The Sikh for Justice (SFJ) had filed the case of alleged human rights violations against Mr Badal last year, but it was dismissed by a US district court in Wisconsin last Friday.

The group said it will appeal against the order in the US Court of Appeals asking for a remand to depose Mr Badal personally before a US Federal Judge on the issue of the service of summons

SFJ has retained the services of a top Chicago based law firm and famed Super Lawyers “Pavich Law Group” with Ian Levin, a former US federal judge, who have experience in cases related to human rights violations filed under Alien Tort Claims Act and Torture Victim Protection Act, the rights group said in a statement.

In its order, the US District Court in Wisconsin on May 17 ruled that Mr Badal was never served with the court summons as being claimed by the New York-based Sikh for Justice, which had filed the case against him.

In fact judge Jynn Adelman, in his five page order, said that Sikh for Justice came out with “creative” but unconvincing argument that the court summons were served to Mr Badal, which indeed was served by Christopher Kratochvil and his brother on behalf of SFJ to another Surinderpal Singh Kalra, believing that he was the Punjab Chief Minister.

“I have no doubt that Christopher Kratochvil and his brother sincerely believe that they served defendant, but I conclude that they made an honest mistake, one that was understandable under the unusual circumstances of this case,” the judge wrote.

In a statement, SFJ said the appeal to the US Circuit Court will be based on that “Judge Adelman erred in his ruling while dismissing the law suit on the ground that it is a simple case of “mistaken identity” and a US Department of Justice interpreter received the summons instead of Mr Badal”.

Mr Badal and his attorney, backed up by strong evidence from the State Department which had provided him the necessary diplomatic security, argued that the Chief Minister was not at the Oak Creek School when Kratochvill brothers claimed that they served summons to him on behalf of Sikh for Justice.

The State Department testified before the court that Mr Badal was shopping at a restaurant supply store, some 17 miles from the Oak Creek School.

The judge in his order said that Sikh for Justice in an attempt to “overcome the strong evidence” in favor of Mr Badal, made “a number of creative arguments” but none are convincing.

Sikh for Justice in its court case alleged that Mr Badal violated the Torture Victim Protection Act and the Alien Tort Statute in Punjab.

Source: NDTV, 2o/05/2013: http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/sikh-rights-group-to-challenge-dismissal-of-case-against-punjab-chief-minister-in-us-369026)

The Association said that it would submit a memorandum to the Indian Home Ministry and other officials in New Delhi seeking prosecution against the troops and police personnel involved in human right abuses.

As part of their public contact programme in Srinagar, the President of the Association, M.U. Dua, said that his association strongly believed that the troops and police personnel should maintain the dignity of human rights and those involved in their violation should be punished without any delay or favour. “We will not hesitate to write to home ministry and others to initiate proceedings against those involved in human rights violations,” he maintained.

The AIHRA President said that purpose of his visit to occupied Kashmir was to inform people, particularly youth, about their human, political and social rights.

M.U. Dua said that on May 1, they started their 224-day journey from Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, to visit occupied Kashmir, Indian States and SAARC countries to inform the people about their rights.

The human rights group also distributed pamphlets among the people in Lal Chowk in which a message was given to them about their rights.

(Source: Kashmir Media Service, 21/05/2013: http://www.kmsnews.org/news/2013/05/21/moulvi-farooq-khwaja-lone-remembered.html)

Rebeca Grynspan is considered a strong contender and possibly the front runner for the post. Grynspan is the former Vice President of Costa Rica and currently serves as an Associate Administrator at UNDP. An elections official at the Costa Rican permanent mission in New York stated to Global Memo that the Latin American and Caribbean region is eager to keep the post.

Lakshmi Puri is the current Acting Executive Director, stepping in shortly after Bachelet’s resignation. A source with a leading U.S. human rights group however suggests that few women’s rights groups see her as preferred successor to Bachelet. In December, her husband, Ambassador Hardeep Singh Puri, wrapped up his presence on the UN Security Council as India’s 2-year term on the body concluded. What impact his influence will have his wife’s candidacy and the selection is of particular interest.

