27 India and Environmental & Human Rights Concerns

Dr. Suresh Dhanda

epgp books

 

Structure of the Module

 

1. Introduction

2. Objectives

3. India and Environmental Concerns

3.1. Global Environmental Concerns

3.2. Global Efforts to Combat Environmental Problems

3.3. India‘s Adherence to Global Efforts

4. India and Human Rights Concerns

4.1. Global Scenario on Human Rights

4.2. International Treaties and Mechanisms for Human Rights

4.3. India‘s Adherence to International Human Rights Mechanisms

5. Conclusion

6. Important Questions

7. Suggested Readings

 

Introduction

 

The issue of environment and development is an enduring topic of human civilization. The history of human civilization to some extent is the history of the explorations on how to correctly handle the relationship between man and the environment during its development. In particular, as man entered the industrialization period, achieving sustainable use of the environment and its resources in the light of the increasing shortages of natural resources became a key issue of common concern. Global warming has often been described as one of the most serious environmental problems ever to confront humanity, as this problem is inextricably linked to the process of development and economic growth itself. To address environmental issues that India and other countries face, it is imperative and important to initiate action at all levels – global, regional, national, local, and community. It is not enough to have international agreements and instruments on environmental issues; but implementation and enforcement of these policies and agreements to a large extent determine their impact and effectiveness. To bring about change at all levels it is important to understand the global scenario and India‘s position in the global arena.

 

Although the concept of human rights is abstract, how it is applied has a direct and enormous impact on daily life worldwide. Millions have suffered crimes against humanity. Millions more toil in bonded labor. In the last decade alone, authoritarian rule has denied civil and political liberties to billions. The idea of human rights has a long history, but only in the past century has the international community sought to galvanize a regime to promote and guard them. Particularly, since the United Nations (UN) was established in 1945, world leaders have cooperated to codify human rights in a universally recognized regime of treaties, institutions, and norms. An elaborate global system is being developed. Governments are striving to promote human rights domestically and abroad, and are partnering with multilateral institutions to do so. A particularly dynamic and decentralized network of civil-society actors is also involved in the effort.

 

2. Objectives

 

The present module will analyze the issues of human rights and environment. Today, world is facing serious challenges of environmental degradation. The problem is not limited to one or few countries but it is a global problem. This module will evaluate the global environmental concerns and India‘s response towards global treaties and efforts in this direction. Simultaneously, protection of human rights is also a serious issue worldwide. This module will also analyze the global scenario on human rights. The study of global mechanisms and agreements is also included in this module. The last part of this module will discuss the India‘s adherence to global efforts for protection of human rights. And finally, important questions and suggested readings are also added in this module.

 

3. India and Environmental Concerns

 

India‘s response to global environmental concerns can be understood through the study of following headings:

 

3.1. Global Environmental Concerns

 

Our planet is poised at the brink of a severe environmental crisis. Current environmental problems make us vulnerable to disasters and tragedies, now and in the future. We are in a state of planetary emergency, with environmental problems piling up high around us. Unless we address the various issues prudently and seriously we are surely doomed for disaster. Current environmental problems require urgent attention. Currently, world is facing numerous serious environmental problems. Important among them include global warming; climate change; air, water and soil pollution; overpopulation; natural resource depletion; waste disposal; loss of biodiversity; deforestation; ocean acidification; ozone layer depletion; acid rain; urban sprawl; public health issues; and genetic engineering. The last few decades have seen many treaties, conventions, and protocols for the cause of global environmental protection. Among all, there are three important global environmental problems which need immediate attention at international level. These are: – a) ozone layer depletion; b) global warming/climate change; and c) loss of biodiversity.

 

a) Ozone Layer Depletion: Ozone is highly reactive and easily broken down by man-made chlorine and bromine compounds. These compounds are found to be most responsible for most of ozone layer depletion. The ozone depletion process begins when CFCs (used in refrigerator and air conditioners) and other ozone-depleting substances (ODS) are emitted into the atmosphere. Winds efficiently mix and evenly distribute the ODS in the troposphere. These ODS compounds do not dissolve in rain, are extremely stable, and have a long life span. After several years, they reach the stratosphere by diffusion. Strong UV light breaks apart the ODS molecules. CFCs, HCFCs, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform release chlorine atoms, and halons and methyl bromide release bromine atoms. It is the chlorine and bromine atom that actually destroys ozone, not the intact ODS molecule. It is estimated that one chlorine atom can destroy from 10,000 to 100,000 ozone molecules before it is finally removed from the stratosphere.

