When Right and Liberals make common cause, rights take a beating

Like the rest of the country, as I took in the news last week of the Supreme Court upholding the death penalty for the unspeakably inhumane killers, torturers and rapists of a young woman, referred to as 'Nirbhaya', I was struck by the irony in the ongoing pattern of reactions to capital punishment. The irony is that on at least this topic, conservatives and liberals -- the new polarisation in societies world over which became pronounced in India after the BJP won the 2014 Lok Sabha election -- would speak in the same voice. While both groups approach the issue from different angles, their conclusions, logically speaking, should be the same. Religions espouse the sacredness of life, say that only god can judge when we finally stand before him, and emphasise forgiveness as supreme, or at least preferable, for humans. Liberals approach the issue from the point of view of modern study of the human mind, psychology and behavioural sciences, and take the line that instant justice is not a long-term solution; addressing the root cause of violence in society is the only way forward and that reform in some cases is possible. Either way, both the religious Right and the Liberals should oppose the death penalty. Yet, whether it is the hanging of terrorists as ordered by state or that of rapist-murderers, we find liberals and conservatives again divided on the issue, with conservatives baying for blood and calling liberals "bleeding hearts", if not the new hot term, "anti nationals", and liberals opposing capital punishment and sneering at the conservatives as uncouth and uncivilised. Why is it that on this most fundamental issue too, where the two ideologically warring groups have perhaps the highest chance of finding common ground, they are on opposite ends? One reason could be that conservatives, while laying emphasis on religion and religious rights, may or may not be followers of a religion themselves -- we live in times where religion is politicised and political. The other reason could be globalised human rights organisations. Apart from the belief in conservative sections of the Left's bias, and in some cases the bias of the ruling establishment, towards human rights organisations -- which include feminists and secularists -- is the tone they take. They come across as talking down to people from studios, using jargon and behaving like just because they are wearing the human rights badge they are superior humans rather than humble promoters of human rights. This somewhat confrontationist and condescending tone could well be modelled on speech in the West, from which professional human rights organisations have emerged to spread across the world. So it might be a case of an argument lost in tone and translation. Indians, for example, have a hard to define but different manner of speaking and debating. They place great emphasis on politeness -- which is not to say they are more polite or better people, it's just a mannerism. The Western idea of written debate is vastly different, with the mainstream media taking a strong stand during elections, for instance, as opposed to the 'neutrality' our mainstream press tends to maintain, and a generally more robust approach to freedom of speech over all. In our newspapers and formal written speech we still tend to use delicate phrases like "harmony between communities" without naming groups. It has been a criticism of human rights watchdogs that they increase and play on feelings of victimisation of groups, much like politicians do by politicising these feelings, creating more frissons between communities in mixed societies. The theoretical and cold manner in which they spin out jargon does not help. By nature human rights should appeal to the better instincts of people. To turn it into yet another clinical theory parroted at high decibel seems to defeat the purpose, alienate audiences and leaves even sections of the liberals puzzled. Also, in Western societies where liberal population is greater in number, if not seen as predominant --  at least till the surprise win of Donald Trump which took liberals in the US and the world by surprise -- human rights organisations are built to put pressure on Governments to make laws more geared to equality and justice, and to maintain a watch on them. But in conservative societies like India, simultaneously addressing awareness of people cannot be ignored. Yet, human rights activists will keep talking solely one on one in public sphere to Governments with a holier than thou demeanour, coming across as out of touch with audiences, anti-democracy and anti-people, which is of course a highly ironic situation for human rights groups to be in, if you think about it. It is not my argument that human rights should be universally ridiculed or that they are unimportant or dispensable. All kinds of human rights groups are needed in all kinds of societies - those that address Governments as well as those that address people. Human rights groups not having a presence would certainly do more harm. But perhaps human rights groups would do well to learn that like in fashions, fads and foods imported from the West, a remodelling and readjustment of speech would be in order to effectively communicate in other democracies. Of course this would be possible if the promotion of human rights is the agenda, not the personal celebritydom of professional human rights activists. (The writer is an author, blogger and freelance journalist. She tweets at @kanikagahlaut) Disclaimer: The opinions, beliefs and views expressed by the various authors and forum participants on this website are personal and do not reflect the opinions, beliefs and views of ABP News Network Pvt Ltd.