Radhika Coomaraswamy, the former special advisor to the Secretary General on Children and Armed Conflict, is looked upon more favorably by women’s groups, according to the same source. She had been under consideration in 2010. From Sri Lanka, she is currently a visiting scholar at New York University’s Center for Constitutional Transitions.

Tarja Halonen, former President of Finland, is also rumored to be a nominee. Like Coomaraswamy, she had also been nominated in 2010, but was not seriously considered as the Secretary General was reportedly seeking a woman from the Global South to head up the new agency initially.

Kim Campbell, the former and first female Prime Minister of Canada, confirmed she has been nominated by her government in mid-April after its leaked in Azerbaijani media reports. Ms. Campbell was the former board chair at the International Women’s Forum and the Council of Women World Leaders. She now sits on the board of the International Crisis Group.

Nyaradzayi Gumbonzvanda is currently the General Secretary of the World YWCA. She is a trained human rights lawyer from Zimbabwe with extensive experience in conflict resolution and mediation, including 20 years experience on issues of women and children’s human rights, with a special focus on crisis countries.

If the process unfolds as it did in 2010, the Secretary General’s senior appointment team will vet the nominees and present to Mr. Ban a short list of three candidates. Following interviews with each, Ban will make the final decision on whom he will appoint to take over the post. The 2010 vetting process and selection was wrapped up in 7 weeks, in part to have the first Executive Director in place before the General Assembly convened. Last month, John Hendra, Associate Executive Director at UN Women, noted that a new search could take up to three months.

But if this year’s process is less competitive, i.e. fewer than 25+ candidates as in 2010, we may see a nominee before the body’s Executive Board meets at the end of June or shortly thereafter.

Unlike in 2010, women’s groups have been very unengaged in regards to the transparency of the Secretary General’s selection or qualifications of any of the candidates. Women Thrive is not active on the race this year, nor is the GEAR campaign, which spearheaded efforts in ensuring the 2010 candidates were highly qualified for the post.

The only NGO known to be engaging in any meaningful way this year is the Association for Women in Development (AWID), which plans to interview each candidate. William Pace, Executive Director of WFM/IGP, stated that “it would be best if the SGs process were more transparent.”

As expected, the Secretary General’s office is officially tight-lipped on the candidates, refusing even to confirm the final number of nominees received.

(Source: Global Memo 14/05/2012 : http://globalmemo.org/2013/05/14/six-nominees-for-un-women/)

A Pakistani human rights activist who founded an all-girls school said the Taliban was “more afraid of the books than bombs” as he and his 15-year-old daughter, who survived an assassination attempt by the Taliban late last year, were honored Monday at the memorial for Oklahoma City bombing victims.

Ziauddin Yousafzai decried political violence during a ceremony held to honor him and his daughter, Malala Yousafzai, who has been recovering in Great Britain since the shooting that garnered international attention. The annual Reflections of Hope Award is given out by the Oklahoma City National Memorial & Museums in honor of the 168 people who died in the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building.

The elder Yousafzai said Pakistani citizens are all too familiar with the kind of political extremism that led to the Oklahoma attack, as well as the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the Boston Marathon bombings last month.

“We share the pain. We share the suffering,” he said. “We have tragedies like Boston every day.”

He denounced the violence inflicted by Taliban insurgents that has taken the lives of tens of thousands of civilians and soldiers over the past 30 years. He said the Islamic fundamentalists advocate an “ideology of darkness” where truth is stifled and education is discouraged.

“My part of the world is bleeding. I’m here to bring my people out of terrorism,” he said.