 

Increased penetration of solar UV-B radiation is likely to have high impact on human health with potential risks of eye diseases, skin cancer and infectious diseases. In forests and grasslands, increased radiation is likely to change species composition thus altering the bio-diversity in different ecosystems. It could also affect the plant community indirectly resulting in changes in plant form, secondary metabolism, etc. High levels of radiation exposure in tropics and subtropics may affect the distribution of phytoplankton, which form the foundation of aquatic food webs. It can also cause damage to early development stages of fish, shrimp, crab, amphibians and other animals, the most severe effects being decreased reproductive capacity and impaired larval development. Increased solar UV radiation could affect terrestrial and aquatic bio-geo-chemical cycles thus altering both sources and sinks of greenhouse and important trace gases, e.g. carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), carbonyl sulfide (COS), etc. These changes would contribute to biosphere-atmosphere feedbacks responsible for the atmosphere build-up of these greenhouse gases. Reduction of stratospheric ozone and increased penetration of UVB radiation result in higher photo dissociation rates of key trace gases that control the chemical reactivity of the troposphere. This can increase both production and destruction of ozone and related oxidants such as hydrogen peroxide, which are known to have adverse effects on human health, terrestrial plants and outdoor materials. The ozone layer, therefore, is highly beneficial to plant and animal life on earth filtering out the dangerous part of sun‘s radiation and allowing only the beneficial part to reach earth. Any disturbance or depletion of this layer would result in an increase of harmful radiation reaching the earth‘s surface leading to dangerous consequences.

 

b) Global Warming/Climate Change

 

Before the Industrial Revolution, human activities released very few gases into the atmosphere and all climate changes happened naturally. After the Industrial Revolution, through fossil fuel combustion, changing agricultural practices and deforestation, the natural composition of gases in the atmosphere is getting affected and climate and environment began to alter significantly. Over the last 100 years, it was found out that the earth is getting warmer and warmer, unlike previous 8000 years when temperatures have been relatively constant. The present temperature is 0.3 – 0.6 o C warmer than it was 100 years ago. The key greenhouse gases (GHG) causing global warming is carbon dioxide. Some greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, while others result from human activities. Naturally occurring greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Certain human activities, however, add to the levels of most of these naturally occurring gases. Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere when solid waste, fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), and wood and wood products are burned. This global warming will raise the global temperature and sea level which will cause a serious damage to the world population. World may face food shortage and hunger due to this global warming.

 

c) Loss of Biodiversity: Biodiversity refers to the variety of life on earth, and its biological diversity. The number of species of plants, animals, micro organisms, the enormous diversity of genes in these species, the different ecosystems on the planet, such as deserts, rainforests and coral reefs are all a part of a biologically diverse earth. Biodiversity actually boosts ecosystem productivity where each species, no matter how small, all have an important role to play and that it is in this combination that enables the ecosystem to possess the ability to prevent and recover from a variety of disasters. It is now believed that human activity is changing biodiversity and causing massive extinctions. The World Resource Institute reports that there is a link between biodiversity and climate change. Rapid global warming can affect ecosystems chances to adapt naturally. Over the past 150 years, deforestation has contributed an estimated 30 percent of the atmospheric build-up of CO2. It is also a significant driving force behind the loss of genes, species, and critical ecosystem services.

 

3.2. Global Efforts to Combat Environmental Problems

 

Addressing the global environmental problems that threaten our living planet requires national efforts as well as international collaboration on both bilateral and multilateral level and the active participation of all members of the international community. In this respect, international organizations such as the UN, the OECD, OSCE and other international financial institutions, global and regional fora, have been promoting and coordinating the efforts for the joint confrontation of global environmental problems, on a multilateral level. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) was established, as one of the productive consequences of the 1972 Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm Conference). The UNEP provides a basis for comprehensive consideration and coordinated action within the UN system on the problems of environment. Major international agreements and conventions covering a wide range of environmental issues such as climate change, biological diversity, combating desertification, control of movements of hazardous wastes, ozone layer, illegal trade in endangered species, have been elaborated under UNEP‘s auspices.

