I am very happy to be here on this occasion. I am also happy as all of us here to welcome Dr. Kamal Hussain from Bangladesh and Miss Azma Jahangir from Pakistan. Their presence here adds not only a common wealth dimension as it should be on an occasion like this but a very meaningful regional dimension to this inaugural function. It is this sub-continent that launch a new era of decolonisation in the world transforming the old imperial commonwealth into a new Commonwealth, a new multi-national, multi-racial world club. But for this decolonisation process we would not have been able to sit here today and talk meaningfully about human rights. India, Pakistan and Bangla Desh have been partners in this great historic task.

Today, when the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative is coming to Delhi, with its headquarters, it is important for us to think of this heritage of the decolonisation process as well as the heritage of the commonwealth. The Commonwealth, as you have pointed out, has certain common tradition, common principles, the tradition of rule of law and of internationally getting on together in what has been for a long time a magnificent non institution called the Commonwealth. We in India recognise this heritage. In fact, our regime of rule of law, the independence of our judiciary, our democratic institution owe a lot to the Commonwealth experience.

At the same time, our own struggle for independence gave that a much deeper significance. The India independence movement has been for very long time, a demand for civil rights and political freedom. It was the most strenuous with the result that Gandhiji once said that “Swaraj is almost freedom of association, freedom of the Press and freedom of speech” and Jawaharlal Nehru , as you know, was during those days the President of the Indian Civil Liberties Union. He added new dimensions to this even during the period of independence struggle. He added to it a social and economic dimension, a dimension which attracted the masses of our people into independence movement and what you call today human rights, to my mind, is a combination of the civil and political rights with the economic and social rights which have been in progress not only in our part of the world but in the world as a whole. It is this deeper dimension of democracy with human rights and economic rights which we now call development rights which has marked the modern age of democracy.

Now, with the end of the Cold War, we say normally that human rights, democracy of developmental rights have certain free play uninhibited by the restrictions imposed by this Cold War context. To a large extent this is true but I am afraid that the spirit of the Cold War is not entirely dead, with the result that human rights while pursued sincerely by all the world powers, there is a certain degree of introduction of political interest, strategic interest in the actual implementation of the human rights policy by the powers. We see this in the unequal application of the pursuit of human rights to different problems in different parts of the world, human rights are pursued passionately and even with power behind it when there is a coincidence of national interest or pursuing strategic interest with human rights; otherwise they are pursued somewhat timidly. There are one or two major examples of this. One was some time ago in regard to Kampuchea, a regime which had massacred over a million people was exempted and had the seat of Combodia in the United Nations by the powers.

Today we have the spectacle of the massive interference to the fate of a personality like Cung San Su Ki by all the powers of the world whether they are developed or developing because they do not see that their national interest are not directly involved this tragic condition of this great fighter for human rights. Therefore, I feel that while we acclaim the we importance, we have given to human rights in the world, we have to understand that these variations do occur and the purpose of an institution like Commonwealth Human rights Initiative is to over come this.

In this connection, I should say that when Jawaharlal Nehru and the rest of the leaders of India decided to remain in the Commonwealth, as a Republic, one of the consideration, power political consideration. It was that when the world was divided into blocks, Nehru thought that would it be useful for us to belong to some international organisations. As a kind of political inoculation against the alignment opposed to us from outside and Commonwealth where he had no specific commitments with regard to policy belonging to which we could follow the policy that we want to pursue. So he thought, becoming a member of this association would help India in not joining the power political groups and at the same time have some sort of membership of an organisation which is international and which is prestigious.

I think a bit of it may be applicable to the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative today, because, as I said, since there is a tendency to introduce power politics into human rights, it would possible for this Initiative as a non-governmental organisation adhering to the Commonwealth, hail Human Rights without the power political considerations behind the pursuit of human rights which you see in some cases today. But, I think, you would have certain freedom of working for human rights in a more sincere and in a more genuine way. We have seen that in Vienna it was discussed in great detail, the so called conflict between the human rights and developmental rights. Ultimately I think some compromise was reached, but still I find that in the compromise formulation reached at Vienna it is said that while development facilitates enjoyment of human rights, the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgment of internationally recognised human rights. One cannot quarrel with this.

I do not think that development would be put across as a reason for denying human rights. Certainly some human rights like protection of personal liberty, not to be subjected to custodial crimes, atrocities against women, abuse of children, all these are beyond politics in a sense, though they can also be politicised and it is, therefore, while in a certain sense development can be given a slightly lower position than similar political human rights, I think, one should not make the mistake of under rating what you call the right to subsistence as a fundamental right which is equal in importance to civil and political rights, because what is the meaning of civil and political rights to a person who is famished and what is his dignity if he is driven to beg for his food.

