Category Archives: Blog

 Democracy and the Right to Welfare: Reclaiming Human Dignity through Social Rights 

Posted on by
Reply

Thiruppathi P. 

Ph.D. Scholar 

Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC), University of Mysore, India. 

Chair of Comparative Politics SRC 

International Association for Political Science Students (IAPSS) 

Human rights have been touted as the pillars of contemporary democracy, infusing values of freedom, equality, and dignity. While civil and political rights like voting, freedom of speech, and fair treatment under law are touted, social and economic rights are relegated to the background. In order for democracy to be meaningfully inclusive, the right to welfare needs to be accepted as a core human right and not a state-derived indulgence (Beetham, 1999; Sen, 1999). 

This contends that democratic legitimacy is not complete without considering social exclusion and structural inequality—particularly for historically excluded groups such as Dalits in India. The withholding of welfare, dignity, and equal opportunity from the Dalits highlights the imperative necessity of inscribing social rights into the democratic order. Based on the prisms of political communication and rights-based language, this post contends for an expansive understanding of democracy: one that guarantees substantive equality, natural justice, and collective welfare. 

From Political Equality to Social Citizenship 

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) upholds both civil liberties and socio-economic rights (Articles 22–26). However, in practice, democracies often treat the latter as aspirational rather than enforceable. As T.H. Marshall (1950) argued, full citizenship involves not just legal equality but social rights—the right to education, livelihood, and health—which allow people to meaningfully participate in public life. 

Nowhere is this disparity more evident than in the life of Dalits in India. Even with constitutional guarantees and effective political rights, Dalits remain discriminated against in obtaining access to public goods, education, health services, and accommodations (Thorat & Newman, 2010). Their plight best illustrates what democracy 

without welfare rights is like—a society in which formal inclusion camouflages structural exclusion. This is a violation of not just human rights but also the concept of natural justice, which presumes fairness, impartiality, and protection against arbitrary denial of dignity. 

Rhetoric, Framing, and Political Inclusion 

Political communication is a central factor in reinforcing or challenging exclusion. The way in which an issue is “framed” determines public perception and policy measures, as pointed out by Entman (1993). When welfare is framed as an entitlement based on human dignity and natural justice, it enhances democracy; when framed as dependency or burden, it legitimates exclusion. 

In India, social welfare schemes for Dalits—e.g., scholarships, affirmative action, or housing schemes—are frequently articulated not as rights, but as concessions or appeasement. Public opinion and policy enforcement are shaped by this rhetorical articulation, dissolving the moral authority of social justice and intensifying stigma. 

On the other hand, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s call for social democracy rested on the premise that “political democracy cannot last unless it lies at the base of social democracy”. His conceptualization of the abolition of caste and welfare as human rights, and not state charity, is a progressive lesson in rights-based messaging and the moral ethics of natural justice. 

Welfare as a Human Right 

Identifying welfare as a human right changes the state’s role: not to give but to guarantee, not to be benevolent but accountable. This is vital for marginalized groups whose rights are perpetually delayed in practice. When Dalit groups insist on land, education, and healthcare, they are not claiming privilege—they are insisting on justice. These calls ring out in all contexts around the world: Black communities’ fight for social rights in the U.S., Latin American indigenous peoples, or refugees in Europe all attest to a common global shortfall of democratic inclusion. 

By restructuring welfare as a natural justice and democratic equity right, democracies allow the most vulnerable to assert their rightful position in the polity, not merely hope for symbolic representation. 

The Democratic Case for Social Rights 

Real democracy is not just a matter of voting—it’s a matter of living with dignity. When political regimes forget this, they open themselves up to solidifying economic inequality and caste or racial hierarchies, even as they may seem representative. To Dalits, social rights—enshrined through education, employment, access to healthcare, and protection from violence—are not merely a question of survival but of dignity and democratic citizenship. Without them, the promise of equality is rhetorical. 

Democratic democracies will hence need to reimagine participation as incorporating economic agency and social mobility. Welfare programs promoting equality must be articulated not only as state welfare measures but as rights from moral obligations of fairness and justice. 

Conclusion: Democracy as Dignity in Action 

The situation of Dalits in India provides a compelling case of why welfare has to be a fundamental democratic right. It teaches us that civil liberties are insufficient where social structures are oppressive. There can be no genuine democracy until and unless these inequalities are met head on through embedding welfare at the institutional, rhetorical, and ethical levels. By bringing political communication into alignment with a rights-based discourse, and by conceptualizing welfare as a necessary component of citizenship, democracies can become more humane, just, and inclusive. In this vision, human rights are not only safeguards against state tyranny but promises of human flourishing and natural justice—particularly for those who were previously excluded from it. 

References 

Beetham, D. (1999). Democracy and human rights. Polity Press. 

Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x 

Marshall, T. H. (1950). Citizenship and social class. Cambridge University Press. 

Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom Oxford University Press Shaw TM & Heard. The Politics of Africa: Dependence and Development. 

Thorat, S., & Newman, K. S. (Eds.). (2010). Blocked by caste: Economic discrimination and social exclusion in modern India. Oxford University Press. 

United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights 

Internet Shutdowns and Human Rights Violations 

Posted on by
Reply

Laitonjam Muhindro, Ph. D

While internet shutdowns may appear to be an effective strategy for suppressing protests and maintaining order in the short term, they fundamentally infringe upon the fundamental human rights of freedom of expression and the right to access information. These rights are enshrined in Article 19(1)a of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and various United Nations resolutions that guarantee the protection of these freedoms. The implications of these shutdowns extend far beyond the immediate suppression of dissent, raising serious concerns about the long-term impact on democratic values and citizen engagement. This is to understand a comprehensive analysis of the human rights issues associated with the increasing prevalence of internet shutdowns, with a particular focus on the situation in India, specifically in the region of Manipur, as well as a broader global perspective. The study will delve into the various ways in which these shutdowns affect individuals and communities, examining the impact on their ability to exercise their rights and participate in public discourse. The imposition of preventive internet shutdowns by Indian authorities has become a disturbing trend, disrupting the daily lives of ordinary citizens without any conclusive evidence that they are effective in restoring peace and stability. Furthermore, these shutdowns severely impede access to essential information, particularly during times of crisis and emergencies, when access to timely and accurate information is most critical for the safety and well-being of the population.