 

Since Stockholm declaration of June 1972, the world is grappling with the issue of correcting damage caused to environment. Earth Summit at Rio-de-Janerio in 1992 and Johannesburg in 2002, Kyoto Protocol 0f 1997 or Gleneagle meet of July 2005, all discussed the ways and means of protecting environment. Similarly, national governments enacted laws replicating these international declarations. The term ―sustainable development‖ was first used in the Brundtland Report, prepared by the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987 in which it is defined as ―development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs‖. The UN Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Conference) held in Rio de Janeiro between 3-14 June 1992, constituted a big step towards the adoption of a set of principles to enable a sound management of the environment by governments. During the Conference, Agenda 21, a comprehensive plan of action, as well as Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and Statement on Forest Principles is adopted. In addition, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and Convention on Biological Diversity were opened for signature during the Conference. The outcome of the Rio Conference also led to the preparation of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification that was opened for signature in 1994.

 

The Millennium Development Declaration and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) adopted by the governments during UN Millennium Summit in 2000, have become a universal framework for ―development‖ and are considered as a means for developing countries to work together with developed ones in the pursuit of a shared future. MDGs are eight goals to be achieved by the target year 2015. In order to take a step further the decisions taken in Rio Conference and to render efforts of governments and stakeholders coherent for the achievement of MDGs, the World Summit on Sustainable Development was held in Johannesburg between the dates 26 August – 4 September 2002. Two principal documents were adopted as a result of the Summit: the Johannesburg Implementation Plan and Political Declaration in which the political will of world leaders was expressed.

 

In 2012, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development was also held in Rio, and is also commonly called Rio+20 or Rio Earth Summit 2012. It was held from 13 to 22 June. Rio+20 sought to secure affirmations for the political commitments made at past Earth Summits and set the global environmental agenda for the next 20 years by assessing progress towards the goals set forth in Agenda 21 and implementation gaps therein, and discussing new and emerging issues. The UN wanted Rio to endorse a UN “green economy roadmap”, with environmental goals, targets and deadlines, whereas developing countries preferred establishing new “sustainable development goals” to better protect the environment, guarantee food and power to the poorest, and alleviate poverty.

 

The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP 21 or CMP 11 was held in Paris, France, from 30 November to 12 December 2015. It was the 21st yearly session of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 11th session of the Meeting of the Parties to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The conference negotiated the Paris Agreement, a global agreement on the reduction of climate change, the text of which represented a consensus of the representatives of the 196 parties attending it. The agreement will become legally binding if joined by at least 55 countries which together represent at least 55 percent of global greenhouse emissions. Such parties will need to sign the agreement in New York between 22 April 2016 and 21 April 2017, and also adopt it within their own legal systems (through ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession).

 

3.3. India’s Adherence to Global Efforts

 

India signed and ratified the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer in 1991 and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer in 1992, signaling the country‘s commitments to the global cause of addressing the harmful effects of the ozone layer depletion. Since 1993, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has played a crucial role in the phase- out of ozone depleting substances by the Government of India and has been instrumental in implementing US$ 40 million in multilateral fund projects. As a result of support, India completely phased out production and consumption of Chlorofluorocarbons, carbon tetrachloride and halons, man-made chemicals responsible for the depletion of the Ozone Layer. This remarkable milestone was achieved two years ahead of schedule. With this achievement, India has contributed significantly to this global environmental cause, by reducing 25,000 ozone depleting particles tonnes and a further potential of 23,000 ozone depleting particles.

 

Domestically, the Indian government has initiated actions at regional and local levels, trying to nest global conventions, notably the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol, in its national policies. It has created national and regional versions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), i.e. an ―Indian Network for Comprehensive Climate Change Assessment‖ of monitoring bodies that are to provide a clearer picture of the real changes occurring within the country and will be publishing GHG inventories at regular intervals. Second, it has taken steps to diversify its energy mix. For instance, a fuel switch from coal to gas is under way, while a clean energy tax on coal is levied, whose revenues will be used toward funding the research and development of clean energy technologies, so as to augment notably its solar power generating capacity. Third, India has opened up to the idea of emissions trading, which is currently being experimented in two of its states (Gujarat, Tamil Nadu). Finally, India has put into place strategies on forestry and coastal management.