The award began in 2005, and past recipients include the Rev. Alex Reid of Dublin, Ireland, for his life’s work in the peace process in Northern Ireland, and Durga Ghimire, who co-founded a community-based organization dedicated to improving the lives of marginalized people in Nepal. President Bill Clinton, who was president when the Oklahoma City bombing occurred, also has been honored.

Yousafzai accepted the award on his daughter’s behalf during his first trip to the United States since the Taliban’s assassination attempt on Malala. In a recorded acceptance speech, she said the Oklahoma memorial’s recognition served as encouragement to continue being an advocate for the right of girls worldwide to receive an education.

“It’s more courage. It’s more strength,” said Malala, who returned to school in England in March.

Yousafzai founded the all-girls Khushal Public School 17 years ago to foster female leadership in an area where the Taliban has banned girls from attending school. His daughter also was an activist who attended the school until Oct. 9, when the Taliban shot her in the head and neck while she was riding the school bus home. The Taliban said it targeted her because she promoted girls’ education and “Western thinking.”

Prior to the shooting, Malala spoke out about having the right to speak and to an education. In a video clip played during the ceremony, she said: “I want every girl, every child, to be educated.”

The shooting sparked outrage in Pakistan and other countries, and Malala’s story captured global attention for the struggle for women’s rights in her homeland. Malala was airlifted to Britain from Pakistan to receive specialized medical care and protection against further Taliban threats. She had surgery to reconstruct her skull in February.

Ziauddin Yousafzai said he was honored to be known largely as Malala’s father in Pakistan’s male-oriented society and dedicated the award to fathers, brothers, sons and husbands “who believe and who accept and who respect their daughters, their sisters, their mothers and their wives.”

“They are individuals and they are equal to them,” he said.

As he concluded, dozens of teenage girls from nearly three dozen Oklahoma communities entered the stage behind him holding signs that read: “I am Malala.” He encouraged them: “We should defeat bad ideas with good ideas.”

Source: Associated Press, 14/5/2013: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/award-pakistani-girl-shot-taliban-19172713#.UZG8gcr4rHo

In a memorandum submitted to Singh on Monday, the NPMHR said the ‘Indo-Naga’ ceasefire and peace talks have been in process since 1997. The Naga people have been waiting patiently for a solution that will end the cycle of violence and bloodshed that took place before the started of the peace talks, the memo said. “However, almost 16 years since the ceasefire, no end or honorable solution is in sight,” the memo added.

The memo said the “Indian state forces” and their various agencies were functioning with total impunity, which is against the spirit of the ceasefire in which Indian representatives and Naga leaders are collectively working towards an honorable solution for all concerned.

The NPMHR added that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) had on September 27, 2010, “illegally” arrested Ningkhan Anthony Shimray, head of “foreign affairs” of the NSCN (IM) from the Kathmandu international airport on the allegation that he was to procure arms to wage war against India. Shimray was on his way to New Delhi on the invitation of the NSCN-IM leadership to participate in the ‘Indo-Naga’ peace talks, which was scheduled to be held on September 29, 2010 in New Delhi, the memo said.

The NIA and other agencies have, in many other instances, arrested and attempted to apprehend important senior Naga leaders, even going to the extent of summoning such leaders to the NIA office.

“The attempt to isolate and segregate the leaders, who represent the aspirations of the Naga people for peace, forces us to question whether New Delhi has any sincere intent to arrive at any solution with the Nagas,” the NPMHR said.

“We urge you and your office to expedite the peace process. Further, we urge that political prisoners like Ningkhan Anthony Shimray be released immediately in the greater interest of peace and respect for rights and dignity,” the memo said.

Source: The Times of India 13/5/2013: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/guwahati/Rights-body-urges-PM-to-free-Naga-political-prisoners/articleshow/20036301.cms

The government has said that the institute is welcome to make an “objective and impartial analysis of the reality of contemporary Sri Lanka,” according to the institute.

