New Delhi, May 4: At least a dozen countries questioned India about the use of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act to "arbitrarily shut down" NGOs during the Universal Periodic Review of India's human rights record at Geneva today.
America, Australia, Germany, Norway and the Czech Republic were among the countries that flagged the FCRA in their brief interventions as the peer review continued late into the night.
In all, 113 countries were scheduled to participate in the Universal Periodic Review involving India, and each country's representative had about a minute to raise questions.
India's failure to ratify the UN convention against torture or repeal the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act remained on the table along with Kashmir, as in the first two reviews in 2008 and 2012. Alongside them were new concerns relating to the attacks on civil society, including those through the FCRA to force NGOs out of action.
The attacks on African students too found mention and drew an expression of regret from the Indian delegation, led by attorney-general Mukul Rohatgi.
India strove to tell the other countries that the nation of Gandhi and Buddha should not be seen as racist because of these attacks.
Rohatgi sought to allay the fears raised by the cow vigilantes' atrocities and the attacks on the minorities by reaffirming India's commitment to human rights and tolerance and to ending discrimination. Human rights activists working in India hoped that such sentiments would translate into action back home.
The activists also questioned Rohatgi's defence of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, which allows soldiers to shoot on suspicion in areas designated trouble spots, and his claim that there was no misuse of this law.
In his opening statement, the attorney-general had tried to showcase the country's human rights record by highlighting a slew of rights-based laws India had enacted.
Ironically, all these laws had been enacted under previous governments, and activists have been accusing the Narendra Modi dispensation of diluting them, whether it's the Right to Information Act or the Food Security Act.
Ahead of the session at the UN Human Rights Council, Meenakshi Ganguly of Human Rights Watch had tweeted in the morning: "India claims a vocal civil society ahead of Human Rights Council review, but is crushing dissent at home. India's state submission celebrates diversity, plurality to Human Rights Council, but what of ongoing violent vigilante attacks?"
The Indian American Muslim Council said in a statement: "The Indian government's latest report sent to the UN ahead of the 2017 Universal Periodic Review on May 4 is deeply disappointing as it fails to address even a single issue of human rights violations, both by State agencies and non-State elements, especially those that have been carrying out attacks on India's social and religious minorities in the name of cow protection, love jihad, ghar wapasi, etc."
Source: https://www.telegraphindia.com/1170505/jsp/nation/story_149923.jsp#.WQwKO9KGPIU
America, Australia, Germany, Norway and the Czech Republic were among the countries that flagged the FCRA in their brief interventions as the peer review continued late into the night.
In all, 113 countries were scheduled to participate in the Universal Periodic Review involving India, and each country's representative had about a minute to raise questions.
India's failure to ratify the UN convention against torture or repeal the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act remained on the table along with Kashmir, as in the first two reviews in 2008 and 2012. Alongside them were new concerns relating to the attacks on civil society, including those through the FCRA to force NGOs out of action.
The attacks on African students too found mention and drew an expression of regret from the Indian delegation, led by attorney-general Mukul Rohatgi.
India strove to tell the other countries that the nation of Gandhi and Buddha should not be seen as racist because of these attacks.
Rohatgi sought to allay the fears raised by the cow vigilantes' atrocities and the attacks on the minorities by reaffirming India's commitment to human rights and tolerance and to ending discrimination. Human rights activists working in India hoped that such sentiments would translate into action back home.
The activists also questioned Rohatgi's defence of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, which allows soldiers to shoot on suspicion in areas designated trouble spots, and his claim that there was no misuse of this law.
In his opening statement, the attorney-general had tried to showcase the country's human rights record by highlighting a slew of rights-based laws India had enacted.
Ironically, all these laws had been enacted under previous governments, and activists have been accusing the Narendra Modi dispensation of diluting them, whether it's the Right to Information Act or the Food Security Act.
Ahead of the session at the UN Human Rights Council, Meenakshi Ganguly of Human Rights Watch had tweeted in the morning: "India claims a vocal civil society ahead of Human Rights Council review, but is crushing dissent at home. India's state submission celebrates diversity, plurality to Human Rights Council, but what of ongoing violent vigilante attacks?"
The Indian American Muslim Council said in a statement: "The Indian government's latest report sent to the UN ahead of the 2017 Universal Periodic Review on May 4 is deeply disappointing as it fails to address even a single issue of human rights violations, both by State agencies and non-State elements, especially those that have been carrying out attacks on India's social and religious minorities in the name of cow protection, love jihad, ghar wapasi, etc."
Source: https://www.telegraphindia.com/1170505/jsp/nation/story_149923.jsp#.WQwKO9KGPIU