 

India ratified the UNFCCC in 1993, acceded to the Kyoto Protocol in 2002, and submitted its NATCOM to the UNFCCC in 2004. NATCOM was focused on climate vulnerability and adaptation; however, the growing pressure to address mitigation led the government to commit to never exceeding developed country per capita emissions levels in June 2007. Under the Copenhagen Accord, India committed to a 20-25% reduction in emissions intensity of GDP by 2020 from a 2005 baseline. This commitment is dependent on finance and technology transfer, although it is likely that India will achieve it without support. India supports the question of raising mitigation ambition being based on the IPCC 5th assessment report (AR5) due in 2014/5, the outcomes of the 2013-2015 review of UNFCCC, and the work of subsidiary bodies. India believes that the increased mitigation ambition for the 2012-2020 periods should come from Annex I countries and be based on the science presented in the IPPC‘s AR4. India has recommended that Annex I Parties reduce their emissions by 25-40% by 2020, and make an unconditional decision before COP18. India is therefore unlikely to increase its mitigation targets before 2020.

 

Lack of capacity prevented India from engaging very deeply in the negotiations until recently. In 2011, India submitted a number of recommendations to the UNFCCC. India‘s June 2011 submission called for less onerous requirements for NATCOMs for non-Annex I countries and for financial, technological and capacity building support for non-Annex I countries in preparing the NATCOMs. This is specifically aimed at mitigation actions which India states should be measured and verified at the domestic level and ‗will not look at the appropriateness of the actions‘. Also, India recommended that the UNFCCC registry of mitigation actions should ‗provide information on the matching of mitigation actions with the support received‘. India‘s October 2011 submission requested three additional agenda items at COP17:

  • Accelerated access to critical mitigation and adaptation technologies and related intellectual property rights
  • Equitable Access to Sustainable Development
  • Unilateral Trade Measures

 

India argued that previous COP agreements did not address the issue of access to intellectual property rights (IPRs) for climate friendly technologies, which along with prohibitive costs make it very difficult for developing countries to address climate change. India wants an IPR regime that ‗balances rewards for the innovators with the common good of humankind‘. This has been resisted by countries like the US who are already concerned about the economic growth and strength of China and India and do not want to help them before the new superpowers. India‘s second point was that negotiations will falter without a shared understanding on an equitable basis for climate action and sought a constructive discussion at COP17. India‘s third point, which was supported by many other countries, was that developed countries must commit that they will not resort to unilateral trade measures, such as carbon border adjustment and taxes. This was directly aimed at the controversial EU aviation emissions tax which violates and undermines the UNFCCC and has implications for global trade. At the BASIC Ministers meeting in New Delhi in February 2012, India’s Environment Minister Jayanthi Natarajan criticized the EU carbon tax as “unilateral trade measures disguised and taken in the name of climate change”. This is likely to remain a contentious issue.

 

At COP17 in December, India help up negotiations by insisting that its cabinet had not given a mandate for agreeing to a legally binding instrument – which the EU, AOSIS, the LDCs, ALBA, and even India‘s BASIC allies, Brazil and South Africa, were seeking in the Durban Platform. Nearly 36 hours after the official end of the conference, India agreed to substitute the term ―legal outcome‖ with a marginally less ambiguous term, ―agreed outcome with legal force‖, which resulted in the EU and its allies accepting a second Kyoto Protocol commitment period. Since then, India has said that the Durban Platform needs adjustment and is calling for a process and mandate for the Durban platform. India‘s primary objective is to ensure equity in any legally binding agreement, where historical responsibility of the developed countries is acknowledged and addressed. If India is to sustain its planned 8-9% real GDP growth rate over the next decade, despite its efforts at improving emission intensities, the total GHG emissions in 2020 are expected to be at least double of the absolute levels in 2007. India‘s view is that ‗this carbon space must be made available to it to achieve inclusive growth and eliminate poverty‘.