In February 2013 Sri Lankan authorities revoked the visas of a previously constituted delegation and prevented them from undertaking a rapid response mission to Colombo to probe the impeachment of the former Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake.

The External Affairs Ministry of Sri Lanka said the four members of the delegation provided inaccurate information on their visa applications and therefore the delegation was barred form entering the country.

Last month the institute released a report on Sri Lanka raising the issue whether Sri Lanka is a suitable venue to hold the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Colombo in November 2013.

Since the delegation was not allowed to visit the country, it conducted interviews and consultations remotely in preparing the report “A Crisis of Legitimacy.”

Source: Colombo Page 14/5/2013: http://www.colombopage.com/archive_13A/May14_1368478441CH.php

SAHR held a Regional Consultation on Rule of Law Perspectives on Detention and Treatment of Detainees in Kabul, Afghanistan, on 16^th December 2012. The consultation focused on a theme very relevant to Afghanistan, particularly given the impending withdrawal of international forces, and the subsequent handing over of detention facilities to the control of Afghan forces. This meeting brought together human rights activists from around South Asia, to discuss and seek ways to combat impunity for torture, learning from each other’s’ problems and solutions. The participants noted that despite being signatories to various international treaties that demand humane treatment of detainees, all of the South Asian countries have serious rights violations that need to be addressed with their prisons and treatment of detainees. Torture and lack of transparency remain major issues, along with other problems experienced in some of the South Asian countries, including overcrowding of prisons, the use of capital punishment, and lack of adequate oversight whether by the judiciary or independent institutions.

The full report can be accessed at (link to be added)

SAHR commissioned background papers which examined the history and current state of emergency regulations and national security laws in South Asia, and how the States have abused them. These papers formed the basis of SAHR’s Regional Workshop to Develop Guidelines for States to Observe when Carrying Out Counter-Terrorism Measures, held on 17^th and 18^th September 2012, in Kathmandu, Nepal.

The two day workshop contained country situations and perspectives on anti-terrorism laws, before discussions opened on the guidelines, and what areas they should focus on. The remaining sessions focused on the drafting of the guidelines, which include: Situations in which laws can derogate from domestic and international obligations; The investigation and prosecution of rights violations; Situations in which the armed forces can be deployed; The role of an independent judiciary; and minimum guarantees that should always be afforded to the people. The guidelines will be published in 2013.

SAHR plans to conduct a campaign to have the guidelines endorsed by various non-State actors, regionally and internationally, with a view of having them recognised at the SAARC level. Furthermore, a compilation comprising the guidelines and the background papers, will be published and disseminated as a resource for academics and human rights activists and also as a tool for advocacy.

With one-fifth of the world’s population, the countries of South Asia face formidable challenges resulting from poverty, underdevelopment, and conflict within and among themselves. Their low levels of production, unemployment, and population pressures are not helped by historic exploitation and other adverse legacies. In an historical, cultural, physical and linguistic sense, South Asia is an integrated region, but any commonality across nations has been made impossible by deep-rooted divisions and animosities across the whole region. The latter is hugely polarized, and it has to grapple with gross violations of human rights. Consequently, governments in the region lack the effective initiative and political commitment needed to meet their obligations to respect, protect, and fulfil human rights and fundamental freedoms. Internal conflicts, civil strife, poverty and so-called state anti-terror legislation and measures have resulted in violations of the civil liberties of the people.

The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) was established in 1985 with the objective of promoting regional cooperation between seven South Asian countries: Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, the Maldives, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Despite the extremely slow pace at which SAARC moves and its very limited achievements, the association did receive an increase in its membership when Afghanistan became the 8th member in 2007. However, the Association has from its very beginning been up against hard politics, mutual fear, and a strong sense of rivalry between its two principle members: India and Pakistan. One reason for SAARC’s unimpressive progress is a lack of agreement among the member states on what should be the guiding force towards regionalism. SAARC has consequently been unable in any way to achieve its basic objective of promoting regional cooperation and solidarity. It is a disgrace that after nearly 30 years it has nothing to show and nothing to celebrate.