Internet shutdown is becoming a global phenomenon where the controlling authority is treated as the most convenient and easy tactic to suppress issues immediately in the name of public order.  It is reported that 187 times were in 35 countries around the world during 2022 while compared to 76 times in 2016. Usually, an internet shutdown entails purposefully interfering with electronic communications or the internet to the point that they are rendered completely or partially inoperable. Internet shutdowns have occasionally impacted entire nations, but they usually target a specific population or geographic area to limit the free flow of information in that area. Full and localized shutdowns, bandwidth throttling, and service-based blocking of two-way communication platforms are examples of internet shutdowns, often known as “blackouts” or “kill switches.”

International law has established clear guidelines that acknowledge internet access as an essential requirement for both the practice and fulfillment of human rights, whether in digital spaces or in real life. The UN Human Rights Council has repeatedly stated that “the same rights individuals possess offline must also be safeguarded online” and has urged all nations to improve access to and utilization of the internet to foster the complete realization of human rights for everyone. States frequently depend on the justification of “national security” or “public order” to rationalize the interruption of internet services. In legal disputes concerning internet shutdowns, it is crucial to perform a comprehensive analysis of limitations to demonstrate to a court that a right has been violated and that this limitation fails to satisfy the criteria established by Article 19(3) of the ICCPR.

Necessity and proportionality

At the core of challenging internet shutdowns is demonstrating that such actions infringe upon the rights to freedom of expression and access to information, as well as other rights including health and education. Nevertheless, because freedom of expression is not an absolute right, it can be restricted under specific conditions, but only when such restrictions, in line with international human rights standards, are “established by law” and “essential” to guarantee “the respect for the rights or reputation of others” or for “the safeguarding of national security or public order, or public health or morals.”

Human Rights Values Praxis in India: Vishwaguru with Manual Scavengers

Posted on by
Reply

Ms. Sanghamitra Mallick

BITS Pilani K.K. Birla Goa Campus, India

Introduction

India, the largest liberal democracy with a population of 1.4 billion, is a vibrant subcontinent with a rich historical and cultural legacy and often termed as a “Vishwaguru” cultural leader of the cosmos. The Indian constitution, enacted in 1950 post-Independence, accommodated the aspirations of the vulnerable population while absorbing the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948 by the UN, which serves as a global benchmark for human rights. Despite the fact that India is hailed as a civilizational state and has evolved as a Constitutional democracy, the human rights situation of the marginalised section of the Indian society remains grim, despite the maker of the Indian Constitution Dr. B.R. Ambedkar whose experience as a Dalit was humiliation, denial of dignity and refusal of Human rights, that he has recorded all along through several of his seminal works. In spite of the fact that the Constitution of India abolished untouchability and advocated the dignified treatment of all human beings equally, the situation of the Dalit population nearly seventy years after the enactment of the Republic is precarious in such a manner that a sizeable number of them are involved in manual scavenging. 

Praxis of Human Rights Values from the Spirit of the Constitution 

A dehumanising occupation of manual scavenging, inheriting a social stratification called the caste system, where the dirty job of society is the yardstick for the Dalits, is constitutionally banned in India. While the spirit of the Constitution (Part III) promotes civil and political rights, the first generation of human rights, the constitution makers left the safeguard of socio-economic rights to the provinces of the then Indian Union, given the limitations of resource allocation through constitution as the “Directive Principles of State Policy” (Part IV) of the Indian Constitution. Thus, a Dalit in India, who is voiceless, is positioned between two columns of Constitutional protection. A) His civil rights are protected and he is an equal before the others, and yet B) his economic rights are to be protected by the Provincial Government, which is supposed to operate in fair terms in ensuring Justice, which is yet to be realised. This praxis would explain how and why manual scavenging in India is perpetuated despite the ban in the Constitution 

Institutional Limitations and Implementation Gaps 

The 1993 Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrine (Prohibition) Act fell under the state subject of health and sanitation, and under Article 252(1), applied only to states adopting it through a legislative resolution. The legal provision is unclear; for instance, the punishment clauses do not specify whether the employer or scavenger is liable for punishment or penalty. It is also a conflicting interest, while a scavenger wants to file a case against executive authority, the same authority is also one to grant permission for filing cases against themselves (Gochhayat, 2018). Since it is a state (Provincial Government) subject, adoption and enforcement differ across states, causing uneven implementation. There is no independent body with enough power to address complaints quickly. There is a lack of political will among states to implement it; some states acted only after the Supreme Court’s intervention.  Exploited by the only means of survival, the fear of social stigma, and the fear of losing their livelihood, manual scavengers often avoid reporting, which leads to poor monitoring data. In 2014, the Indian government, under the leadership of PM Narendra Modi, was installing toilets in rural villages to promote ‘open defecation free’ and eradicate manual scavenging in the country as the flagship project named as Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM). But the question is, who is going to clean the septic tanks in the absence of a suction pump (Wilson, 2016)?

Failure of Technological Implementation to Address the Problem in the Age of AI

In this technologically advanced era, there is a continuous dependence on human labour for hazardous tasks like manual scavenging. Indian has the capability to develop cryogenic engines and launch lunar missions, yet we hesitate to invest in technology that eliminates the need for manual toilet cleaning. Despite the fact that at present there are thousands of cases regarding septic tank and sewer deaths in India (Yacoob & Karthik, 2025). 

Conclusion and Recommendation 

Given AI and technological advancements, the mechanising process is feasible. Lawmakers must plan to eradicate this intolerable evil by sufficient budget allocation and concerted implementation of the mechanisation of scavenging in both urban and rural India. Robotic instruments must substitute for humans in getting down the underground drainage system. This is a classic case that depicts the praxis of Human rights Values in India, when a section of its Population hails the Indian State as a Vishwaguru and at the same time, its weaker sections are entrenched in a perpetuated social oppression.

