Human Rights Organisations in the Northeast: Credibility in Question
10 Apr, 2002 · 726
Bibhu Prasad Routray argues that most HROs in the NE emerge as mouthpieces of militant organisations in the region, and that the SHRCs fell short of their tasks
Protecting human rights in a conflict situation as in the Northeast can be a delicate affair. The activities of these Human Rights Organisations (HROs) often reveal that objectivity is the first casualty. Only a handful of voices are not part of a parallel and conflicting discourse trapped within a pro or anti-security force perspective. The need is to empower these voices, to act as watchdogs on human rights violations of any nature.
Assam
and regularly highlights abuses by the security forces. However, it is now common knowledge that MASS was established with the active support of the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) to generate opinion in favour of the outfit. Letters and documents in the possession of the Assam Police clearly indicated that it was in cahoots with the ULFA. In one of these letters, ULFA’s former Publicity Secretary, the late Swadhinata Phukan wrote, ‘In certain places we are not able to distinguish between a member of the ULFA and the MASS.’ MASS was identified by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) through a 24 April 2001 notification as an organisation having links with the terrorist outfit.
9 September 1978 ‘in response to the Naga peoples long felt need for an organised movement and to further their human rights which have been trampled under the military boots of the Indian state.’ This declaration lays down the priorities of the organisation in its manifesto. Its regular media releases and petitions highlighting abuses by the armed forces provides additional evidence. The HRO, for all practical purpose, acts as a front organisation for the National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Isak-Muivah (NSCN-IM).
Indian
State
. Their clear predisposition however in favour of the forces resisting the so-called ‘colonial occupation of the region’ makes them mere mouthpieces of the militants. It also needs emphasis that HROs in conflict situations face threats from the militants. The ULFA on 29 July 1997 issued a fiat that no NGO can work in
Assam
without its permission. Similarly, outfits in Manipur hold complete sway over civil society in the State. Does this predispose the HROs to portray a biased picture?
The region has witnessed insurgency for nearly five decades; hence the long-term presence of the armed forces has led to occasional aberrations in violation of human rights. Some elements have been found guilty of torture, rape, intimidation, and involvement in fake encounters. The higher authorities are forthright in condemning such acts and such aberrant elements have been punished according to the due process of law. By its very nature this process is sluggish and depends on evidence. It leads to delays in justice and could lead to acquittal of the persons accused of crimes. It would obviously be grossly unfair to say that the armed forces are involved in large-scale human rights abuses in the region.
Such viewpoints are propagated by militant outfits in the region through their mouthpieces, but also have ready takers among the HROs of the region. While one would expect these organisations to highlight abuses by the security force personnel and the militants, their stoic silence regarding violence perpetrated by the latter puts a question mark on their credibility.
An analysis of the origin of one of the prominent HROs in the region, the Manab Adhikar Sangram Samiti (MASS) provides an interesting insight. MASS, established in the post-Operation Bajrang period, has emerged as an important HRO in
The same notification indicted another prominent HRO based in Nagaland, the Naga People's Movement for Human Rights (NPMHR), and directed the State government not to release any funds to the organisation without proper 'physical verification'. The NPMHR was formed on
This is not to suggest that all the HROs in the region are either aligned with the militant outfits or work as their front organisations, or are issuing false propaganda against the
It does pose a challenge to many other low-profile HROs to perform an activist role. This scenario also places the State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) on trial to emerge as institutions capable of addressing broader grievances. One expects the HROs to stop portraying a biased picture of the overall situation and the SHRCs to break out of the barriers of a Statist paradigm. In the battle between State sovereignty and individual rights, however we can hardly afford to choose a single winner.
POPULAR COMMENTARIES