Even now SAARC is still trying to steady itself. It may not have made any great mark, but at least it has not been disbanded and it continues to function, albeit in a haphazard manner. Sadly, the presence of this regional organization has done nothing to remove historical irritants between members or to lower the levels of suspicion and distrust among neighbors. Disputes between member states have led to outright wars, low-intensity conflicts, cross-border terrorism, a debilitating arms race and some very hostile propaganda. SAARC has failed to prevent any of these and they in turn have held up SAARC’s progress. Belonging to a regional forum for nearly 30 years has led to no shared values or norms and, despite some points of commonality in the past, the member states have been unable to map out a common future.

South Asia today is a black spot for the gross violation of human rights and civil liberties. The people of Bhutan have as yet seen no glimpse of democracy, and they are deprived of all kinds of freedoms under the rule of an assertive kingship. Pakistan enjoys a pseudo democracy. Nepal has been faced with a serious political crisis from more than a decade: it has no proper government, no constitution, a dead civil society, and a puppet media. India, a so-called growing economy and the largest democracy on earth, faces political crises and internal instability from Kashmir to Assam. Kashmir is regarded as ‘a legal black hole’ in terms of human rights violations perpetrated by the armed forces. Most importantly, throughout the SAARC region, the poor are getting poorer and the rich richer: the gap between the two is widening further while the dynastic political elite and business people can enjoy whole states’ welfare facilities and opportunities. Why is this happening? Why there is so much that is unjust in this region? Is it not time for a radical rethink? Who is responsible? Is it not high time for the people of SAARC as a whole to seek common answers to common problems?

Despite a serious human rights crisis throughout much of the region, SAARC has not even given thought to adopting a specific, detailed and uniform human rights convention or charter despite the existence of these in all other major regions of the world. Is it not high time then for SAARC states to think seriously about it?

What is required is a widespread formal commitment to human rights across the whole region. This should take the form of bills of rights, the establishment of national human rights institutions, declarations by IGOs, and the establishment of regional human rights regimes. The latter would be relatively independent but coherent human rights sub-regimes operated within the larger framework of international human rights practice. Examples of major regional mechanisms are the European human rights monitoring mechanism, the Inter-American system, and the African system. All these regional mechanisms have created, under their human rights charter, bodies such as a commission and a court of human rights. These have broad mandates to monitor human rights compliance by states parties, to receive reports from states, to receive complaints from individuals and states, to investigate and to order interim measures to prevent any escalation of human rights violations. They also provide appropriate reparations for victims by the violators, and they publish their findings and make recommendations to pressurize the state parties concerned.

Many questions need to be asked today: has SAARC achieved anything in nearly three decades of existence? Why, compared with other regions, are they so backward in terms of everything? In almost every other region there is some kind of regional human rights mechanism: since a fifth of the world’s population resides in the SAARC region, why have the SAARC nations never thought having one? Can a region so politically, socially, and economically volatile afford to go on ignoring this issue? Most importantly, can South Asia gear itself for real regional cooperation? Can national and regime interests become sufficiently harmonized in order to promote cooperative trust and mutual confidence among the power elites of the region? The very diversity of South Asia demands the gradual implementation of conceptual steps that build towards a distinct regional identity. One such conceptualization could well be the establishment of a SAARC regional human rights mechanism.

Towards Setting up a South Asian Human Rights Mechanism

Many questions need to be asked: Why is a separate charter for the promotion of human rights so important for the SAARC region? What would it add to existing practices?  SAARC countries have signed already several conventions on narcotics, trafficking in women and children for prostitution, promotion of child welfare, and there have been several agreements on food security and various social issues. However, there has been no regional agreement that specifically focuses on human rights and fundamental freedoms. A regional instrument would be regarded as an appropriate complement to the universal human rights instruments of the United Nations. Such regional human rights mechanisms are already established in the Americas, Europe, Africa and most recently the Arab States: the last major geographic area, therefore, without its own mechanism is the SAARC region. The Council of the League of Arab States adopted its own Arab Charter on Human Rights in 2004, and it has been in force since 2008. The Charter grants a number of human rights and fundamental freedoms to the people, and it provides for the election of a seven-person Committee of Experts on Human Rights to consider states’ reports and to monitor states’ compliance with the Charter.

