Tamrakar, Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs, said India’s engagement with international human rights mechanisms should be guided by dialogue, consultation, cooperation, non-discrimination and transparency. She stressed that allegations against India should not be turned into negative characterisations without a thorough examination of the facts.
India’s remarks come amid criticism of what it considers selective responses by international human rights organisations to protests and law enforcement actions in different countries.
At present, violent demonstrations are taking place in at least nine European countries, including France and Italy, where thousands of people have been arrested. The Italian government has announced new rules authorising police to impose prison sentences of five years and fines of 20,000 euros on those involved in violent protests.
However, according to the account cited in the report, Human Rights Watch referred to “dialogue” in its statement on the situation. The organisation reportedly did not issue a statement for a month and did not mention the thousands of people arrested in its remarks.
By contrast, the organisation is described as responding promptly when protests occur in India, with its headlines expressing “concern” over developments. Statements concerning Europe and India were issued on the same day, highlighting what critics describe as a difference in the organisation’s approach to the two situations.
In its statement concerning India, the organisation expressed concern over protesters taken into custody and urged law enforcement agencies to exercise restraint.
Addressing the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee, Tamrakar called on member states to distinguish between humanitarian dialogue and concrete findings. She cautioned against drawing conclusions beyond what had actually been stated in reports.
“We urge delegations to cite the report in its proper context and not present any humanitarian dialogue as a final finding or determination,” she said.
Tamrakar added that India remained willing to discuss specific cases supported by appropriate documentation through established procedures. However, she opposed efforts to damage the country’s image through unverified allegations or incomplete data.
Earlier, India had rejected a report by a United Nations human rights expert that referred to a “satirical political movement” initiated by the country’s youth and alleged that its participants had faced reprisals.
New Delhi dismissed the claims as “hearsay” and urged the expert to “verify the truth” of the allegations before using unconfirmed information to discredit an issue.
India’s intervention at the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee has reinforced its position that international human rights mechanisms should rely on verified information, established procedures and consistent standards rather than selectively highlighting allegations against individual countries.
About The Author
Comment List