Seldom does a day pass without some report of human rights violations released somewhere in the world. The concept of human rights has been elevated to the status of a global or NATO religion, on the other hand the human rights concept remains controversial. There is an absence of discourse on human rights in our sociopolitical life. How and why do human rights need prominence?  

The recently published Country Reports (with reference to India) on Human Rights Practices for 2018 (Report of 2018) by the U.S. Department of State describe glaring human rights violations committed by the state in India. The Report of 2018 questions the global consensus on human rights in the contemporary human rights movement and also highlights the fragility of the consensus among world nation-states. In the Indian context the report categorically mentions the lack of accountability and widespread impunity for human rights violations committed by state and non-state actors.  

But whether in India or the US, the state's constant indulgence in violence has led to legitimate suspicions about the human rights discourse. Today the human rights discourse in India is being centrally commanded monolithic entity with an immutable set of characteristics and poses a grave threat to the survival of human rights itself.  

Arbitrary deprivation of life  

The Report of 2018 cites Ministry of Home Affairs data in which the Investigation Division of the National Human Rights Commission reported 59 nationwide encounter deaths in 2017-18.  

From the Asian Center for Human Rights' Torture Update India report, the Report states that more than five custodial deaths per day have occurred on average between April 2017 and February 2018.  

It also cites the NGO Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative which noted in its 2016 report that, of 186 complaints of human rights violations reported against the armed forces in states under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act between 2012 and 2016, 49.5 percent were from the state of Jammu and Kashmir.  

The Report of 2018 estimates that civilian deaths by security forces ranged from 130 to 145, and between 16 and 20 killings by armed groups documenting alleged violations committed by security forces from June 2016 to April 2018, as published the Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Kashmir by The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.  

This examination indicates the assault done on human rights and democracy in the garb of legitimacy of powers. The fundamental right to life is not extended to all the people of this country. The rise of arbitrariness and the unmistakable bias in not upholding the right to life force us to question the appropriateness of human rights agencies to undertake the task of delivering justice.  

Torture and the compromise of law  

As an absolute and universal norm, the ban on torture cannot be derogated under any circumstances, not even in a state of war or public emergency. States should not only desist from exerting any form torture, but are required to take preventive measures from it occurrence and investigate any allegations of torture. And yet, Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment continues to be practiced in most democratic countries including India.  

The Report of 2018 mentions some of the ghastly atrocities: "On July 13 a 45-year-old Dalit man, B.Murthy, was found hanging in a police station in Mandya, Karnataka. On August 2 the activist Talib Hussain was allegedly tortured in the custody of Samba police in the state of Jammu and Kashmir and suffered a fractured skull, according to the NGO Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative."  

The Report cites the meagre compensation of Rs 3,00,000 paid by the state government on the direction of the Odisha Human Rights Commission to the family of Abhay Singh, an antiques dealer, who died in police custody in June 2017.  

The Report highlights the inadequacies and the idiosyncrasies which have contributed to the prevailing culture of torture. The unwillingness to report crimes, police officials' refusal to register sexual assault cases, compounded by a perception of a lack of oversight and accountability by more democratic institutions, have given rise to the torture team of the state.  

Today the world's largest democracy needs to answer these questions that fall from its actions. How can the prohibition of torture be enforced in practice? What are some effective mechanisms, procedures and processes to prevent torture and ill-treatment? And how can continued public and political support for the prohibition of torture be secured in an age of rising populism, public insecurity and ebbing enthusiasm for human rights?  

Prisoners of prison: From capacity to conditions  

According to the National Crimes Records Bureau's Prison Statistics India 2015 report, there were 1,401 prisons in the country with an authorized capacity of 3,66,781 persons. The actual incarcerated population was 4,19,623. Persons awaiting trial accounted for more than two-thirds of the prison population. The law requires detention of juveniles in rehabilitative facilities, although at times authorities had detained them in adult prisons, especially in rural areas.  

The Report of 2018 states that there were 4,391 female jail staff for a population of 17,834 female prisoners as of 2015 as stated by the Minister of State for Home Affairs. The Report takes note of the fact that National Human Rights Commission, India desperate efforts for seeking statistical reports on the number of children who live with their mothers in jails.  

The Report of 2018 throws light on the underbelly of our prisons which are severely overcrowded, with inadequate food, medical care, sanitation, and environmental conditions. Potable water is not universally available. Prisons and detention centers remained underfunded, understaffed, and lacked sufficient infrastructure.  

An analysis of the Report of 2018 produced by the US government is important because first, it shows a willingness to engage with the present state of human rights realities, and secondly it attempts to reorder priorities and confusion of human rights and human aspirations.  

What we need today is a greater reliance on empirical data on human rights violations, to confront and counter the Indian state's factual inaccuracies and misrepresentation. More such reporting will fulfil the needs of the overambitious human rights project. Only then will human rights violations be seen as political, social and legal actions, and face a similar response.  

Jitamanyu Sahoo is a research associate at the Centre for Comparative Law in the National Law University, Delhi.