Most SAARC countries have common problems concerning torture, trafficking, internal displacement due to conflict, refugees, rights over resources, urban shelter and demolition, domestic violation against women, the practice of the death penalty, and extra-judicial detention and forced disappearances. A few countries of SAARC have national human rights institutions. All SAARC countries have, or in the case of Nepal should soon have, a written constitution under which human rights are recognized as fundamental. Despite these provisions and initiatives, however, there is a deteriorating human rights situation in the region brought about by the anti-terrorism measures adopted in some South Asian countries, by internal political crises and civil strife and by the hostility of governments towards human rights despite their claims to be democratic. The SAARC region has suffered for centuries from the absence of a rule of law and constitutionalism and from a culture of impunity that affects almost all the countries. Is there not then an urgent need to formulate a regional human rights mechanism?

The majority of SAARC member states have still to ratify the optional protocols to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Moreover, Bhutan has still to ratify the ICCPR, the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and the Convention against Torture. Even where treaties have been ratified, though, implementation has been restricted by the reservations of some countries that follow a narrow interpretation of treaties relating to civil and political rights, and by a limited political commitment to implement economic, social, and cultural rights. An effective regional human rights mechanism would ensure the protection and promotion of human rights in the region especially common issues including the rights of migrant workers, human trafficking, minority rights, the right to development, and, most importantly, it would challenge the existing culture of impunity and lawlessness in the region. Such a mechanism could also provide a less costly, more accessible and effective redress alternative to existing international processes and procedures.

Not all SAARC nations are democratic and those that claim to be on the way to being so easily slide into authoritarianism, as in the case of Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Nepal. The prospect, therefore, of ideological homogeneity across the region would seem to be anything other than bright. With over sixty per cent of its population still forced to survive below the poverty line, how could this region even claim to be democratic? Moreover, how could it claim to have a fully-fledged democracy until human rights are protected and enshrined in the international covenants?  The SAARC region faces serious challenges in consolidating democracy and strengthening and promoting human rights and the fundamental freedoms of its people.  SAARC should now seriously consider establishing a regional human rights mechanism similar to those of the Inter-American or European Systems. The mechanism would certainly help states to promote and protect rights and freedoms effectively within their jurisdiction. It would ensure that international human rights laws were respected and promoted effectively throughout the SAARC nations. Moreover, such a mechanism could help people in the region to develop a common understanding of universal human rights issues, norms, values and perspectives.

By way of example, the Organization of American States governs human rights protection in the Americas. Both states and individuals can file cases and complaints. Under the American Convention on Human Rights, two bodies protect, promote and monitor human rights: a) The Inter-American Commission whose the primary function is to make a complaint to the Inter-American system whenever an American state is proved to have violated individual human rights; and b) The Inter-American Human Rights Court, which has jurisdiction over contentious cases mostly forwarded by the Commission. In the Inter-American system, both the Commission and the Court have made a major contribution to recognizing human rights, developing human rights jurisprudence and protecting human rights in the Americas. Elsewhere, the Council of Europe drafted a European Convention on Human Rights after Second World War in response to a call issued by Europeans from all walks of life. The Convention was designed to incorporate a traditional civil liberties approach to securing effective political democracy. The Convention created the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, and any person, who feels that a state party has violated his or her rights under the Convention, can take a case to the Court. Judgments confirming violations are binding on all.