References

Georg, R. (2014, January 28). Brief History of Class and Waste in India. Retrieved from https://longreads.com/2014/01/28/a-brief-history-of-class-and-waste-in-india-2/?

Gochhayat, R. (2018, April 13). Towards Genocide: Upper Caste Policy Over Manual Scavengers. Retrieved from https://www.roundtableindia.co.in/genocide-under-the-upper-caste-leadership/?

Mahananda, J. (2018, November 22). Only Manuwadi Hindutva gang can burn Indian Constitution. Retrieved from https://www.roundtableindia.co.in/only-manuwadi-hindutva-gang-can-burn-indian-constitution-2/

The Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of dry Lartines (Prohibition) Act, 1993. (1993). Retrieved from www.indiacode.nic.in: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1581/1/199346.pdf

Wilson, B. (2016, August 24). Who will clean Swachh Bharat toilets, asks Wilson. Retrieved from https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/Who-will-clean-Swachh-Bharat-toilets-asks-Wilson/article14586879.ece

Yacoob, M., & Karthik, A. (2025, July 28). Let’s raise a stink over manual scavenging in Karnataka. Retrieved from https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/karnataka/2025/Jul/28/lets-raise-a-stink-over-manual-scavenging-in-karnataka

From Rancho Izaguirre, reflections to come

Posted on by
Reply

Miguel Ramírez

Master student in Carlos III University of Madrid

University of Guadalajara

 

The place where I was born and the house where I grew up and lived the most memorable moments of my life is located just 60 kilometers away from Teuchitlán, a municipality in the State of Jalisco, México. Teuchitlán has been on the spotlight among activist and the national and international press in the last few weeks. 

         In Teuchitlán is located Rancho Izaguirre, a property that, in recent days, was secured by Mexican State authorities. This was because it is undeniably the physical space where, without any doubt, actions occurred that have irreversibly destroyed thousands of lives. All the evidence indicates that this place has served as a center of operations where a criminal group trains and disappears people according to their convenience.

The crescendo of the ‘Rancho Izaguirre narrative’ was undeniably triggered by the March 5th dissemination of a harrowing video attributed to the Colectivo de guerreros buscadores de Jalisco/Jalisco Searching Warriors Collective (Franco, Darwin, 2024). documenting their on-site inspection. For an international readership perhaps unfamiliar with this phenomenon, it is crucial to contextualize these collectives as a poignant manifestation of Mexico’s civil society response to the endemic crisis of desaparecidos, disappeared persons crisis. Their emergence underscores the perceived inadequacy and precariousness of the Mexican State’s official response to this profound human rights crisis (Franco, Darwin, 2025a).

These collectives of searchers, essentially grassroots search parties, represent an organized societal endeavor to locate fragmented and concealed human remains across diverse terrains. Confronting sophisticated and disturbing modus operandi of bodily disposal and evidentiary obfuscation, their reason is to provide solace and closure to families grappling with the agonizing ambiguity of disappearance. Operating under duress, these brave individuals often face criminalization from state actors and threats, intimidation, and violence from the very criminal elements seeking to perpetuate their impunity and conceal their barbarity. Undeterred, they venture into the abyss, meticulously documenting the unfathomable horror and savagery that unfolds with impunity across the nation daily.

It is pertinent to underscore here that a significant number of these courageous searchers have themselves fallen victim to assassination at the hands of organized criminal groups, as meticulously documented by the NGO ¿A dónde van los desaparecidos? /Where do the disappeared go? (Nuño, Analy y Ayala Martínez, Aranzazú, 2025).

This grim reality illuminates yet another dark and tragic dimension of this ongoing crisis, an inhumane entrenchment of impunity and the perpetuation of individual, familial, and collective suffering engendered by these disappearances, a chilling attitude that should rightfully terrify and concern us all.

The aforementioned video, capturing the Collective’s entry into the property, offers stark and brutal testimony. The documented scenes are nothing short of an indictment, reflecting the squalor and terror of a nation seemingly adrift in a crisis that elicits insufficient societal introspection, compounded by a tepid and inadequate institutional response. The visual inventory – hundreds of discarded garments and footwear strewn across the Rancho, personal items of individuals who once possessed their liberty and their lives – paints a visceral portrait of loss. The contentious issue of alleged clandestine crematories, purportedly utilized by organized crime to obliterate bodies and conceal homicides, has ignited a national debate, giving rise to the terrifying speculation of extermination camps run by criminal organizations (Ginés, Isabel,2025).

However, the Rancho Izaguirre saga is but another episode within a broader societal and institutional crisis of overwhelming magnitude. In the analytical framework proposed by Mexican researcher Rosana Reguillo, this constitutes yet another grim ‘postcard of horror,’ a stark tableau illuminating the brutal reality of a State seemingly subjugated by the violence and dynamics of the necromáquina, a lethal apparatus of human annihilation operating with near-total impunity across the national landscape (Reguillo, Rossana, 2025), relentlessly extinguishing the lives and liberties of individuals and families.

The disappeared persons crisis– brutally exposed at Rancho Izaguirre – undoubtedly represents the most harrowing manifestation of this necromáquina. The staggering statistics of disappeared persons in Mexico underscore the inescapable responsibility of the Mexican State. According to official government data, as of April 18, 2025, the number of individuals not located stands at a staggering 127,280 (The National Search Commission for Persons/Comisión Nacional de Busqueda, 2025). Pervasive impunity severely hinders the ability to definitively attribute culpability for these disappearances. An overwhelming majority of cases never reach judicialization. In its latest report on disappearances in Mexico, the United Nations Committee Against Forced Disappearance concluded that a mere 2% to 6% of cases have been brought before the courts, with only 36 convictions nationwide (United Nations Committee on Enforced Disappearances,2022). In 2023, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights noted the paltry figure of just 40 convictions for this crime, urging Mexico to rectify this trajectory of profound impunity (United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2023) While these figures are subject to updates and minor numerical variations, the near-absolute impunity surrounding this crime remains as an undisputed reality.