I think it is as much or more a violation of human rights as if he is arrested and put in jail and denied his liberty. I think in all these formulations, this aspect has not been sufficiently emphasised. I am prepared to accept that developmental rights of a higher level can probably be de-emphasised but these developmental rights can in the sense of the basic things of life for a person, cannot be put aside as a secondary. It the great countries of the world, the affluent countries of the world put forward the theory of right of intervention as it has been done, for the sake of human rights in the third world countries, then certainly they should recognize their duty to intervention, to remedy or find a solution to this kind of denial of human rights where people are famished, jobless and reduced to sub human existence. One would accept the earlier importance, if this is also accepted as an operational part of the policy approach.

There is another new theory, not entirely new, which is being put forward. I saw the other day, a very interesting article entitled “Clash of Civilisation” and what is behind this theory of clash of civilisation is that the advanced, affluent countries of the world, their interest are one set of interest, while the people in the other part of the world their interest, they are a different sort of people and they have to be treated differently. In face some important leaders of the developed world have expressed publicly that its necessary for them to safeguard the high living standards against the challenge posed by the rest of the world. I feel that neither the clash of civilisation theory nor the theory of protecting the high living standards against the clamoring demands of the poor third world countries can be reconciled with the theory of human rights as has been advanced today by the United Nations. While in all the countries of the world there is certainly a contradiction, a very major contradiction is this.

We in India are quite proud of our provisions in our Constitution which safeguard an entire range of civil and political rights and social and economic rights. We also have safeguards for the weaker sections, for women and children, for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes written into our Constitution and into our policies and programmes. But al l these, of course, have to be implemented. It is not enough for these to remain in the Constitution or as programmes.

But what makes it possible for us that these provisions would be activated, would be made operations, is the democracy that exists in our country and I should say here the free press that exists in our country and I have absolutely no doubt that today, it is the press that has done more than any other institution for the defence of human rights and for unearthing, publicising the violations of human rights that take place in this country as well as in other countries. Now, I mentioned democracy, because we have challenges to our democracy, too our unity, to our stability. We have challenges of all kinds including resort to terrorism by sections of our people. But the manner in which we have tried to use democracy is while any fundamental challenge to the stability of a State may have to be dealt with by adequate force, but the democratic process itself has been and is being used to deal with these critical situations.

I should like to put before you two examples. They are very well known but the process of application of democracy in order to alleviate the situation is not so much recognised. We had a very major movement in Assam, in the early eighties, which had so many dimensions and almost a fundamental threat to Indian State was posed in that movement and ultimately we resorted to elections in immensely difficult circumstances. As a result of the elections the opposition parties came to power in Assam and gradually the crisis got contained. Today, we have a fairly normal situation in this important State of Assam. Many things were involved but the crucial thing was the application of electoral method to deal with it.

So also in the Punjab, there we had such a critical situation. We were bold enough to hold an election which when it was held was declined because only about 20% of the people turned out to cast their votes because they were gripped in a sort of mystical fear of the terrorists but as a result of that election a Government came into being and that government was able to gradually expand its democratic pace and then we held municipal elections the large numbers of people included and then we held Panchayat elections all over the State where nearly 90 % or above people exercised their vote and by the application of this electoral process which is a central thing in democracy, it has been possible to contain violence and terrorism in Assam and Punjab that is why, as I said, you were in the midst of fundamental challenge, it is not less democracy but more democracy judiciously used that can bring the situation under control and return things to normalcy. As long as this is remembered, any kind of movement or threat which would subvert and destroy this fundamental basis of structure of democracy would be fatally injurious not only to the unity of nations, not on to democracy but for the pursuit of human rights.

Now, I should like to make one more point. Human rights are threatened not only by the State and by Government but by society as has been very brilliantly explained by Miss Jahangir and most of the societies have these problems. Societies traditionally oppressing the weaker sections-women and children-exploiting them difference on the basis of caste, of the basis of religion and on the basis of sex. These are not state discriminations, often these are discriminations and exploitation which arise out of the social system that we have inherited. I think in order to deal with the situation like this, the State has a great responsibility but NGO’s have even a greater responsibility, and they could be even more effective. That is why when Mr. Soli Sorabjee mentioned about the educational aspect of the work of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative I felt very thrilled indeed, because this educational process is absolutely necessary and without it whatever the Government may do, may not be fully effective in transforming a society, so that the human rights which are being suppressed, human rights which are being violated continuously in everyday life, find a solution by a co-operative endeavour by the State and by non-governmental organisation. I do hope that the coming of Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative to Delhi will open a new chapter in the education of the public, of the people and also in cooperative endeavour with the agencies of the State in order to protect human rights and in order to expand human rights as something vivid and culpable in the lives and experiences of the people.   

Thank you