India's pledge of good behaviour

Its endorsement of the G7's Open Societies Statement will give the world a larger say in human rights violations in the country

On June 13, the Group of Seven (G7) nations, which are advanced economies and liberal democracies, put out a sort of charter. The document was called the G7 and Guest Countries: 2021 Open Societies Statement. The G7 are the US, UK, Canada, France, Germany, Japan and Italy plus the European Union, and the guest nations invited this time to the G7 meet were South Korea, India, South Africa and Australia.

The document says that all these nations reaffirm their shared belief in open societies, through democratic values and that they would embrace and encourage others to embrace these eight values, which are listed out here.

The first is human rights, both online and offline. The second is democracy, including “everyone’s right to assemble, organise and associate peacefully, within a system of accountable and transparent governance.”

The third is social inclusion, and “full enjoyment of civil and political rights in both physical and digital spheres”. Fourth is gender equality. Fifth is freedom of expression, “both online and offline.” Sixth is the rule of law and independent and impartial judicial system. Seventh is a multilateral system with free and fair trade and global collaboration. Eighth is the “importance of civic space and partnership with diverse, independent and pluralistic civil societies, including human rights defenders, in promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

These eight apparently were “founding values” which “define our inclusive way of life.” They would be promoted by the G7 and guest nations through the following eight steps:

First, by “protecting civic space and media freedom, promoting freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association, and freedom of religion or belief, and by tackling all forms of discrimination.” Second, “exchange information and coordinate effective responses to shared threats to human rights, democracy and the rule of law, such as disinformation and arbitrary detention.” Third, promote economic openness “reasserting our shared economic model, which is founded on open markets”. Fourth, prevent and tackle corruption. Fifth, protect the digital civic-space, respecting human rights. Sixth, prioritise gender equality and inclusion. Seventh, collaborate on science. Eighth, promote sustainable development goals, specifically to “promote just, peaceful and inclusive societies.”

Illustration: Binay Sinha

The G7 and its guests said they would build on these commitments in other multilateral fora.

As is manifest, the content of the Open Societies statement is focussed on human rights. All else — trade, geopolitics and even Covid (likely because the G7 are vaccinated) — is a footnote.

A few points arise from this development. Indian governments, generally speaking, and this government in particular are hostile to most of the things on the list. Even on democracy, ostensibly our strong suit, India has slid precipitously since 2014 as global indices show. The slip has not come from flawed elections but from the other aspect to democracy, which is civil liberties. Peaceful assembly and association are criminalised in India. Protesters have been jailed under anti-terror legislation. India has been described by a study this year as an elected autocracy; the G7 document warns against “rising authoritarianism”.

The Indian prime minister signed the statement and spoke in favour of the Open Societies charter saying India was a natural ally. The Indian government and the media underplayed the charter, with some newspapers carrying a lead story on one aspect of it concerning internet shutdowns. Outside of the 16 specific points, there is a little text that lays out the background. In it the Indian government claimed it had managed to insert the words “politically motivated” to soften the words “internet shutdowns”. The reason for this is that India leads the world in internet shutdowns by far. More than 50 per cent of all annual global internet shutdowns happen in India.

On the whole, it would be fair to say, as someone did say to me on twitter, that the charter appeared to have been written specifically with one of the signatories in mind.

The Open Societies document was interpreted by people in different ways. Writing in The Indian Express, C Raja Mohan saw it from the lens of China (his piece mentions China 15 times), though China is not mentioned in the charter. He mentions human rights once to say that the “rush to write obituaries for Indian democracy was complemented by the widespread assumption that the Biden Administration’s focus on human rights will cast a dark shadow over US relations with India.” This assumes that those standing for human rights and against the Indian government’s alleged abuses were relying on the US under Biden distancing itself from India. This is not the case because it is not productive. What activists seek is two things: A convergence and agreement between India and its friends on human rights; and a closeness in relationships enough, that concerns can be communicated directly. Both of these are today in place.

The heightened interest of powerful nations in human rights and India’s signing on to their charter is a very good thing for all of us. It gives activists increased leverage on issues such as alleged rights abuses in Kashmir, misuse of laws like Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the de-platforming of dissenters on social media, discriminatory laws like the Citizenship Amendment Act and the National Register of Citizens and the criminalisation of protest. The US Congress (on Kashmir), members of the European Parliament (on CAA) and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (on the so called “love jihad” laws in various BJP states) have already been active in the last 18 months. It is external engagement that has helped in ensuring that the CAA, though legislated, is not yet implemented. Also, it was within days of Joe Biden being sworn in that India lifted its 17 month internet shutdown in Kashmir.

The Open Societies charter will put pressure on the government of India to behave in the manner in which it has not only promised to itself to behave but also promised to promote elsewhere. It will give the outside world a larger say on the human rights situation in India and that is a good thing.

The writer is director of Amnesty International India