 

India also participated in United Nations Climate Change Conference held in Paris, France, from 30 November to 12 December 2015. India has been firm on the position that it is the developed countries who should contribute to the Green Climate Fund. In 2011, they had pledged 100 billion dollars per year after 2020 to the fund. India’s position is that it will make contribution to its neighboring countries but under “south-south solidarity” and nothing should serve as an excuse for developed nations to avoid their own responsibility to add to the fund. Speaking on India‘s position on the climate talks, Indian Prime Minister, Modi said that equity and common but differentiated responsibility should be the bedrock of all elements of the proposed deal. He also called for the continuation of conventional energy sources such as coal and said there cannot be any place for unilateral steps that can hinder the growth of developing countries.

 

4. India and Human Rights Concerns

 

India has a long tradition of promoting and protecting human rights. It was privileged to be in the forefront of the struggle against apartheid since even before India‘s independence. India‘s commitment to promoting and protecting human rights flows from the realization that in a truly pluralistic society, the growth and well being of citizens can only be guaranteed through a culture of protection and promotion of human rights. India‘s concerns with human rights at international level can be studied under the following headings:

 

4.1. Global Scenario on Human Rights

 

The international human rights regime has made several welcome advances—including increased responsiveness in the Muslim world, attention to prevention and accountability for atrocities, and great powers less frequently standing in the way of action, notably at the UN Security Council (UNSC). Yet, despite responses to emergency cases demanding action, such as Sudan and Libya, global governance in ensuring human rights has faltered. Many experts credit intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) for advances—particularly in civil and political rights. These scholars cite the creation of an assortment of secretariats, administrative support, and expert personnel to institutionalize and implement human rights norms. Overall, the United Nations (UN) remains the central global institution for developing international norms and legitimizing efforts to implement them, but the number of actors involved has grown exponentially.

 

The primary mechanisms include UNSC action, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), committees of elected experts, various rapporteurs, special representatives, and working groups. War crimes tribunals—the International Criminal Court (ICC), tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and hybrid courts in Sierra Leone and Cambodia—also contribute to the development and enforcement of standards. All seek to raise political will and public consciousness, assess human-rights-related conduct of states and warring parties, and offer technical advice to states on improving human rights. However, these mechanisms are far from consistent. Generally, when they are effective, they change states’ conduct by publicizing abuses rather than by providing technical advice or applying punitive measures. For example, no global body was capable of forcing the United States to stop its mistreatment of detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility, but mounting international pressure did encourage fundamental U.S. reform of its detention and interrogation policies in 2009. As a result, skeptics also counter that other grassroots movements or organizations hold greater responsibility for rights improvements than global institutions. Furthermore, although progress in condemning and responding to atrocities has been significant, it has been limited in advancing civil and political rights. Many in the international community are reassessing economic, social, and cultural rights as IGOs increasingly link human rights to business practices and public health. Elsewhere, attention to the rights of women, minorities, and persecuted ethnic groups has steadily increased. Of all rights-centered UN bodies, the UN Human Rights Council receives the most attention. In its former incarnation as the Commission on Human Rights, it developed a reputation for allowing the participation—and even leadership—of notorious human rights abusers, undermining its legitimacy. Reconstituted as the UNHRC in 2006, the new forty-seven-member body has a higher threshold for membership as well as a universal periodic review (UPR) process, which evaluates the human rights records of states, including those on the council. Generally, the UPR has been welcomed as encouraging accountability and highlighting progress, and states have largely cooperated. However, Israel became the first state to withdraw from the review panel, breaking the established precedent of collaboration and cooperation. This follows a pattern of disproportionate focus on Israel—more than half of resolutions passed since 2006 have focused on Israeli actions in the Palestinian territories—while ignoring major abuses in other states.

 

The UN Security Council (UNSC) has more power to take action against human rights abusers. It can impose sanctions, mandate peacekeeping operations, and authorize use of force in extreme cases. Furthermore, UNSC deliberations are higher profile than UNHRC meetings and thus substantially elevate international attention to and pressure on rights violators. The UNSC deliberates on countries’ abuses when they threaten international peace and security—but only when UNSC politics permit it. The five permanent UNSC members can all veto resolutions. France, the United Kingdom, and the United States tend to be the most vocal advocates for promoting human rights, though they routinely subordinate such concerns to strategic interests. China and Russia, however, often veto human rights interventions. Recently, major powers elected to the UNSC have been ambivalent on human rights, and none of the three seeking permanent membership (Germany, Brazil, and India) voted to authorize the mission in Libya.

