Human rights Diplomacy and its influence on foreign policy: Case study of India

 
1-     Introduction
Human Rights diplomacy encompasses two words, Diplomacy and Human Rights. “Diplomacy is an essentially political activity and, well resourced and skilful, a major ingredient of power. Its chief purpose is to enable states to secure the objectives of their foreign policies without resort to force, propaganda, or law” (Berridge, 2015: 1). Mullerson believes that, Human rights diplomacy can be defined as the use of foreign policy instruments in order to promote human rights, as well as the use of human rights issues for the sake of other foreign policy aims (Mullerson, 2014: 2). The commencement of the Human Rights Diplomacy could be considered The Cold War’s epoch. Human Rights as a component of the foreign policy had tied up with other elements of foreign policy, like politics, economy and other special situations that stemmed from Cold War’s unusual circumstances. to affect the Human rights policies of Communist bloc, the USA, started to get Communist countries involved in “Most Favoured Nation status” agreements, however, even here, possibilities were rather limited. For example, in April 1973 US President Nixon proposed a comprehensive Trade Act that would have extended “Most Favoured Nation status” to the Soviet Union, as part of the linkage between trade and Soviet foreign policy restraint (Mulillerson, 2014: 105). This article seeks to investigate the Human Rights Diplomacy of India according to Multilevel diplomacy as a conceptual framework.
 
2-     Research methodology
This study has been carried out in the descriptive-analytical and content analysis methods. Theoretical principles of the study are prepared on the basis of Multilevel Diplomacy. Multilevel Diplomacy has chosen as the conceptual framework, thereby looking into diplomacy at three levels (national, regional and international level). According to this framework a successful diplomacy needs those triple levels to be compatible with each other.
 
3-     Discussion
Republic of India (hereafter India) is the seventh biggest country and second populous country in the world. It is counted as one of the emerging powers which would play a pivotal role in the future. India is a parliamentary Republic with a Multi-party system. The principal right-wing parties are Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Indian National Congress, and their opponents are left-wing parties and Liberal- Secular parties. In 2009 The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) got power and won the election rally. But in 2014 Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) gained power without any coalition, it could be a sign of their popularity through that year. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Liberal Democracy became the prevailed approach among Indian politicians. By the commencement of third millennia, a decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union, India became more stable and ran a more proactive and assertive policy in the Human Rights field, however, it would not be taken as a shifting approach towards international system, Indian politicians still looked at the international organizations and systems pessimistically and skeptically. Therefore, India has continuously backed the concept of territorial integrity and national sovereignty, thus it has defied any notion that could undermine those concepts under the pretext of upholding Human rights norms or preserving environment. Moreover, it refrains from criticizing and denouncing the Human Rights situations in other countries, during this era, India had two important silence that would have been unpredictable, the first was the invasion of American army against Afghanistan, despite of India’s usual positions on the concept of non-interference and the concept of national sovereignty. Indian government supported US invasion and justified it on the basis of self-defense concept, and the second was the killing of Shia Muslims in Pakistan by fundamentalist Muslims. Meanwhile, Manmohan Singh became the prime minister, he believes that, they can promote the values of democracy, liberalism, secularism and pluralism, thereby strengthening their relations with other country (Baru,2008: 3). The liberal associations were getting stronger until the next elections where Singh gave in power to Narendra Modi. Modi, on contrary to his predecessor, sought development, nationalism and Hinduism (Hindutva) (Nagaraj, 2015: 73), that would worsen the Human rights situation and deteriorate the social schism.
 
