There is no democracy in the world that has a clean human rights record

In India,we have met with a broad range of people in government,media and human rights,as part of a continuing effort to work on issues not only of civil and political rights,but also economic,social and cultural too. On the civil and political rights side,our foremost concern is the impunity enjoyed by the security forces,which,in our view,is virtually an invitation to increased abuse. We see this in the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA),in the Armys presence in places like Kashmir or Manipur. We see it also in the behaviour of the police. We recently issued a report on how the very poor working conditions,inadequate resources,inadequate training and the lack of sufficient oversight have encouraged police abuse. As we do in any conflict situation,here too,we report on both sides. We have been highly critical of the Naxal attacks on schools,on civilians and representatives of the state in general. A state does have a duty to protect its people from those kinds of atrocities. Our concern is,how do the security forces behave in their operations? Will they respect the requirements of international human rights to minimise the harm on civilians,ensure that civilians do not become the victims of stepped-up counter-insurgency efforts?

We recognise that important as the security strategy is,the Naxal conflict has its roots in economic deprivation. So we recognise the need for economic development as part of the response to the Naxal threat. We have worked on the right to health,most recently a new report on maternal mortality. We have done other reports,on the right to education,on Dalits,AIDS,on religious freedomparticularly the attacks on Christians in Orissa and Muslims in Gujarat. We have looked at the status of women. We recognise Indias immense potential as a global promoter of human rights. India has been an active promoter of human rights in fighting apartheid in South Africa,in helping the Tibetans stand up to Chinese repression,in giving refuge to the Dalai Lama and other Tibetan refugees. It has been at the forefront of support for Aung San Suu Kyi,it has intervened in Lanka at various times on behalf of the Tamil population,it has played a useful role in Nepal.

This is,however,counter-balanced by a certain antipathy to promoting human rights in Indian foreign policy. India is still influenced by Cold War considerations. More recently,there has been a concern that criticism of human rights elsewhere might lead to criticism of human rights in India. Kashmir,particularly,has made India sensitive to discussing human rights issues. There is no democracy in the world that has a clean human rights record. George Bush showed us how being a democracy does not make you immune to making serious human rights abuses. But human rights abuses do not preclude a global role in promoting human rights. Instead,it should be a spur to improving human rights at home. In our view,India should play a more active role in promoting human rights.

MANU PUBBY: You take up issues in conflict zones that have political overtones,like that of Indian peacekeepers in Congo and the allegations of sexual abuse by them. How do you deal with such issues in a conflict zone ?

Human Rights Watch works virtually in every conflict zone round the world. In conflict situations,passions are high,and people tend to colour the truth. We,therefore,train our researchers to cross-examine people to corroborate testimonies,to do the legwork any good journalist would do to ensure accurate reports. So,if we issue a report that the peacekeepers committed an act of rape,we are right.

MANU PUBBY: What kind of counterchecks do you have for your people working on the ground?

Everything that we do goes through an internal vetting process which is rigorous. We train people so that they do it right. When a report is written,it is reviewed by our lawyers,our group of editors who check for facts. When we make a mistake,we correct it but we are almost always right. That credibility is central to our effectiveness.

DHIRAJ NAYYAR: Do you think the UN has any credibility on human rights issues?

You have to recognise that we have two UNs. There is the UN represented by UN secretary general Ban ki Moon. Then,there is the UN as a conference room where governments of the world meet. The UN as a conference room is not doing well these days. The Human Rights Council in Geneva has not worked on a consistently principled basis. In recent years,the Council has taken some steps backwards in terms of principled support for human rights. Ban ki Moon has been too eager to meet with officials without ensuring he gets something in return. When he went to Burma,he was so eager to meet with the junta he did not get anything promised before he went there. There was no surprise when he was given nothinghe had given up all of his leverage. Also,he has been reluctant to speak out. And so,he is fighting many of these battles with one hand tied behind his back and it is no surprise that he is losing.

COOMI KAPOOR: You seem to imply that your organisation would like to guide the Indian government on how to conduct its foreign policy. Have you said as much to the US that has a record of supporting dictatorships?

We regularly criticise and shape US foreign policy. Wherever there are inconsistencies,we point them out. Most recently,we have been highly critical of the US government for shielding Israel from any serious pressure to investigate its war crimes in Gazaa clear example of the double standards the US applies.

COOMI KAPOOR: What about its attitude to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan whose records on democracy are not good?

We have been very critical of the US. President Obama went to Cairo and gave a beautiful speech about the rule of law in the Middle East. Cairo is the capital of an Egypt led by President Hosni Mubarrak,who has not allowed a free election in years. We have been highly critical of that hypocrisy. We have been critical of the US for not even talking of democracy in Saudi Arabia. We have been critical of the US for not applying the rule of law in Israel. It speaks beautifully of the rule of law but when it comes to the rule of law in Gaza,that is not an issue.

COOMI KAPOOR: The countries you visited before you came to India were the ones you were most critical of. Where do you see India in comparison to those countries?

I did not mean to imply that we lump India with Nigeria,Egypt and Russia. We dont. We recognise the difference. We visited other countries out of deep concern for their domestic human rights record. We do have concerns about Indias domestic human rights record as well but the decision to come here had more to do with Indias potential than Indias problems.

SEEMA CHISHTI: What have you been able to achieve with the US?

