According to media reports, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) said last week that police stations pose “the highest threat” to human rights, which are “sacrosanct”. The CJI is a most learned person and I have the highest regard for his opinions. Nonetheless, I was deeply distressed by his comment, which only strengthens the prevalent myths about human rights. Not only that, his observation also reinforces non-positive impressions about human rights in India while being unhelpful to the reputation of our police.
Therefore, as a special favour to the esteemed readers of this paper, each of whom, as per the latest readership survey, is a human, I’m going to dispel some of the most common myths about human rights.
Talk to all stakeholders
The first thing to understand, when it comes to human rights, is that your views are completely subjective, and not just subjective but utterly one-sided. Why? Because you’re a human. It’s like asking the Eskimo which is the best material to build a house. He’s going to say ‘snow’. If you pose the same question to a Martian, he would say, “Sand from Mars”. So if you go around asking humans whether human rights are sacrosanct, what do you think they’re going to say?
My simple point: you will never get a balanced perspective on human rights from humans. In fact, many of them, especially those who style themselves as ‘human rights activists’, act as if the abuse of human rights is the end of the world — when available evidence clearly indicates it isn’t. Therefore, to get the other side of the story, you also need to talk to the police, the security forces, torture experts, encounter specialists, the government, the corona virus, zombies, vampires, and even Martians, if you speak Martian. It is only by talking to all the stakeholders — both human and non-human — that one can arrive at a well-rounded perspective on human rights, as I have.
So: The first rule about human rights is that you don’t talk about human rights. Ask any policeman, they’ll tell you. If you don’t talk about human rights, the question of human rights abuse doesn’t arise. The matter ends there.
The second rule about human rights is truth is the opposite of what any self-proclaimed victim or activist says. If an activist claims there have been human rights violations in some parts of India, then the truth is either that there have been no human rights violations in some parts of India or whatever the police say. Why? Because you’ll only get false allegations from those who claim, showing off their fancy injury marks — which may be self-inflicted, for all you know, or just sophisticated make-up — that they are victims of custodial torture.
These are the only two rules you need to remember when you read about human rights. But there are also some troublesome myths that need to broken, and if not broken, at least have their toenails pulled while being water-boarded in a vat of boiling rat urine.
Troublesome myths
The first of these myths, often propagated by UN-affiliated bodies — which unfortunately are not the kind of bodies that could have their human rights respected in Indian police stations — is that India hasn’t been doing a great job of protecting human rights. I’m appalled every time I hear this, especially by how easily people swallow it. Hello? Which country has the world’s second highest population of humans? India! Could we have got the silver medal in population if Indian humans hadn’t felt safe enough to multiply, and multiply, and multiply? I urge all international bodies — especially you, UN, if you’re reading this — to not regurgitate Pak-sponsored propaganda about India and human rights.
Next is the myth about the sanctity of human rights. The great 17th century Dutch philosopher Spinoza said that if you ask a triangle about God, it would say that “God is eminently triangular”, and if you ask a circle, it would say “the divine nature is eminently circular”. So if you ask a human who still has some humanity left in him/her, they will say human rights matter. But that doesn’t mean they actually do, or ought to. What about humans who don’t have any humanity left in them? Don’t their views count? And what if their views are that of the majority? Don’t they have the democratic right to enforce their views?
The last and most important point about human rights concerns terrorism. We all agree that it’s important to stop terrorists because they would otherwise kill or maim humans. From this, it follows that if it’s necessary to illegally kill or maim some humans (that is, violate human rights) to stop them from illegally killing or maiming some humans (that is, violating human rights), then that is exactly what the police needs to do. It’s a no-brainer. Seriously, how can we allow human rights to come in the way of protecting human rights?
G. Sampath, author of this satire, is Social Affairs Editor, The Hindu.
sampath.g@thehindu.co.in