 |
||
|
||
|
||
Human rights and terrorism are poles apart. By no stretch of
imagination, terrorists can claim "human rights", for they snatch
away "human rights" of their victims, nationally and
internationally. Surely, human rights have emerged as an issue of
global concern. Terrorism, on the other hand, has become the worst
feature of contemporary life.
Terrorism is the greatest threat to civilised society. Terrorists
are enemy No. 1 of "law and order". They fanatically believe in
disorder, anarchy, and things like that, pinning their faith in the
"law of jungle". They have no conscience. They are
conscience-killers. They trample under their feet all that is fine
in human society, human civilisation, human culture, human values
and human existence. They are the very anti-thesis of an orderly
society based on the "rule of law."
Although the struggle to preserve, to protect and to promote human
rights is as old as civilisation, yet its ugly face manifested more
particularly in the aftermath of World War II (1 939-45). The
United Nations gave it a shape through the instrument or
instrumentality of Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The
Declaration (December 10, 1948) is nothing but a Magna Carta,
enumerating specific standards of achievements in the civil,
political, social, economic and cultural life of nations of the
world.
The Preamble to the Declaration makes unequivocally clear that this
is impossible without the rule of law. Covering the fields of
civil and political rights as well as economic, social and cultural
rights, the Declaration marked out a wide area in which individuals
must be protected and indicated that if governments trespassed into
that area, they would be giving rise to international concern.
In the years that followed the adoption of this historic document,
the international community has made great strides in translating
the vision of the Declaration into a global reality. Through the
adoption of two instruments in 1966 by the UN General Assembly,
namely, the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights
and the International Covenant on Economic, Civil and Political
Rights, human rights have been well defined with transparent
clarity. They constitute, in a manner of speaking, the core of the
International Bill of Human Rights. Truly, it is a complex
international machinery which has been developed for the promotion
and protection of human rights in all their manifestations.
India needs a place in the world order, if Japan and Germany need
the same. And so restructuring the United Nations will have to he
done sooner than later. Nations between themselves have zealously
guarded each other's interests through multilateral diplomacy
inasmuch as a new spirit of cooperation exists in minimising the
ill-effects of terrorism, nationally and internationally.
There is a well-regulated mechanism to combat terrorism and to
assert human rights under the auspices of the United Nations. We
have now the Human Rights Committee, which has been established
under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a Committee on
the elimination of Discrimination against Women, a Committee
against Torture, and several other adjuncts.
What is the philosophy behind terrorism? It can be best described
in two words: "destructive violence". Here terror is central to
the terrorist strategy which leads to destructive violence. By
destructive violence, I mean violence that is not merely designed
to accomplish political ends, but that plays an essential role in
the intended sequence of events. Terrorists wield political power
by placing the victim in a state of perpetual fear. Often, they
take public responsibility for an act of terrorism.
The apologist for the terrorist contends that as compared to civil
disobedience and revolutionary activity, terrorism remains the
cheapest form of warfare. Recall the wise words of David Fromkin,
"Terrorism wins only if you respond to it in the way that the
terrorists want you to: which means that its fate is in your hands
and not in theirs."
Turning to the national scene, we find that terrorism is a major
problem today. We have to distinguish it from the insurgencies in
the North-East and the movements inspired by the Leftists of
extreme views such as Naxalites. An overwhelmingly large number of
them are highly educated, who are college and university drop-cuts.
The Indian typology has a distinctive qualitative character. We
have a large variety of terrorism: communal, regional, ideological,
religious and ethnic of different hues and complexions.
The stability of our institutions has stood the test of time. We
are the best example of conflict resolution. We know it far too
well that human rights are indivisible - civil, political, cultural
and otherwise. They are sometimes upset by terrorism. Problems of
terrorism undermine democratic institutions. I tend to think that
the Human Rights Declaration has to accept and adopt the Doctrine
of Conditionally. The traditional thinking that the State
apparatus violates this principle is erroneous.
I am reminded of Lord How's dictum: "Human Rights for our societies
have to uphold the rule of law". In our country, all State
decisions are subject to pressures and counter-pressures, pulls and
counter-pulls, judicial interventions, and so on and so forth. We
are a liberal State. So. the State is always on its toes. But
what about terrorists? They have no constraints. They act as
self-appointed prosecutors, judges, juries and executioners.
Scholars all over the world have defined human rights and terrorism
with a fair degree of objectivity. All agree on one thing, namely,
humanitarian norms. Paul Wilkinson says terrorism is "coercive
intimidation, which is in practice a systematic use of murder and
destruction and the threat of murder and destruction in order to
terrorise individuals, groups, communities or governments into
conceding to the terrorist political demands."
Of late, terrorism has emerged as one of the most dangerous threats
to human rights everywhere in the world. The hijacking of
aeroplanes, of men, women and children, for a ransom or for
something else is to be deplored. India's deep commitment to human
rights is reflected in the formation of the National Commission.
India has responded well to the United Nations Declaration on this
score. Hopefully, the United Nations will continue its endeavours
to protect human rights, on the one hand, and to curb the menace of
terrorism on the other, thereby translating into action the freedom
of the individual. - CNF
|
||
|
||
|
||