New Delhi: Against the backdrop of multiple ongoing conflicts in the world, National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) Chairman Justice V Ramasubramanian on Saturday called for a “comprehensive reform” of the Paris Principles so that international standards are put in place for better protection of human rights.
In his remarks during the “National Commission on Human Rights in Turbulent Times” session held as part of the Resina Dialogue here, he said the Paris Principles are only concerned with a “cosmetic view” of the issue, in terms of how to form a human rights institution.
The Paris Principles are a set of standards for national human rights institutions established by the United Nations in 1993.
It was later approved by the United Nations General Assembly in 1993, and set out the basic guidelines recommended by the United Nations for the establishment of a national human rights institution.
Regarding the current global situation where many conflicts are taking place in the world, the Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, without naming any person or any country, expressed his regret that the first condition for supporting human rights is “to speak the truth, but today, no world leader can take the microphone and tell the truth, the whole truth.”
He said that this is due to diplomacy, multilateral relations and the interests of the state, adding, “Today, we have to use a lot of diplomacy, and we have to be careful in choosing words and choosing names.”
Referring to global conflicts, Justice Ramasubramanian said the paradox of history is that “perpetrators become victims and victims become perpetrators, reversing their roles.”
“I think the first half of the 21st century will become a mirror image of the first half of the 20th century. So, what should we do?” he asked.
The head of the National Human Rights Committee called for “cooperation between national human rights institutions in different countries, regardless of whether they have historically been perpetrators or victims.”
He added: “If we come together as a society, and strengthen civil society and human rights institutions to hold their governments accountable, and that they cannot and should not do what they are doing now, it will be very difficult for a single international organization to bear the burden on itself.”
The head of the National Human Rights Commission said that after World War II, “one organization” could have taken responsibility, because everyone saw some reason after so much blood was shed.
He said, “Today this logic has ended because self-interest or the country’s interest, the interest of my country, has priority over the interests of other countries, in every way.”
The head of the National Human Rights Commission said there must be some “recalibration” of ideological issues.
All these human rights institutions have been established in various countries in accordance with the Paris Principles. “Unfortunately, the Paris Principles are only cosmetic in terms of how the institution is shaped,” he said.
The head of the National Human Rights Commission suggested that “the Paris Principles require complete renewal and reform, so that international standards are established. After setting them, we must have three to four international bodies that will monitor their respective countries and countries.”
He said, “Unless this is done and dialogue is called for, I do not think it will be easy to tame countries that have….”
After World War II, states responsible for maintaining peace, in a way, “have themselves become responsible for various disturbances leading to human rights violations in different parts of the world,” said Bharat Lal, Secretary General of the National Human Rights Commission, after World War II.
The Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission also urged Indian society to practice whatever values it is historically proud of. He added: “Here preachers differ from practitioners. Preachers do not practice and practitioners do not preach,” without going into details.
Justice Ramasubramanian said that societal values needed to improve, and stressed that “an ideal society is one in which there is no need for the police, the court, or national human rights institutions.”
This article was generated from an automated news feed without any modifications to the text.
