“Human Rights Watch (HRW)
is a prominent New York based organisation wielding considerable influence on
American policymakers and on western perceptions of India
(http://hrw.org). Unfortunately, their reports on events in India
have been one-sided and biased. Rather than making an objective assessment of
communal violence and human rights violations, the reports generally are
based on half-truths, distortions and sometimes outright falsehoods. For too
long these reports have gone unchallenged. Here is a detailed analysis of
some of the recent reports of Human Rights Watch and an attempt has been made
to set the record straight.”
Saag report.
The report summary and the url are provided
below. If you agree
with it, please send your comments to the HRW Chairman. You may use the
following email ids and the sample
letter:
HRW Email ids:
hrwnyc@hrw.org,
hrwdc@hrw.org,
hrwla@hrw.org,
hrwuk@hrw.org,
hrwatcheu@skynet.be,
hrwgva@hrw.org
Start of the Sample letter
--------------------------------
To: Chairman, HRW
Dear Mr.Jonathan Fanton,
Please read
the report exposing HRW: “Politics By Other Means: An Analysis of Human
Rights Watch Reports on India” at:http://www.saag.org/papers9/paper891.html
After reading this
exposure about the systematic bias by (so-called) Human Rights Organization,
you should consider changing your mission statement from “Defending Human
Rights Worldwide” TO “Defending Human Rights Worldwide - Excluding India”.
Your Management is
probably NOT aware about the following statement on your website – “Human
Rights Watch believes that international standards of human rights apply to
all people equally” -
http://hrw.org/about/whoweare.html.
You may agree
with……..“The task of the propagandist is not the scientific education of
everyone, but the indication to the masses of the facts, events, necessities
etc. whose significance and morality enter into the field of interest."
I wish the HRW
Management will concentrate more on the Human Rights in future.
Thanking you.
Sincerely,
Your Name
End of the Sample letter
--------------------------------
Report at SAAG:
Politics by Other Means:
An Analysis of Human Rights Watch Reports on
India
Executive Summary:
After the Godhra
incident of February 2002, Human Rights Watch (HRW) in a widely publicized
report titled, “We Have No Orders to Save You: State Complicity and
Communal Violence in Gujarat,” published in April 30, 2002, claimed that
the post-Godhra violence was planned even before the Godhra incident occurred
and the attacks on Muslims in Gujarat were “state sponsored.” HRW has
authored many reports on communal violence and human rights in India such as
a 1999 report on anti-Christian violence and two reports on the Mumbai riots
of 1992-1993 in addition to its annual reports on human rights practices
worldwide.
Upon closer examination,
it is seen that extensive and systematic bias exists in these reports. Their
most glaring defect is the lack of concern for the rights and lives of the
majority community- the Hindus. Incidents of communal violence in which both
the Hindu majority and a particular minority community were involved in and
share the blame for are portrayed as one-sided attacks by Hindus against
“innocent minorities.” Human rights abuses against Hindus are either ignored
or downplayed as compared to abuses suffered by minority groups.
In the 1995 report on
the Mumbai riots, HRW sought to place the blame for the violent events
exclusively on the Hindu community and completely ignored the role of Muslim
communalism in the riots. This should be compared with a more objective
report on the occurrences by the Srikrishna Commission. There was not a
single eyewitness account of attacks on Hindus in the HRW report even though
Hindus had also suffered many casualties!
Again, the 1999 HRW
report on attacks on Christians in India blamed Hindu nationalists for all
the violence, totally ignoring news reports and individual testimonies which
go against such generalizations. Even more disturbing, this report
demonstrated hostility towards the Hindu religion itself. It also attributed
the 1984 anti-Sikh riots following the assassination of Indira Gandhi to the
right-wing Hindu groups, while it is common knowledge that the riots were
instigated by Congress Party goons!
HRW’s most extensive
publication on India was its 2002 report on the Gujarat violence. The report
claimed that the attacks on Muslims were all state sponsored and planned in
advance of the Godhra incident. Virtually all the blame for the violence is
placed on the Sangh Parivar and BJP government. A detailed examination of the
events shows that elements of both planning by Hindu extremists and a
spontaneous uprising of the populace at the outrage of Godhra were present in
the Gujarat violence. HRW, however, did not provide one iota of evidence in
the report to back up its assertion of the state having planned the violence
in advance. It also dramatically distorted the role of the police in the
Gujarat violence.
The bias is further
confirmed when the report titled the chapter on attacks on Hindus as
“Retaliatory Attacks on Hindus” while the chapter on attacks on Muslims was
titled, “Overview of the Attacks Against Muslims.” While the Hindu mobs were
said to have chanted “Jai Sri Ram” when attacking Muslims, the report
conveniently avoided incidents where the Muslim mobs shouted “Kill Hindus.
Allah is with us” when attacking Hindus.
The purpose of this
paper is not to ignore the role played by Hindu extremist groups in promoting
communal conflicts. Hindu extremists were unquestionably involved in the
attacks against Muslims in Gujarat. Furthermore, the Modi government
willfully neglected its duty to protect the rights and lives of its citizens
and promoted further communal polarization in a state with already tense
communal relations. Rather, this paper is an attempt to objectively analyze
the complexity of communal conflict in India and avoid the generalizations
associated with HRW reports.
Politics by Other
Means: An Analysis of Human Rights
Watch Reports on India
http://www.saag.org/papers9/paper891.html
|