 

4.2. International Treaties and Mechanisms for Human Rights

 

The array of treaties establishing standards for human rights commitments is broad—from political and civil liberties to economic, social, and cultural rights to racial discrimination to the rights of women, children, migrant workers, and more recently the disabled. Other global efforts have focused on areas such as labor rights and human trafficking. Regional organizations, most notably the Council of Europe and the Organization of American States, have also promulgated related instruments, although less uniformly. In addition, member states have articulated declarations and resolutions establishing human rights standards, and increasingly so in economic affairs. The United Nations Human Rights Council, in a departure from the premise that states are to be held accountable for human rights conduct, in 2011 even passed formal guidelines for related business responsibilities. On the other hand, states are under are no binding obligation to observe or implement rights resolutions unless passed—without a veto—through the UN Security Council or one of the few regional bodies with binding authority over member states. Similarly, although the proliferation of treaties, conventions, and protocols over the past fifty years implies significant advances in human rights norms, the true impact of these measures is questionable.

 

All the international treaties and mechanisms have roots in UN Declaration on Human Rights 1948. There are ten core international human rights instruments. Each of these instruments (9 human rights treaties and the Optional Protocol to the CAT) has established a committee of experts to monitor implementation of the treaty provisions by its States parties. Some of the treaties are supplemented by optional protocols dealing with specific concerns. These treaties address economic, social and cultural rights, civil and political rights, the elimination of racial and gender discrimination, protection against torture and forced disappearance and the rights of women, children, migrants, persons with disabilities. Although the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is the most important treaty from the perspective of economic and social rights, you will find references to economic and social rights in many of the other treaties as well. Each of these international human rights treaties also has a monitoring body within the UN human rights system which monitors the implementation of the treaty provisions by its States parties. These treaties are:-

 

  1. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (21 Dec 1965).
  2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (16 Dec 1966).
  3. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (16 Dec 1966).
  4. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (18 Dec 1979).
  5. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (10 Dec 1984).
  6. Convention on the Rights of the Child (20 Nov 1989).
  7. International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (18 Dec 1990).
  8. International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (20 Dec 2006).
  9. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (13 Dec 2006).

Followings are the Optional Protocols:-

 

  1. Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (10 Dec 2008).
  2. Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (16 Dec 1966).
  3. Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty (15 Dec 1989).
  4. Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (10 Dec 1999).
  5. Optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict (25 May 2000).
  6. Optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (25 May 2000).
  7. Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure (14 Apr 2014).
  8. Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (18 Dec 2002); and
  9. Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (12 Dec 2006).

 

4.3. India’s Adherence to International Human Rights Mechanisms

 

India is a nation that took the lead sixty five years ago to embrace human rights both in the U.N. Charter and in India’s own Constitution. Its people are justifiably proud of their social and philosophical tradition of humanism and universalism based on non-violence, tolerance, pluralism, coexistence, and the individual pursuit of truth. These values are rooted in its civilization and manifested in national figures such as Lord Buddha, Akbar, Rabindranath Tagore and Mahatma Gandhi. India has demonstrated its commitment to democracy and the development of human rights in all parts of the world. Significantly, India’s commitment to human rights preceded the Universal Declaration by anticipating the 1996 Covenants and proclaiming and guaranteeing basic human rights and fundamental freedoms for all citizens, irrespective of caste, creed, race, religion, or sex. India’s interpretation of the duties and obligations of states under the 1996 Covenants is that each state must strive to recognize and give effect to the various rights and duties embodied in the 1996 Covenants through the best avenues available to it. India recognizes that a country’s size, population, social structure, and political environment can affect the assurance of such rights. Furthermore, India embraces cultural differences, and supports the ideal that every faction in society, irrespective of ethnic origin, color, caste, sex, or religious belief, should be able to enjoy protected human rights. India also perceives it as a duty of the State to promote awareness of rights among its own people and to provide adequate and effective machinery to ensure observance of such rights. India fully recognizes, consistent with what is stated in the preamble of its Constitution, that every individual has a duty to other individuals and to the community to observe the rights recognized therein and to take preventive measures to ensure that the community as a whole is not deprived of enjoyment of its rights at the hands of individuals or groups of individuals. This duty is particularly important considering the increase in acts of terrorism and other disruptive activities. India firmly believes that a country’s overall performance and its resolve to translate into reality the enjoyment of rights by its people is of paramount importance.

