The phoney quest for human rights by Amnesty not merely lays bare its ideological propaganda but also showcases the hollow nature of its advocacy.
Adorned as custodian of human rights by the woke ecosystem, Amnesty International stands as an exemplary organization that has abandoned its core objective and taken refuge in ideological musings of ultra-liberal fantasies. Preserving or defending human rights no longer guides its actions and policies but rather an expedition to look morally superior and cast unfounded judgements.
DEFENDING THE RAPISTS?
Last week, the ideological agenda of Amnesty was on full display. Aakar Patel, Chair of Board, Amnesty International, while talking of the horrific incident in Kolkata’s RG Kar Medical College and Hospital noted that the “death penalty is never the solution.” The statement was awful, no matter how you look at it. The argument that Patel sought to make had to do with “far-reaching procedural and institutional reform” that needs to be implemented in the long term. Still, we know by its track record that most things coming out of Amnesty vis-à-vis India in recent years are not about defending human rights issues but casting negative perceptions about India as a country.
Instead of understanding the situation as it is, the organization sought to preach on the long-term issue. Indeed, long-term solutions to women’s safety are critical, and governments are working in varying capacities to implement such solutions. However, the need of the hour is to address what has already happened. Such messianic suggestions by Amnesty (and other organizations) miss the reality on the ground where people in Bengal and elsewhere are truly agitated and demanding justice. Yet, all such measures do is demean the efforts of the public, where these so-called reputed international organizations that are meant to speak about human rights are effectively trying to shield the rapists from punishment under the garb of human rights.
HOLLOW ADVOCACY
The phoney quest for human rights by Amnesty not merely lays bare its ideological propaganda but also showcases the hollow nature of its advocacy. The crusade maybe so vocal and fierce in Global South countries but it looks to the West occasionally for some token issues.
Nonetheless, there are other things that one should look at when it comes to the organization. To increase its coverage and maximize impact, Amnesty, in the 1990s, altered its policy direction from publishing long-format reports to largely focusing on press releases that are largely like usual media reporting. However, unlike the media, which claims to show the news as it is, Amnesty is a value-serving organization professing certain values over others.
Funding is the most critical component to understanding the functioning of any organization, let alone Amnesty-type organizations that have global presence and influence. Over the years, Amnesty has obtained funding from other governments, including the UK government, the European Commission (EU), and the US State Department, showcasing their claims of objectivity as farcical.
Preserving what it regards as the objective way of looking at human rights issues, Amnesty has also engaged in various erroneous practices like giving platforms to Taliban sympathizers. Similarly, the reports of its highly paid officials having ties to various banned groups all over the world, including the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.
Finally, the discrimination and incidents of racism, sexism and mental torture within the organization are something that surprisingly remains widely unknown. The organization asking everyone to be transparent fails to put its inadequacies into public notice and address issues of toxic work culture. The unfortunate incidents of suicides by its employees brought to the public eye the extent of such a work culture. Not to mention, there have been incidents of dissidence within the organization about its work that have not been addressed publicly by the organization, something it asks governments to do elsewhere.
TARGETING INDIA
The pattern of accusation and pointing fingers is not an untried modus operandi for Amnesty in its general functioning, but for some ideological and parochial reasons known only to its leadership, India is a unique interest subject of the organization. Over the last decade, Amnesty has covered almost all stories in India that pertain to human rights violations in some form or another. No such violation is inexcusable, and no respectable individual political group or government would say otherwise.
However, portraying such crimes as normal crosses a line between “what’s true” and “what the organization is trying to make true”. India is a vast country with developing world problems, and crime is one persistent issue that, no matter whether the government or the region, is trying to address. But to Amnesty, it seems berating India is convenient and, frankly, it seems to be a good business choice that supports its funders.
Now, one would look at this and say it is Amnesty’s problem with the BJP-led government that manifests in its biased coverage of India. More specifically, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) investigation of the organization for financial crimes, especially in receiving foreign funds that cause such biased coverage. However, a similar case occurred in 2009 when Amnesty International ceased operations in India when Congress was in power. Therefore, it has nothing to do with the government in power.
Instead, Amnesty has a definitive agenda against India that we see portrayed over and over. On the Manipur issue, they wanted the government to take action against the accused, but in Bengal, the “death penalty is never the solution.” Meanwhile, Kashmir seems an all-time favourite topic for them to call out India as a human rights-abusing state despite appreciating all the good things that happened there after the revocation of Article 370.
CONCLUSION
The organization’s track record shows a consistent selection bias, aided by ideological preference, which invites disproportionate coverage of certain issues in certain countries. Indeed, governments underperform, and human evils exist everywhere in the world. But the solution is not to castigate countries in service of ideological leanings and parochial interests. The moral policing by international organizations that flout the same rules they suppose others should follow is the dangerous flipside of these multi-million-dollar organizations. The Indian government’s decision to reveal their financial crimes was necessary. However, countering false narratives by such organizations is more important in this day and age of social media and clickbait culture. And when these organizations support ideas such as not hanging rapists because “death penalty is never the solution,” it is crucial to call out their false crusades. We need to question and discredit these self-entitled paragons of virtue who, under the guise of upholding human rights, serve only their ideological musings.
Prof Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit is the Vice Chancellor of JNU.