4-     Conclusion
India is among the emerging powers and it has run a relatively successful Human Rights diplomacy. It has drawn balance between national interests and Human Rights challenges. The national constitution is the most important document which is considered as a foundation of foreign policy and diplomacy. The authors of India’s constitution were well aware of extended discriminations and old traditions that escalated the Human Rights situation in that territory. The authors have announced the “Untouchability” and “Hereditary titles” null and void but due to the lack of proper mechanism of observance and reinforcement, their endeavors got thwarted. At regional level, the security and economic priorities have cast a cloud over fulfillment of Human Rights values. The India’s priorities at regional level would be as follows:
first, increasing the trade exchanges with neighboring countries;
second, establishing a balance of power with China in the region;
third, peaceful settlement of conflicts and prevention of security problems;
fourth, making the small and less-developed countries of the region more dependent, with the aim of increasing its either hard and soft power.
At international level the economic, social and cultural rights are more favorable than civil and political rights, like other south leading countries. At international level, strengthening the business ties with Europe is a priority but simultaneously its pessimistic approach towards international regimes (like Responsibility to Protect) and organizations has been preserved.  It seems that the main challenge is incompatibility between the domestic features and attitudes with international requirements.  For example, there are some international key documents that are in contradiction with deep Indian traditions, like Dalit caste’s rights or women’s rights. Indian government is eager to play an effective and prominent role in international and regional entities and organizations. By endorsement of south countries India got elected as a non-permanent member of the Security council. Furthermore, on the one hand India is a member of SARC and The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), on the other hand it is a member of WTO and G20. These memberships seem incompatible at the first sight, but it can be a sign to be able to shed some light over the Indian Human Rights diplomacy trajectory through triple levels. As a conclusion, the pragmatic approach on the basis of economic profit and national interests are prevailed over accomplishment and reinforcement of human rights norms and commitments.
 
 
 