This context compels the conclusion that a robust and reliable information source for definitively establishing legal culpability for disappearances remains elusive. Nevertheless, it is a widely acknowledged fact that a significant proportion of disappearances have been perpetrated by crime organizations, often with the complicity or omission of state agents, as detailed within the aforementioned UN report.

Recently, on April, 2025, the Committee on Enforced Disappearances concluded that disappearances in Mexico occur in a systematic and widespread manner, a reality that led the Committee to activate for the first time the Article 34 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons against Enforced Disappearance (Nucamendi, Marcos, 2025). Thus, the repercussions and possibilities surrounding this mechanism warrant a discussion for another time.

The necessary reflection, therefore, transcends the purely legal realm, yet crucially requires its foundation. In Mexico, the impunity surrounding the disappeared crisis is not merely a statistic; it represents a profound absence, a vital and social void. A disappeared human is absent from their life, from a specific place and environment where they are awaited, and thus perpetually missing. However, this absence extends to the collective consciousness. Impunity signifies the absence of an history, a narrative that must be reclaimed by our public institutions if we are to function as a community committed to justice and truth, and if our institutions are to respond to this fundamental yearning. Addressing this crisis requires dismantling impunity and contemplating how to transcend this devastating reality by learning from it, and mostly, honoring the memory of the hundreds of thousands of victims. Rancho Izaguirre stands as another harrowing tableau, which, while instilling fear and revulsion, must serve as a catalyst for a profound and urgently needed collective reflection on the excessive violence that plagues Mexico.

To contemplate the victims and to endeavor to reclaim their memory, articulating through our institutions a truth, even if merely juridical—as first step—, regarding these systematic and widespread outrages, is an imperative. The alternative consigns us to the Arendtian banality of evil (Arendt, Hannah, 2016), where an absence of reflection stands as fertile ground for mass violations of individual dignity. The crisis of violence in Mexico —the necromáquina—compounded by a pervasive impunity sustained by an overwhelming and inexplicable institutional and social normalization, a sort of lack of a proper construction of the collective memory in the way Hartog presents it (Hartog, François, 2007). This underscores the urgent need for a reflection that has yet to fully materialize but must come: a collective consensus that positions human dignity as the very nucleus of communal and individual action within Mexico.

As I was making the finals corrections to this text, the devastating news reaches me: María del Carmen Morales, who was searching for her disappeared son, Julian, since the beginning of 2024, committed member of the Colectivo guerreros buscadores de Jalisco —the collective that found and documented the atrocities of the Izaguirre ranch —and her son, Jaime Ramírez Morales, have been brutally murdered in Tlajomulco, Jalisco (Franco, Darwin, 2025b). This is undeniably another grim snapshot of the pervasive violence that destroys families and communities with total impunity across México. 

References. 

If You’re a Libertarian, Why Don’t You Support Reparations?

Posted on by
Reply

Juan Pablo Carbajal-Camberos 

PhD candidate Carlos III University of Madrid

In recent years, the “libertarian rhetoric” has gained ground in several Latin American countries through political, business, and religious channels. However, I believe there is a widespread misinterpretation of libertarian principles within the political sphere, leading to glaring inconsistencies and significant intellectual deficiencies.

One of the most notorious examples is the case of Javier Milei in Argentina, a —self-proclaimed— libertarian who fervently advocates for the destruction of the state. He has gone so far as to declare himself “the one who destroys the state from within” (sic), while promoting the privatization of public goods and the free market as a reductionist solution to all social problems. But if those who define themselves as libertarians believe that the market is the only legitimate arbiter of social relations, why do they unconditionally discard compensations when the original appropriations are clearly unequal?

The philosopher Robert Nozick, one of the most prominent theoretical figures of contemporary libertarianism or conservative liberalism—and frequently paraphrased by Milei—formulated a robust and profound conception of justice based on self-ownership, merit, and voluntary contract. Yet even Nozick—much to the surprise of many libertarians—admits that there are historical circumstances (such as slavery, colonialism, or dispossession) that result in unjust appropriations and would require compensation. In other words, Nozick himself admits that a libertarian society cannot be built without first addressing these injustices through substantive reparations.

This point is essential in deconstructing the false ‘libertarian narrative’ often boosted by economic aristocracies. A true libertarian could not endorse a society that privileges freedom without guaranteeing equal conditions for exercising that freedom in competition—could they? If they genuinely valued liberty as a fundamental and guiding principle of society, wouldn’t they seek mechanisms to enable more citizens to achieve higher levels of freedom?

Far from the ideals of the theoretical founders of libertarianism, contemporary libertarian proposals are more akin to a dystopia—like the one illustrated in the film In Time, where the rich live forever and the poor struggle to survive a single day—than the kind of libertarian societies imagined, for instance, by Robert Nozick.

There is, therefore, a fundamental contradiction in today’s self-proclaimed libertarians. They often invoke the names of great libertarian thinkers while ignoring their warnings (or perhaps they didn’t finish reading them). They reject progressive taxation, affirmative action, market regulation, and any attempt at wealth redistribution as threats to some “natural” order. But if they accept that historical injustices exist, how can they advocate for a “free” market that begins from radically unequal starting points?

Many libertarians present their ideology as a pure defense of liberty. But what they often defend is the freedom of the most powerful—the freedom to maintain privilege, not to level the playing field. This view justifies and reproduces structural inequalities under the camouflage of merit. In practical terms, if you were a serious libertarian, you would intuitively accept some egalitarian premises.

True freedom—the kind that allows people to live without fear, without hunger, and with real opportunities—cannot emerge in highly unequal societies or flourish atop historical injustices. To be a serious libertarian, start by demanding equal amounts of liberty and fair chances to access it. Otherwise, what you are defending is not freedom but modern barbarism.

