the past — though not in all cases. When human rights violations took place in the Palestinian Territories and some other places in the Arab world, New Delhi did speak up. There should be no hesitation this time either for the Union Government to raise its voice against rights violations in Sri lanka, as distinct from those which happened as a reaction to violent acts of terrorism.
It is not disputed that when the security of the nation is in danger, when public peace and indeed human existence is threatened, that security forces have to combat this threat with effective counter-terrorism strategies. But there have also been instances when the lives and properties of innocent citizens were either damaged or totally extinguished in combat situations. Nothing that acquires the colour of state-sponsored terrorism resulting in serious violation of human rights such as amputations and extra-judicial killings can be condoned.
The situation in Sri lanka demands an unequivocal stand. Apart from being an ethnic and highly emotive issue for the Tamil population in India, it is also of deep significance as a human rights issue. It would be advisable to invoke the spirit of Article 21 of our own Constitution which guarantees a life with dignity. Indeed, it is the duty of sovereign nations to provide their citizens a life of peace, dignity and safety.
The current situation in Sri lanka also poses a challenge to the United Nations Human Rights Council which must prove that it is capable of monitoring serious violations of human rights, conducting probes and recommending redressal. Our own experience in this regard has not been very encouraging. When the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights last visited India, she hardly said anything about what was going on in Sri lanka, though she was quite vocal about minor issues in India. The OHCHR is well-staffed with well-paid Special Rapporteurs who are appointed to probe human rights violations any where in the world. These rapporteurs should be assigned the task of probing the ground reality in Sri lanka and also suggesting measures for redressal of the injuries suffered by innocent citizens there.
The United Nations General Assembly adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1966, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1979, were landmark steps taken by the comity of nations to protect human rights both in conflict and post-conflict situations.
Conflicts have to be understood as a fact of human existence arising from political, ethnic, economic and religious situations, prevailing in a particular jurisdiction. In societies where there is a past history of conflicts and where the institutions of civil societies designed to provide redressal are weak, the United Nation and all its bodies have to step in and work in tune with each other. As former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said in his address at Harvard University in June 2004: “It is in time of fear and anger, even more than in times of peace and tranquility, that you need universal human rights and spirit of mutual respect.” The demand for a probe into human rights violations in Sri lanka should be perceived as an effort to understand human suffering and to devise strategies for providing relief.
A solely political or diplomatic approach divorced from a humane response is sure to escalate the conflict. The issue of Sri lankan Tamils is one that is close to India’s heart. Demanding inquiries into allegations of serious violations of the human rights of Tamils in Sri lanka should not be considered as an interference in Sri lankan affairs or violative of the country’s sovereignty.
Sri lanka is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, therefore, any inquiry into violations of human rights in its jurisdiction should not be deemed as an infringement of its sovereignty. After World War II, the United Nations in 1945 declared that its highest purpose was “to establish conditions under which justice and respect for international law could be maintained and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom”.
The position with regard to upholding human rights being so clear and unambiguous, any hesitation on part of the UN or its members in raising their voice against rights violations in Sri lanka or urging a probe into human rights abuses there would tantamount to an abdication of their obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
(The writer is a former member, National Human Rights Commission)