Politicisation is hurting rights bodies. Fix them

Statutory bodies meant to protect vulnerable communities in India have failed to provide adequate support in cases of sexual assault and violence in Manipur

The sexual assault of Kuki women in Manipur by a mob falls squarely within the ambit of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Under this law. there are specific clauses to deal with cases where members of non-SC/ST groups parade SC/ST people naked, strip them, humiliate or intimidate them, intentionally touch SC/ST women with a sexual intent, and use words, acts and gestures to attack them. Over and above the stringent conditions under the Indian Penal Code, these existing provisions should have been enough for statutory bodies such as the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) and the National Commission for Women (NCW) to get involved and drive the investigation. However, what the nation saw was a handful of feeble attempts that were clearly not enough to provide succour to the victims.

Statutory bodies safeguarding human rights and vulnerable communities are indispensable for pluralism, diversity, and accountability which are core to a democracy. (PTI)

It’s not just Manipur. In cases spanning the length and breadth of the country, from Hathras in Uttar Pradesh, and Una in Gujarat to the rape and murder of marginalised caste women in Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu, statutory bodies set up to serve a particular vulnerable community have repeatedly come up short. Their mandate acknowledged that the criminal justice system is sometimes titled in favour of people who hail from dominant communities, and have resources and social capital; therefore, victims of crime who hailed from vulnerable groups needed extra protections because the local police station, constable or politician might be compromised or unwilling to help due to their social locations, and the usual burden of proof might prove too heavy. Around the same time that the SC/ST Act came into place (1989), NHRC was set up in 1993, NCW in 1992 and the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes the same year. The latter was bifurcated into two bodies for SCs and STs respectively in 2004.

As quasi-judicial bodies, these commissions hold a wide array of powers. They are expected to investigate and examine all matters connected to the safety, security and dignity of the communities they serve, take up and address complaints, take suo motu (on its own) notice of crimes and violence, and take note of non-implementation of laws and provisions. They can send teams to investigate matters on the ground and drive police probes to provide justice.

Unfortunately, much of this has remained on paper. The politicisation of these bodies has hollowed them out, and such bodies don’t appear to be in a position to use their power and imbue hope in marginalised communities. Though they continue to sometimes play a meaningful role in individual cases of complaint, whenever there is a high-profile case of atrocity with political overtones, the bodies appear reticent. Despite efforts from civil society and censure from the media and some international organisations, this has not changed.

This is regrettable. Statutory bodies safeguarding human rights and vulnerable communities are indispensable for pluralism, diversity, and accountability which are core to a democracy.

A thorough review, more independence and fewer links with the government of the day can assist these bodies in helping voiceless citizens and questioning entrenched power.

Manjula Pradeep is a senior SC/ST rights activist. The views expressed are personal