The hijacking of Human Rights discourse: political manipulation and loss of impact

Posted on by
Reply

José Daniel Rodríguez Arrieta

Professor and Researcher at the School of Political Science, University of Costa Rica

Human rights PhD candidate in Carlos III University of Madrid

Human rights, born from the 1948 Universal Declaration as a beacon of justice and universal dignity, are now hijacked by political and social forces that turn them into a tool, abandoning their historical vocation. This phenomenon is not merely a historical accident but a process in which human rights discourse has been shaped and manipulated to serve ideological and geopolitical interests.

We understand discourse as a set of linguistic and symbolic practices that not only reflect reality but also construct it. Discourses are not neutral; they are vehicles of power that shape how societies understand and defend fundamental values such as justice, freedom, and equality. The discourse on human rights, therefore, does not merely respond to an ideal or the need to protect people—it has also become a battlefield where meanings are negotiated and different forms of power are deployed.

In this context, the appropriation of human rights discourse by political actors has led to a distortion that weakens its transformative power. A clear example is the culture war that has defined the relationship between the ultra-conservative right and progressive movements, particularly concerning the so-called “woke culture.” Donald Trump, in his attempt to delegitimize struggles for racial and gender equity, has turned the debate into a dichotomy between the defense of “individual rights” and what he calls “progressive authoritarianism.” This discourse, filled with terms like “freedom of speech” and “reverse discrimination,” empties historical struggles for the rights of the most vulnerable of their substantive content.

On the other hand, progressive movements have also engaged in the instrumentalization of human rights discourse. By placing inclusion and diversity struggles at the center, they have created a sort of discursive orthodoxy that allows no dissent. The defense of LGBTQ+ rights or the rights of racial minorities, in many cases, has given way to strategies that can lead to the censorship of dissenting opinions, paradoxically undermining the very defense of human rights.

From an international relations perspective, the manipulation of human rights discourse becomes even more evident in today’s geopolitical dynamics. Western powers, for instance, have positioned themselves as defenders of international humanitarian law in certain conflicts while applying a double standard in others. The support for Ukraine after the Russian invasion is a clear example: sanctions and international condemnation of Russia are based on the defense of human rights and the right to self-determination of peoples. However, this same fervor is not applied with the same intensity when it comes to Palestine, where human rights violations by Israel have been minimized or even ignored by the international community, exposing the hypocrisy of an international system that fails to apply its principles consistently—an international system that once prided itself on being grounded in human rights principles.

At the same time, authoritarian governments like Viktor Orbán’s in Hungary have adopted human rights language to justify regressive and ultranationalist policies. Orbán has presented his anti-LGBTQ+ laws as a “protection of traditional family values,” appealing to the right of nations to preserve their own principles. In Russia, Vladimir Putin invokes the defense of “traditional values” to justify political repression and the criminalization of dissent, cloaking his authoritarianism in the guise of human rights while actually stripping them of their emancipatory content.

This hijacking of human rights discourse presents a legitimacy crisis both nationally and internationally. When human rights are instrumentalized as a means to achieve specific political ends, they lose their ability to inspire profound and universal social reforms. The rhetoric of human rights, instead of being a force for justice, becomes a tool of power, selectively used depending on geopolitical or ideological contexts.

To restore the transformative power of human rights, it is essential to detach them from partisan and political agendas. This requires a reassessment of their universal character and a commitment to accountability that ensures their consistent application in all contexts. A critical and profound reflection is necessary—not only to dismantle current manipulations but also to reinvent a vision of human rights as a principle of global and universal justice.

Only in this way can human rights regain their credibility and once again serve as an authentic tool for social and political justice.

The UN at 79: Navigating Neutrality in a Divided World

Posted on by
Reply

Furqan Ahmed 

Senior Research Associate, South Asia Research Institute for Minorities (SARIM). Secretary, Research Committee 26 RC26 – Human Rights, General Research Coordinator, International Association of Political Science Students, IAPSS.

Introduction:

October 24, 2024 marks the commemoration of the ‘United Nations Day’ and this blog is dedicated to celebrate the birth of United Nations with an aim as whistleblower, highlight the challenges the UN faces in effectively addressing global peace in a divided world. The emergence of the United Nations took place on October 24, 1945 as a result of one of the most horrific wars human beings have ever witnessed. The United Nations (UN) was established by its member states, which then created a new primary body of international law and human rights that is regulated by the International Bill of Human Rights, a set of five treaties that each state has ratified in compliance with its own domestic laws on foreign commitments. 

Before we begin our dissection on why the UN is failing in maintaining global peace, we will dive into some of its major achievements, which are tantamount to success rather than failure

Here are three pillars, which define the UN’s significance achievements:  

  1. Fight against poverty, hunger, and health related initiatives: The United Nation provides food and financial assistance to over 80 million people, while, it provide aid to more than 69 million people who have fled their homeland due to persecution, conflict, or human rights violation. Along with that, the UN facilitates 45% of the world’s children with vaccines, saving as estimated 2 to 3 million lives.  
  2. Efforts for upholding Human Rights through: 
  3. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
  4. International Convention on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights
  5. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
  6. Decolonization: Before its inception in 1945, there was a massive network of Colonizers across the world, 750 million people lived under the colonial regime. The numbers have been trickled down to 2 million people today. 

Despite these monumental achievements, the UN is still under immense pressure, be it the financial crunch, post Covid-19 and the other bulging challenges regarding maintaining a massive influx of migrants caused by two of contemporary regional conflicts of Russo-Ukraine War and Middle-East crisis, and climate change. 

Critical Analysis: 

The outbreak of the Russo-Ukraine war on February 24, 2022, and the ongoing crisis in Gaza are stark reminders that contemporary conflicts are not isolated events but rather the culmination of decades of unresolved tensions. As war experts warn of the potential for these conflicts to escalate into a global confrontation, including the frightening prospect of World War III, it is crucial to examine the effectiveness of international organizations tasked with maintaining peace.

