Annual Report - National Human Rights Commission

Annexure 16
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
○
Such selective approach leads to double standards, which make the motives of the protagonists
of human rights suspect. It also indirectly lends support to terrorists and terrorism. All nations
must, therefore, co-operate to relentlessly and without any compromise fight terrorism. Concerted
steps at a global level will have to be taken to tackle terrorism and safeguard human rights. The
fight against terrorism requires close co-operation of all countries both at law enforcement and
judicial levels in order to put an end to illegal trafficking which feeds terrorist networks. To clip
the wings of terrorism, the international communities must target the roots of frustration as well
as the feeling of injustice. But let me emphasise that in doing so, the approach should be humane,
rational and secular. It must be consistent with democratic principles. Any kind of partisan and
sectarian approach would be counter-productive. We need to strike a balance between the liberty
of an individual and the requirements of security of state and sovereignty and integrity of the
nation while keeping an open mind to fight terrorism. A limited approach may help eliminate
some present terrorists but not the causes or the phenomenon of terrorism, which produces
terrorists; and that too at the cost of violation of human rights of many innocents. A proper
balance between the need and the remedy requires respect for the principles of necessity and
proportionality.
In conclusion while I confess that I cannot prescribe a quick fix solution to tackle the
scourge of terrorism, but, as the head of a National Human Rights institution, I consider
that National Institutions can play a crucial role in the resolution of different forms of
conflicts. From the causes identified earlier in my talk, may I submit for your kind
consideration some suggestions regarding the role, which the National Institutions can
play in that behalf. In my view:
1) There is an urgent need for evolving and putting in place a mechanism for channelising
the grievances of the people, especially the vulnerable sections of our society by the
National Human Rights Institutions. Their role is vital. Therefore, countries, which have
not set up a National Institution so far, must do so without any further delay on the
guidelines contained in the Paris Principles.
2) Once the mechanism is put in place, the National Institutions must, on their part, ensure
speedy redressal of grievances brought before them. Neglect or delay in the consideration
of such issues, often adds to the frustration of the people, making them even more cynical.
The National Institutions need to generate a feeling amongst the citizens that it is a forum
where the citizens shall be heard about their grievance. The hope of being heard can
restrain a citizen from becoming a potential terrorist.
3) The National Institutions also need to focus on the socio-economic dimensions and related
inequities in the society which provide a fertile ground for the growth of terrorism.
Learning from each other’s experience in that behalf would be rather useful. Therefore,
greater co-operation between the National Institutions for that purpose is necessary.
322
National Human Rights Commission Annual Report - 2004-2005
AR-Chapter-1-19-10-6-06.p65
342
7/17/06, 6:31 PM