To be credible and able to meet both the promotion and protection requirements effectively and practically, a future regional human rights mechanism for SAARC, based on a human rights charter, should have a minimum set of characteristics. These would include an ability to receive and decide upon individual and interstate complaints of human rights violations by the state party. It should have the potential to develop additional mechanisms such as special procedures and subsidiary bodies on thematic issues, working groups, etc. There would be a SAARC Human Rights Commission, with broad powers to investigate, make site visits, receive reports and complaints by states and individuals, and a SAARC Human Rights Court empowered to make binding decisions on human rights issues and grant reparations for victims of human rights violations by states. The human rights mechanism, as with other regional practices, would be able to cooperate with international human rights mechanisms. This would permit reinforcement of the existing human rights framework and the overcoming of procedural and institutional weaknesses in domestic jurisdictions as well as in the international system. It would also help to overcome any lack of expertise or experience in human rights jurisprudence and to ensure effective implementation and enforcement of human rights norms and standards.

National human rights mechanisms are more important and effective in addressing local issues: the regional mechanism would play a complementary role, especially with regard to cross-border matters. The regional mechanism would also be a useful platform for South Asian countries to utilize opportunities under the United Nations’s Universal Periodic Review system, which monitors the human rights performance of all UN members. A future SAARC charter on human rights, similar that of the Inter-American system, would be a great breakthrough for the SAARC region.

A Human Rights Culture in the Region

Enough is enough—SAARC must no longer be a hostage of rival powers in the region. The South Asian states have been too reluctant to take forward the regional project in a manner that it deserves. The provisions of the SAARC Charter have been ignored. Regional cooperation remains at a very rudimentary stage, and there is little evidence of any desire to act regionally by building trust and avoiding force. Prominent Nepalese Professor Lok Raj Baral has argued: ‘So whatever commonalities and shared values exist in the region, they hardly matter for making SAARC more meaningful for the peoples of the region. Unless the South Asian regimes are reconstructed (and this is perhaps a challenging task for South Asian power elites who come from a variety of backgrounds) for transforming the nature of the region, SAARC cannot make headway.’ In the absence of the right political atmosphere no economic, political or social integration is feasible. Establishing a proper regional human rights mechanism could provide an alternative way of establishing a favorable political environment and of reconstructing the region politically, socially and economically.

Of course, there would be enormous challenges in establishing a regional human rights mechanism in South Asia because of the legal and geo-political hurdles. The politics of the South Asia continue to be affected heavily by the continuing tensions in Indo-Pakistan relations. There are contentious issues, too, in South Asia—such as water, migrant workers, trafficking, minority and indigenous communities, refugees, and border disputes—which need to be settled through bilateral and multi-lateral mechanisms. If the SAARC countries fail to address these factors, its very future is bleak. Most importantly, political commitment, sincerity, and establishing a culture of human rights and the rule of law across borders are essential. Now is the time to create a SAARC Charter on Human Rights in treaty form, a consensus document. This must be the primary focus of all SAARC nations.  It is essential. It needs to be the departure point for all SAARC agendas; it needs to be the alpha and omega for SAARC’s future plans, programs and cooperation. The basic norms and values of human rights guaranteed by the international human rights covenants and national constitutions has to be the guiding force for any economic, social, developmental, and political cooperation among the South Asian countries.

Human rights must also be the guiding force for South Asian politics and for its democratic processes. These values must be above partisan politics and above the narrow interests of one or two nations. It has to be the means to common goals and agendas. Establishing the proposed human rights institution to monitor, promote, and consolidate human rights will bring the SAARC nations together to achieve common aims and ambitions towards peace and prosperity. The new future human rights body must be the common forum and a milestone to bring the South Asian society together as a single body of humanity regardless of religious, political, cultural or ideological differences. The essence of human rights has the power to mend all differences!

Source: Foreign Policy Journal 08/05/2013 http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/05/08/the-new-identity-for-the-saarc/view-all/