The purpose of the following commentary is to examine the causes, which is making the UN a ‘toothless tiger. At first place, why it [UN] failed to prevent these two recent wars, while on the second place, why this intergovernmental organization is failing to maintain neutrality in establishing global peace.

Numerous independent reports document gross human rights violations in conflict zones, where innocent civilians bear the brunt of war. The UN’s failure to act decisively in these situations raises critical questions about its effectiveness as a peacekeeping body. Why has the UN struggled to prevent recent wars, and what specific cases illustrate its compromised neutrality?

“The author also gave a reference to his interaction with Prof. Dr. Heinz-Dietrich Steinmeyer in a podcast that took place on October 10, 2024 titled “Social Security and Minority Rights: Lessons from Europe for South Asia”. In response to a question to Prof. Steinmeyer, that “do you really think that UN is failing to maintain neutrality and in establishing global peace”, the guest responded that, is the world ready to live a peaceful life, that is the reason UN is becoming extremely compulsive in maintaining neutrality, because you sometimes have to deal with the good-one and the bad ones”

Is the UN on the verge of become the League of Nations 2.0?  

The following proposition will explore the similarities in the failure of the League of Nations with its replacing counterpart, the United Nations, in maintaining global peace and why it is heading towards repeating the same mistakes, which caused the demise of the League of Nations and the outbreak of World War II. 

Historical Background: 

Historically, the League of Nations provides a compelling case study of the failures in global governance. Established after World War I to prevent future conflicts, the League ultimately faltered in the 1930s, unable to respond effectively to aggression from rising powers. This historical precedent raises important questions about the current role of the United Nations (UN) and its ability to learn from past mistakes. The main reason gave birth to the creation of an intergovernmental organization, known as the United Nations, was the miserable failure of the League, the first intergovernmental organization that was established after the World War I, which was built of the principles of maintaining international peace, achieving international cooperation, and being a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.  

Reasons behind the failures of League of Nations: 

The League of Nations was sandwiched between aggressor nations [Germany, Italy, and Japan] and the abysmal performance of its own members [Britain and France], failing to appease Hitler – actions that arguably led to the outbreak of World War II. The member states became hostile to each other as a result of the ‘World Economic Depression’ in the late 1930s. The overtaking of fascist dictatorships in Germany, Italy, and Japan, which were intended for empire-building, and these countries defied the League.

   

Can the UN adapt its strategies to overcome historical pitfalls and effectively maintain global peace in the face of contemporary challenges?

 

 “76 years and half a trillion dollars later, the international community is divided on the effectiveness of the United Nations. Overall, the UN has a positive international image but the partisan divide over supporting the UN has widened, particularly in the United States. The United States’ perception of the UN is important since the United States is the largest donor to the UN and accounts for roughly 20% of the UN’s collective budget”

Katelyn Balakir

The effectiveness of the United Nations remains a contentious issue, with a positive international image overshadowed by a widening partisan divide, particularly in the U.S., which contributes 20% of the UN’s budget. While the UN has achieved significant successes in humanitarian aid, human rights, and decolonization, it faces critical limitations, including enforcement challenges, Security Council inaction, and perceptions of Western dominance, all of which hinder its peacekeeping efforts and future operations amid financial constraints and fluctuating political support from member states.

Role in Peacekeeping Missions Globally: 

Rwanda Genocide (1994): The genocide of Rwanda in 1994, despite wary of impeding violence, the mandate holder, the United Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNIMAR), lacked resources and the UN’s reluctance to mediate vehemently exhibited genocide to escalate, which caused innocent civil casualties.  

Bosnia (1992-1995):  The UN even couldn’t even protect its safe zones for civilians in Srebrenica; the Bosnian Serb forces violated attacked Peacekeepers from Netherlands [Dutch]. As a result of the UN’s inactiveness, more than 8,000 Bosniak men and boys were massacred. 

Syria (2011 Present):  The ineffectiveness of mediating the current conflict in Syria presents a case study of human rights defenders. Additionally, the use of chemical weapons and the humanitarian crisis have further complicated the UN’s neutrality, as various member states have been accused of using the UN as a platform to advance their geopolitical interests, rather than genuinely seeking a resolution.

Myanmar (Rohingya Crisis):  Once again, the UN’s ineptness forming a robust political stance against the Myanmar Government raised disbelief about its commitment to fairness. That is why the Rohingya Crisis is still unsettled and the UN faces hostile response for being slow in response. Critics argue that the UN’s focus on humanitarian aid has overshadowed the need for accountability and justice. 

Yemen (2015-present): This crisis is regarded as perhaps world’s worst humanitarian crisis. The United Nations is under extreme pressure for failing to hold parties accountable for violations of International Laws, particularly the Saudi-led coalition’s actions. It is perceived that the UN holds soft corner or passive in resolving and addressing these issues. 

These conflicts and crises provided the intricacies and challenges the UN faces in sustaining impartiality whereas resolving complicated conflicts. They accentuate the need for reorganization and a preemptive approach to conflict resolution to rebuild trust in its capacity to mediate fairly and effectively.

In conclusion, as we navigate an increasingly volatile world, it is imperative to critically assess the role of the UN and other international organizations. By learning from the lessons of the past and addressing their shortcomings, we may foster a more effective approach to maintaining global peace and security. 

Title: Biotechnology in the New Age: Exploring Its Synergy with AI, Economy, Policy, Entrepreneurship, and IPR

Posted on by
Reply

                                                                            Anju Gupta.

                                                                                  Head Department of Political Science

                                                                                  JECRC University, JAIPUR (India)

Introduction:

Ah, biotechnology—a field that started out studying the tiny mysteries of life and has now become a full-fledged celebrity in science, stealing the limelight from even AI and blockchain at times. But don’t worry, this isn’t one of those stuffy science blogs. We’re here to mix biochemistry with a dash of humor and dive into how biotech is cozying up to some new-age trends like AI, economics, policy-making, entrepreneurship, and the ever-important intellectual property rights (IPR). Spoiler alert: It’s a fascinating ride.