 
References
1.  Banerjee, Sanjoy, “Human rights diplomacy and performance of a rising India since 2000”, Shifting Power and Human Rights Diplomacy India, edited by Lettinga, Doutje and VanTroost, Lars, pp. 27-34Amnesty Intentional Netherland, 2015.
2. Baru, Sanjaya, India and the World – Economics and Politics of the Manmohan Singh Doctrine in Foreign Policy, Institution of South Asian Studies(ISAS), No. 53, 14 November 2008.
3. Bellamy, A.J., “Responsibility to protect: the global effort to end mass atrocities”, Cambridge: Polity Press 2009.
4. Benner, T. ‘Brazil as a norm entrepreneur: the “responsibility while protecting” initiative’  Global Public Policy Institute (GPPi) working paper, Available at: http://www.gppi.net/fileadmin/user_upload/media/pub/2013/Benner_2013_Working- Paper_Brazil-RWP.pdf. 22 June 2017, 2013.
5. Berridge, G.R., “Diplomacy Theory and Practice”, Palgrave Macmillan, UK, 2015.
6. Britsch, Florian , “Indian Views of Europe’s Role as Security Actor Why the EU Needs to Change its Approach Towards India”, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. Available at: http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/iez/10717.pdf. 20 June 2017, 2014.
7. Chamling, D., India and the United Nations, , 1978, New Delhi: Associated Publishing House.
Constitution of India, Available at: http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/welcome.html. 20 June 2017.
 8. Deuja, Surya: “Establishing a Robust Regional Human RightsMechanism in South Asia”, Vol. 6 NO. 1, Asian Human Rights Defender Geneva, ,2010.
9. Cooper, William H., “The Jackson-Vanik Amendment and Candidate Countries for WTO Accession: Issues for Congress”, Congressional Research Service. Available at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22398.pdf. 12 August 2017, 2012.
Ganguly, Meenakshi, “India can no longer remain a bystander on 10. foreign policy”, Shifting Power and Human Rights Diplomacy India, edited by Lettinga, Doutje and VanTroost, Lars, pp. 43-47Amnesty Intentional Netherland, 2015.
11. Jaishankar, D., ‘Europe in Indian Strategy’ in: V. Krishnappa & P. George (eds, Grand Strategy for India 2020 and Beyond, pp. 242-252, New Delhi: Pentagon Press), 2012.
12. Kovacs, Anja and Datta, Saikat, “Digital India abroad: India’s foreign policy and digital rights”, Shifting Power and Human Rights Diplomacy India, edited by Lettinga, Doutje and VanTroost, Lars, pp. 91-100 Amnesty Intentional Netherland, 2015.
13. Kumar, P., ‘Why India abstained from voting against Sri Lanka in UNHRC’, FirstPost, 27 March. Available at: http://www.firstpost.com/world/understanding-why-india-abstained- from-voting-against-sri-lanka-in-unhrc-1453803.html. 30 June 2017, 2014.
14. Kumar, Chanchal: “Human Trafficking in the South Asian Region: SAARC’s Response and Initiatives”, Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 14-31, ,2015.
15. Mashru, Ram, “Developmental diplomacy: India’s international aid policy”, Shifting Power and Human Rights Diplomacy India, edited by Lettinga, Doutje and VanTroost, Lars, pp. 81-91, Amnesty Intentional Netherland, , 2015.
16. Mohan, C. Raja, “India’s changing geopolitics and the New Humanitarianism”, Shifting Power and Human Rights Diplomacy India, edited by Lettinga, Doutje and VanTroost, Lars, pp. 19-27, Amnesty Intentional Netherland, 2015.
17. Mukherjee, Rohan, “Indian multilateralism and the global human rights order”, Shifting Power and Human Rights Diplomacy India, edited by Lettinga, Doutje and VanTroost, Lars, pp. 47-54, Amnesty Intentional Netherland, 2015.
18. Mullerson, Rein, “Human Rights Diplomacy”, Routledge, Newyork, USA, 2014.
19. Naidu, G.V.C., “India and China in the Emerging Dynamics of East Asia”, Edited by: Naidu, G.V.C. , Chen, Mumin and Narayanan, Raviprasad, Springer, New York, 2015.
20. Nagaraj, Vijay, “Foreign policy, human rights and civil society in a Modi-fied India”, Shifting Power and Human Rights Diplomacy India, edited by Lettinga, Doutje and VanTroost, Lars, pp. 73-80, Amnesty Intentional Netherland, , 2015.
21. Pai, Nitin and Singh, Sushant K. (): “Promoting Human Rights in the Indo-Pacific: Prospects, Drives and Constraints”, Shifting Power and Human Rights Diplomacy India, edited by Lettinga, Doutje and VanTroost, Lars, pp. 35-42, Amnesty Intentional Netherland, 2015.
22. Sachdeva, Gulshan (): “India and the European Union: Human Rights Challenges”, Shifting Power and Human Rights Diplomacy India, edited by Lettinga, Doutje and VanTroost, Lars, pp. 65-72, Amnesty Intentional Netherland, 2015.
23. Stephen, Matthew D., “India, emerging powers and global human rights: Yes, but…”, Shifting Power and Human Rights Diplomacy India, edited by Lettinga, Doutje and VanTroost, Lars, pp. 55-63, Amnesty Intentional Netherland, 2015.
24. Taneja, Nisha , Pohit, Sanjib and Saini, Radhika, “India-Pakistan Trade Strengthening Economic Relations” , Springer New Delhi Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London, 2015.
25. Tharoor, S. (2012) ‘Reconsider Relations with the European Union’, India Today/Mail Today, 18 May. Available at: http://goo.gl/WCzZyW. 20 June 2017.
26. Virk, K. () ‘India and the responsibility to protect: a tale of ambiguity’, pp. 56-83, Global Responsibility to Protect 5(1), 2013.
27. Virk, Kudrat (): “Whither the Responsibility to Lead?” India and R2P”, Shifting Power and Human Rights Diplomacy India, edited by Lettinga, Doutje and VanTroost, Lars, pp. 101-110, Amnesty Intentional Netherland, 2015.
28.URL1:www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2017/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=31&pr.y=13&sy=2016&ey=2020&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=534&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC&grp=0&a=. 28 June 2017.
29.URL2: www.indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/welcome.html. 20 July 2017.
30.URL3: www.washingtonpost.com/ world/are-indias-disgruntled-wives-abusing-dowry-laws-hurting-womens-movement/2014/07/29/ef17b159-e0f3-4ba2-9f23-e37d48d0ac47_story.html. 28 June 2017.
31.URL4: www.cfnhri.org/members/asia/india. 15 August 2017.
32.URL5: www.ncw.nic.in/frmAboutUS.aspx. 15 August 2017.
33.URL6: www.ncpcr.gov.in/index1.php?lang=1&level=1&&sublinkid=5&lid=600. 15 August 2017.
34.URL7: www.ncm.nic.in/Genesis_of_NCM.html. 16 August 2017.
35.URL8: www.ncbc.nic.in/User_Panel/UserView.aspx?TypeID=1025. 16 August 2017.
36.URL9: www.ncsc.nic.in/pages/display/9-genesis. 16 August 2017.
37.URL10: www.ncsc.nic.in/. 16 August 2017.
38.URL11: www.ncst.nic.in/content/functions-and-duties-commissions/. 16 August 2017.
39.URL12: www.jus.uio.no/english/services/library/treaties/02/2-04/saarc-traff-women-children.xml. 18 August 2017.
40.URL13: www.goo.gl/WCzZyW. 20 June 2017.
41.URL14: www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/India(1).pdf. 23 June 2017.