What do we really understand by the term ‘Human Rights’? The commonplace meaning would be the basic rights every human being must have, and is entitled to. I daresay that, the idea is superb but, it can never be really fructified.
In the world, and even in any single country, as long as millions are hungry, unclad or do not have a shelter on their heads, the concept of human rights appears to be quite a farce. Once the basic rights of food, clothes and shelter are provided to all, only then we can proceed to even talk of making other human rights available to people.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The constitutional protection to human rights looks and sounds just wonderful at least on paper. However, they remain a farce as long as they cannot be translated into visible action. The rising for human rights is a universal phenomena but, its implementation will differ from country to country, depending on the status of the individual in a country. This is because sanction – and attainment of human rights depends on the economic condition of a country.
For example, in India where teaming millions do without two square meals a day can and should not even dare to talk of human rights. It sounds absolutely ridiculous when India blows the trumpet of human rights. Where are we giving human rights, and, to whom are we giving human rights. Living in sub-human conditions, when we talk of giving human rights it shows as an obvious farce.
Image Source: 185.26.182.219
India has even established a Human Rights Commission to look into the rights enjoyed by our countrymen. All cases of commissions and omissions are to be examined by this Commission and action taken. Like every other organization in India this organization has also been politicized. It corses to fight for the human rights when and where the politician wants it to come. The latest example of the evident politicizing of the actions of this Commission is its action in Gujarat. When the massacre occurred in Gujarat the Commission even presented its report very fast, just in order to take sides.
May I ask where this great Commission for Human Rights was asleep when Kashmir was bleeding? This State is still bleeding and there is no report of it all. This is one very glaring and latest example of the Human Rights Commission acting as a custodian of human rights. They are obviously not at all concerned with the loss of human rights of one class and are deeply touched when the human rights of another class are not in place.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
This in itself shows the sham, the Commission is poised to be. When an extremist kills a human or a family or group of humans where does the Human Rights Commission go hiding? However, when a criminal or a terrorist is even punished or put into jail, the Commission is the first to come to fight for his rights. Does this indirectly imply that the Commission is in place just to protect the rights of the wrong doers? The good people can fight themselves for their own rights.
With this scenario being the basic fact of human rights it appears that, the only person who desires to be looked upon as a human being is the person whose rights the Commission can protect, those who are, simple and good need no protection.
The person being wronged does not need protection of his human rights under the aegis of the Human Rights Commission. This attitude of the Commission is clearly biased, lopsided and politicized. It is being certainly motivated by political interests. In a country where even such a human and fair looking organization can be ‘managed’, what real rights can the human here expect to get.