We have been deeply concerned by George Bushs decision to fight terrorism by ripping up human rights treatiesthat he used torture,that he let people disappear in secrecy at detention facilities,that he held people without trial at Guantanamo. Since Obama has come to power,we have seen some positive changes and,I think,we have been part of that. For example,Obama stopped authorised torture. He insisted the CIA abide by the good interrogation rules the army adopted after the Abu Ghraib debacle,he shut down the secret detention facilitiesnow every detainee has access to the International Committee of the Red Cross. But there are areas,still,where Obama is not where we want him to be. He has not prosecuted the Bush torturers. We are trying to get him to do that. He has promised to close Guantanamo but he has not committed to ending the spirit of Guantanamo. We want him to use regular courts for prosecution,but he insists on keeping the option of using the military commissionthe sub-standard tribunals George Bush usedthat reflect the spirit of Guantanamo. Our fear is that as long as those kinds of abuses continue,al-Qaeda will benefit because al-Qaeda recruiters love Guantanamo. It is the best thing they have for generating the next generation of terrorists.

COOMI KAPOOR: What was your organisations stance on the invasion of Iraq?

We do not,ever,take a position on whether you should go to war or not. We never say,You are the aggressor,you are the defender. We look at how wars are fought. In order to effectively monitor the two sides in a war,you have to be neutral about the broader political issues involved. We do this,even in Kashmir.

COOMI KAPOOR: You said you were upset with the Indian armys behaviour in Kashmir. What about the American armys behaviour in Iraq?

We monitor the US conduct in Iraq,closely. While we did not criticise the invasionwe did not take a position one way or the otherwe monitored the conduct of the conflict and reported extensively on abusesthe same as we do in Kashmir and elsewhere. We always report on both sides. So,in Kashmir,we look not just at how the Indian security forces operate but also how the militants operate,what is Pakistan responsible for,etc.

VIDYA KRISHNAN: Your maternal health report on women in Uttar Pradesh recommended that every maternal mortality must be investigated. The sheer size of our population renders that impossible. You just increase paperwork.

We are not promoters of bureaucracy. And,the issue is not lack of money; the money allocated to maternal mortality is not being spent. The issue is the lack of political commitment. The reason why we stress monitoring is that unless we understand why women are dying,it is not going to be possible to effectively reduce the number of deaths. If there is a rapid increase in the number of investigations and collecting more statistics,it would go a long way towards helping India determine what the problems were,and attacking those problems.

MANEESH CHHIBBER: Have your people ever been to Pak-Occupied Kashmir?

Our last major report on Kashmir was in 2006.We issued two reports simultaneously on Pakistani-controlled and Indian-controlled Kashmir. We looked specifically at Pakistani sponsorship of abuses and Indian sponsorship of abuses.

SUDEEP PAUL: Would you comment on the persistent tussle between HRW and the Israeli government on accusations that HRW is anti-Semitic or anti-Israeli.

There has been a significant degeneration of relations between the Israeli government and Human Rights Watch since the Netanyahu government took over. During the 2006 Lebanon war involving the Hezbollah,HRW issued reports critical of Israel and we had a very constructive dialogue with the Israeli government. That dialogue has completely broken down after the Gaza war. HRW has issued a series of reports on abuses by Hamas and the Israeli government in that war. The Netanyahu government has chosen to respond by attacking the messenger. It has decided that since it is difficult to defend what it did in Gaza,its best defence is to attack anybody who reports on Gaza. So they,systematically,tried to uncover dirt on HRWs staff,they suggested that our detailed,objective,in-depth reporting in Gaza was motivated by anti-Semitism which is ridiculous. They have attacked Richard Goldstone,a highly-respected jurist and his balanced,objective report describing atrocities on both sides. They tried to turn him into an anti-Semite despite his being Jewish and a long-term supporter of Israel who had a daughter living in Israel. We are not fooled by these PR tactics. We will continue to report and we believe the world will focus on the reality rather than the smear campaign.

COOMI KAPOOR: Many people from the developing world feel the human rights campaign is a way for the white man to tell the rest of the world how to behave.

Some people could say that modern medicine is a western imposition. It was developed in the west. You can say the same thing about human rights. You can find human rights values in religions around the world,in many traditions,including Indias. Even if you think human rights are a western imposition,they are sought by people around the world.

MIHIR SHARMA: You said competition between India and China is leading India down a path that might not be in its best interests. Have you looked at reports on the core productivity of developing world companies in Africa?

Human Rights Watch does have a programme on Corporate Social Responsibility. We ask multi-national corporations to avoid complicity in serious human rights abuseboth in their operations and the operations of their suppliers. One of the things we are looking at now is the role of Chinese companies in Africa because there is a feeling they are there to invest without regard to corporate social responsibility.

DHIRAJ NAYYAR: What is your view on autocratic leaders like Hugo Chavez or the Castros of Cuba who claim to speak for the dispossessed?

Chavez is a brilliant populist. He has been elected. Since then,he has done everything he can to silence the opposition,the media,to undermine the independence of the judiciary. This is a man who is trying to prevent an organised opposition from being formed. The premise that he has improved the economic welfare of the Venezuelan people does not stand up to facts.

SEEMA CHISHTI: Earlier,you said you do not take a position on war,do not say who the aggressor is,who the defender is. But now you are taking very strong political calls. Isnt there a contradiction?

We get into the debate about suppressing the rights of others because governments put forward all sorts of excuses to justify those violations and we have to answer those. That is why we get into the argument about whether repression is a viable route to economic development or not. When it comes to an armed conflict,you cannot even get people to agree on when the conflict started,let alone who was the aggressor. We can say that about Kashmir and several other conflicts. As a result,there is no way,through research or careful fact-finding,to conclude who is the aggressor.

Transcribed by Deepu Sebastian Edmond