Amnesty or Travesty International?
- In Current Affairs
- 06:58 PM, Aug 18, 2016
- Ranabir Bhattacharyya
In the Indian epic Ramayana, Indrajit aka Meghnada was a unique character. Meghnada never fought in the open, rather chose his deceptive strategy of vanishing and reappearing and shooting from behind the cloud. The curious case of Amnesty International, the global NGO is no different, with their action and deceptive propaganda. The present debate regarding their alleged involvement in anti-India activities is a testament to their controversial legacy; The 'independence' slogans of 'Azad Kashmir' raised at an Amnesty International India event at United Theological College have been at the centre of all discussions. the incident has maligned the brand of this NGO founded by Peter Benenson in early 1960's.
Brand Amnesty or the way they have carefully portrayed themselves, theoretically calls for championing human rights (they even managed to get nominated and then received the 1977 Nobel Peace Prize).The reality of Amnesty seems to be absolutely different. The domain of human rights predominantly demands absolute impartiality and zero tolerance to propaganda or hidden agenda. The biggest issue is obviously 'mobilizing' public opinion, which has been of the same tone as in this case. Incidentally among those IPC sections under which FIR was registered against Amnesty International, sedition was included and rightly, media houses highlighted it with great detail.
Especially in a situation where India is having a diplomatic standoff with Nawaz Sharif's volatile proxy-prone Pakistan, the motivated attitude from Amnesty International India management authorities is highly unexpected. There have been many other incidents when activities of Amnesty International have come under much scrutiny. The most unfortunate aspect of the whole incident has been the abuse of the Kashmiri Pandit leader who was present in the scenario. The only 'crime' committed by the Pandit was to compliment the Indian Army for its proactive humane approach in bringing normalcy in Kashmir irrespective of motivated hooliganism from separatist forces.
Ever since the Narendra Modi government has ushered in new hope with swift digital governance, there has been consistent attempt from various quarters to discredit the present NDA government. From idolizing demotivated youths like Kanhaiya Kumar to promoting anti-national separatist forces in Kashmir, India is facing even a bigger task of fighting out the internal divisive forces. In such a scenario, the case of Amnesty International India categorically points out the negative forces which have specialized in demeaning the very essence of pluralistic India. Twisting the very essence of 'freedom of expression' as mentioned in the Constitution of India.
Amnesty International’s Indian chapter ended up giving a platform to the 'Azadi' forces .Did they condemn the violent ways of which resulted in the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits from the Kashmir valley. Incidentally, Gita Sahgal, who was the former head of Amnesty International's gender unit, accepted that the NGO had been continuously and consistently turning a blind eye towards the terrorist groups in Kashmir. In no way has Amnesty International adhered to the path of transparency, accountability and impartiality, which is rather unthinkable from a dedicated media watch organization looking over the cases of global human rights abuses.
She clearly mentioned," To be appearing on platforms with Britain's most famous supporter of the Taliban, whom we treat as a human rights defender is a gross error of judgment." The institutional or the ethical failure of Amnesty International has reached huge proportions and they have become 'truly' selective in the 'causes' and 'benefits'. Let's not forget that the present PM of India, Narendra Modi, has been extremely pro-active in wiping out the black money-NGO nexus. One may also argue that why didn't Gita Sahgal not disclose such details earlier!
The inactive attitude of the Amnesty International in case of gross violation of human rights in the Arab peninsula and other Asian countries raises many questions. The Baloch-Gilgit reference has already sidelined the separatist pro-Pakistani hardliners in Kashmir. The present Amnesty International debate will further isolate the hooligans in the valley. The NGO might find support from the usual lobbies, but the questions raised against it are serious in nature. Not only that, the present situation demands a complete enquiry into the monetary transactions of the organization as well as the sources and donations it has received as of yet. There might be more than meets the eye.
Comments