 

Finally, India should take the following steps to properly adhere the international efforts taken by world community for the protection of human rights:-

  1. First, India must improve implementation of the commitments it has undertaken. The culture of impunity has to be frontally attacked. Action must include prompt and visible prosecution under Indian laws of those committing atrocities on Dalits, tribals and, particularly, their women; this must be accompanied by punishment and disciplinary action against the district administration and police who do not take prompt and effective action to apprehend and prosecute the perpetrators of such crimes, and for cases of custodial or encounter deaths and disappearances in their jurisdiction. Statistics of such prosecutions should be included in India‘s implementation reports to UN treaty bodies complementary to its customary enumeration of its comprehensive laws and regulations.
  2. Secondly, India must ratify the Convention against Torture without further delay. Non ratification after signing provides it no leeway, since the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties requires signatories to abide by the letter and spirit of the treaty even if not ratified.
  3. Thirdly, India should try to get out of the longstanding, sterile and legalistic stalemate with the UN as to whether or not caste discrimination falls within the ambit of racial discrimination of CERD which explicitly defines such discrimination as that due to descent, or whether or not Scheduled Castes and tribes are indigenous people of whom we claim to have none in India. The controversy becomes particularly moot in a situation where India fully recognizes that discrimination against Dalits and tribals does indeed continue to exist in India, declares that we are prepared voluntarily to discuss the issue and provide material on it, but insists that we will never agree to acknowledge the existence of racial discrimination in India by submitting information on this issue to the Committee for the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination. While it is understandable for the biter against apartheid in South Africa to be upset at being bit on grounds of racial discrimination due to descent, UN bodies have vigorously rejected India‘s position, leaving India in splendid isolation to record its dissenting view. Persisting in this line will require India regularly and with embarrassing frequency to be the lone voice expressing reservation on texts and resolutions on racial discrimination, an issue pioneered by India in the UN, particularly as we approach the Durban Follow-up Conference in 2009.
  4. Finally, India should reconsider its objection to receiving and cooperating transparently with visits by UN Special Rapporteurs on issues such as torture, arbitrary and extra judicial police killings and detentions, treatment of human rights defenders etc., requests for which have been pending for years. All these practices are illegal in India but are widespread. Not receiving UN rapporteurs on these issues will scarcely push the situation in India under the carpet. Nor will it prevent the extensive reporting on happenings in these areas by reputable Indian and foreign NGOs who are increasingly being recognized as close and active stakeholders on human rights in the UN. To be sure, their reports will be critical. So indeed were the findings of the Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion, whom we allowed in thinking that our record on this matter was exemplary. India is an open society and, on balance, it has little to lose, and something to gain, by an improved reputation for transparency, some useful pointers to areas requiring urgent domestic corrective action, and almost certainly greater caution and a reduced sense of impunity on the part of government functionaries and their supervisors whose performance in these areas will come under public and international scrutiny.

 

5. Conclusion

 

The last few decades have seen many treaties, conventions, and protocols for the cause of global environmental protection. And India has actively participated in those treaties and protocols. Domestically, India has made a plethora of laws to protect the human environment and to promote the sustainable development. Simultaneously, India is equally worried about global concerns on environmental issues. It has adhered almost all the international frameworks, treaties and mechanisms to protect the environment and to give a healthy life to all the people of the world. On the same lines, India is also equally worried on the violation of human rights worldwide. India is one of the countries which originally affirmed its faith in UN Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. In fact, all the treaties and protocols on human rights stemmed from the philosophy of UN Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. India is a committed supporter of the UN human rights system. The promotion and protection of human rights is ingrained in its domestic and foreign policy. It has been active in deliberations on human rights in international for and in the development of widely accepted international norms. India is a large, democratic, multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-lingual and multi-cultural society that has consistently demonstrated in practice its commitment to human rights, fundamental freedoms and environment protection.

 

you can view video on India and Environmental & Human Rights Concerns