 AI and Biotechnology: The Dynamic Duo We Didn’t Know We Needed

It was inevitable that Artificial Intelligence and Biotechnology would become best friends eventually. AI has been flexing its muscles in almost every industry imaginable, but in biotech, it’s like that one friend who brings the coolest gadgets to a dinner party.

– Drug Discovery: AI helps biotech companies find new drugs faster than a teenager skipping through Netflix options. By analyzing massive amounts of biological data, AI can predict which molecules are most likely to be the next big cure. While biotech is occupied with lab work, AI is there to whisper in its ear, ‘Hey, give this one a try.’ You might like it.”

– Genetic Engineering: AI-powered CRISPR technologies are on the rise, and no, we’re not talking about a new kitchen appliance. With AI’s help, scientists can now edit genes with the precision of a chef slicing a perfect avocado. This means better crops, healthier humans, and probably a few overly excited startup founders.

Together, AI and biotechnology are like Batman and Robin, except instead of fighting crime, they’re solving the mysteries of life. And no capes are involved—yet.

 The Economy: Biotech’s Financial Glow-Up

Biotechnology isn’t just for science nerds in lab coats anymore. No, it’s a full-blown economic powerhouse. Investors are investing in biotech startups as if it were the next cryptocurrency boom (with less volatility, mostly).

– Investment Trends: Biotechnology startups are now a hot ticket item. Venture capitalists are chasing them down like they’re handing out free kombucha at a tech conference. Investors are drawn to Biotech’s promise of revolutionary cures, treatments, and eco-friendly solutions. The sector is expected to hit new highs—think more IPOs and a few more yachts for those early investors.

– Job Creation: Biotech is not just creating new drugs and therapies; it’s creating jobs. From lab researchers to marketing gurus (because even gene therapy needs a brand), the industry is bolstering the economy like a protein shake for job growth.

Sure, we may not see biotechnology sponsoring the Super Bowl halftime show anytime soon, but give it a few years. 

 Policy-Making: When Science Meets Suit-and-Tie World

If you think biotech is complicated, try navigating the maze of policies and regulations around it. Policymakers act as the grown-ups in the room, trying to figure out how to allow biotech to proceed without causing a Jurrasic Park scenario.

– Ethical Debates: Should we tweak human genes? Is it okay to modify crops? These aren’t just dinner table conversation starters anymore—they’re real issues that governments are tackling. And unlike your family’s Thanksgiving debates, these come with actual consequences.

– Regulatory Hurdles: New biotech breakthroughs like CRISPR or lab-grown meat can’t just be tossed into the market. Regulations are necessary to ensure safety, but they also can slow down innovation. It’s a bit like having to explain every step of a complicated dance to a judge before you can actually perform it. Fun? Not so much. Necessary? Absolutely.

On the bright side, once policy catches up, biotech innovations usually make a splash. Plus, we can all agree that no one wants unregulated genetic experiments running amok. Thanks, government.

 Entrepreneurship: Startups, Unicorns, and Biotech Millionaires

In the old days, if you wanted to make millions, you started an app or launched a podcast. But now, biotech entrepreneurship is the new gold rush. Forget social media influencers—bio-entrepreneurs are the next superstars.

– Startups Everywhere: Biotech startups are springing up like mushrooms after a rainstorm. Whether it’s gene-editing therapies, next-gen agriculture, or synthetic biology, there’s a startup for it. And these aren’t just hobby projects; many of them have real potential to change the world (and maybe even get a Netflix documentary).

– Challenges: Sure, starting a biotech company might sound glamorous, but it’s not all pipettes and venture capital. The costs are high, the timelines are long, and there’s always the small issue of actually getting your product through regulatory approvals. Still, for those who can navigate the murky waters, the rewards can be astronomical. 

Biotech entrepreneurs are living the dream—if your dream includes FDA paperwork and petri dishes.

 Intellectual Property Rights (IPR): The Unsung Hero of Biotech

In biotechnology, intellectual property rights (IPR) are as important as lab coats. Without strong IPR protection, innovation in biotech would look like a game of Monopoly without the rules—and trust us, nobody wants that chaos.

– Patents Galore: Biotech inventions are patent-heavy. Whether it’s a new cancer drug or a genetically modified crop, patents help companies protect their work. But navigating biotech patents can feel like playing chess against a very strict librarian—one wrong move, and your company could be out.

– Challenges: IPR in biotech can get thorny. Who owns the rights to a modified gene? Can someone really patent a part of the human body? These types of questions are what make IPR lawyers both necessary and somewhat intimidating. But at the end of the day, strong IPR ensures that the people who spend years developing new technologies get to reap the rewards.

Just remember: in biotech, patents aren’t just a piece of paper—they’re the backbone of innovation.

Conclusion:

The focus of biotechnology is no longer solely on curing diseases or creating genetically modified plants. In ways that are both surprising and exciting, this field is interconnecting with some of the most significant new-age trends, including AI, the economy, policy-making, entrepreneurship, and intellectual property rights. And while the journey might be full of twists, turns, and the occasional government form, biotech is undoubtedly carving its place in the future.

In the end, whether you’re a budding bio-entrepreneur, a policy-maker scratching your head, or just someone curious about the future of humanity, biotechnology is a field worth watching—and maybe even chuckling about along the way.

A World in Peril: Climate Change and the Erosion of Human Rights

Posted on by
Reply

 

Dr. Uzma Shujjat

Director, Area Study Centre for Europe

University of Karachi

Climate Change is a human rights threat with causes and consequences that cross borders; thus, it requires a global response underpinned by international solidarity. States should share resources, knowledge, and technologies to address climate change. Climate change is one of the greatest threats to human rights of our generation, posing a serious threat to the fundamental rights to life, health, food, and an adequate standard of living of individuals and communities across the world. 

The dramatic impact of climate change has exposed devastating clarity and the integral of a healthy environment to the benefit of all our other rights. Climate change is intimately linked with human rights because of its effect on not only the environment but also our own well-being and ultimately our survival. Big powers, especially from higher-income countries with the greatest historical responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions, are not fulfilling their responsibilities.  

World leaders, especially those from the developed world, have the greatest responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions and do not fulfill their legal obligations to address climate change and help, in the long run, adapt to the change that has already occurred.  If these developed ones are not going to respond seriously and act quickly, the effects of the unprecedented weather conditions of frequent heat waves, excessive flooding, and rainfall will continue to rise and worsen over time, creating a threat for current and future generations. Thus, the failure of governments to act in a responsible manner to address the crises accompanying scientific evidence and frequent dialers and predictions may well be the biggest intergovernmental human rights violation in human history. 

In addition to the Government, the corporate sector is responsible for addressing and respecting human rights in the context of climate change.  The impact of climate change includes warming temperatures, changes in precipitation, and increases in the frequency or intensity of extreme weather, and rising sea levels.

These impacts threaten our health by affecting the food we eat, water we drink, air we breathe, and weather we experience.  The human actions that affect climate change, such as burning fossil fuels, cutting down forests, and farming livestock, have increasingly influenced the climate and the earth’s temperature. According to Resolution 53/6 July 2023, the council recognized the importance of minimizing and addressing the loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change. 

The dangers of climate change are particularly important for Children. Climate change has threatened livelihoods in the last decade, and international, regional, and national Human Rights bodies have recorded a rise in human rights violations in accordance with climate change. Here, we consider some high-risk human rights violations that are solely connected with livelihoods. 

Access to clean water climate change is meagerly affecting and will continue to affect rising trends and the availability, accessibility, and affordability of water. This was mostly due to natural degradation changes and anthropogenic factors. Large corporate sectors are highly responsible for large-scale damage to the water system, contamination, and poor quality of water, which are sources of amenities. The right to life and climate change have a vital connection; sudden extreme weather events due to changes in the natural system, such as heat waves, wildfires, excessive flooding, and rainfall, usually lead to people losing their lives, resulting in a very high death toll, right to health, and food.      

Political Impact of Climate Change: The Case of Bangladesh

Posted on by
Reply

Dr. M. Shahrukh Shahnawaz

Writer is a lawyer, 

Member of the Environmental Committee of the Sindh High Court Bar Association Karachi,

&

The Faculty of Department of International Relations, University of Karachi

.

The interim government of Bangladesh under Muhammad Yunus, after the ouster of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajid by the student protest, is facing its first challenge, which is the death, devastation, and destruction caused by the recent floods, as nearly 300,000 people are taking refuge in emergency shelters, while the student leader in the cabinet accused India of deliberately releasing water from dams. 

The fall of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajid is also a stark reminder that economic growth and development do not ensure political stability if human rights are being trampled. According to the Human Rights Watch, in 2023, ahead of the 2024 general elections, the authorities started making mass arrests of opposition members and using excessive force against protestors.  

Amnesty International reported that the government intensified its crackdown on the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly ahead of elections, including abusing the Digital Security Act and other legislation to target journalists and human rights defenders, subjecting them to arbitrary detention and torture, and not being held accountable for enforced disappearances and custodial deaths. 

However, the present interim government can face the same fate as the government of the father of Bangladesh Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in 1975, whose government was unable to respond to the destruction caused by the 1970 Bhola Cyclone, followed by 1974 famine, eventually leading to the declaration of emergency by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman government, followed by his assination, and a long military rule.   

The 1970 Bhola Cyclone led to the 1971 Pakistani Civil War, between West Pakistan and East Pakistan, which later turned into the 1971 Pakistan-India War, and saw the fall of Dhaka and East Pakistan, and the emergence of Bangladesh. The people of East Pakistan had many grievances from the government of West Pakistan especially the fishermen community of the East Pakistan, whose rights and plight were raised and shared by the great Faiz Ahmad Faiz, in his movie Jago Hua Savera (1959), based on the Bengali novel Padma Nadir Majhi, by Manik Bandopadhyay, which is a 1936 novel, depicted the plight of the Bengali fishermen residing on the banks of Padma river during the British colonial rule. The Bengal region paid heavy attention to British colonialism during the 1943 Bengal Famine, which killed around three million people and was a manmade disaster, primarily driven by the war policy of the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. 

Bangladesh has learned from its previous historical and political experiences pertaining to floods, famines, and cyclones, and made history when the Supreme Court of Bangladesh declared all its rivers a living entity in 2019, contributing to the development of the rights of rivers. 

Both India and Bangladesh fear China’s construction of dams in Tibet along a bend in the river, in the vicinity of the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, on the Yarlung Tsangpo River, known as the Brahmaputra River in India. For India, this project could trigger flash floods or create water scarcity, or give China strategic leverage over India on border disputes in the Himalayan mountains, while Bangladesh claims that it is more adversely affected than India, as the Brahmaputra River is important for sustaining Bangladesh’s livelihood and agriculture, especially in the dry season, potentially and possibly causing displacement. 

Both India and Bangladesh share 54 rivers and signed the Ganga Waters Treaty in December 1996, announced in 2024 that both sides had started technical negotiations to renew it. Before the government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajid toppled in August 2024, climate change caused the displacement of coastal communities, adversely affected farmers and the agriculture sector, and caused the death of farmers due to lightning. These and other environment-related causes have contributed to the uprising against the government, which has been overshadowed by student protests. The government took some remarkable steps, such as building resilient homes and providing job opportunities for climate refugees, but this was not enough.   

Bangladesh has suffered and survived many environmental disasters since British colonial rule. Its story and struggle provide lessons and warnings to other South Asian countries to seriously threaten the environment, as it has serious political implications.   The challenges for the present interim government of Bangladesh are immense, but the first one pertains to environmental disasters, exacerbated by climate change, and unless it is ready and willing to accept the environmental threat as a reality, it might end up facing the same fate as the first government of Bangladesh did in 1975.