Permanent Mission of India, Geneva
27th session of the Human Rights Council
(8– 28 September 2014)
Agenda Item 3: Resolution on Civil Society Space
(26 September 2014)
Statement by India in Explanation of Vote before the Vote
Mr. President,
1. Last September, at the time of adoption of the resolution on the same subject by the Council, India made an Explanation of Vote detailing our concerns on the resolution. We regret that we are constraint to make some of those points again.
2. The term civil society is conceptually ambiguous and lacks a consensual definition. Even so, the resolution fallaciously seeks to make civil society a subject of law. Despite our reservations on this conceptual infirmity, our delegation actively participated in the consultations.
Mr. President,
3. As a vibrant democracy, India has a thriving, pluralistic non- governmental civil society organizations in various activities and manifestations. India values the contribution of civil society and the government has often involved them in local level development, advocacy, action research and social mobilization and in shaping policies. Spaces of engagement have therefore evolved at various levels and covering various subjects and activities and continue to expand.
Mr. President,
4. Besides conceptual ambiguity, the resolution also suffers from infirmities in its approach and is unbalanced. It randomly picks and chooses those rights, which the co-sponsors prefer to apply to civil society activities in an arbitrary fashion and even details out certain rights without taking into account that rights come with duties and responsibilities.
5. Civil society must operate within national laws. To treat national laws with condescension is not the best way to protect human rights, even by civil society with the best of intensions. We wish that caution should be exercised in advocacy of the causes of civil society. The Resolution is unduly prescriptive on what domestic legislation should do and should not do. This is the prerogative of the citizens of those countries. The Council must exercise caution and avoid overzealousness, which could inadvertently or otherwise lead to undermining national laws that are consistent with international obligations of the concerned state.
6. The resolution ignores the fact that there are differences and conflicts within civil society, there are interest groups and narrow viewpoints operating even in civil society. The funding of civil society organisations is also susceptible to misuse. It is important to ensure accountability for their actions. Given these factors, the advocacy for civil society should be tempered by the need for responsibility, openness and transparency and accountability of civil society organizations. Such an approach will increase public and government confidence in the functioning of civil society.
7. At the UN level, while we value the participation of civil society in our work, civil society participation has been explicitly dealt with in ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31.The Human Rights Council, being a UN body cannot ignore this resolution that governs its relationship with civil society. We would have liked the Resolution before us to take these factors into account.
8. We believe that the work of OHCHR is to assist states in fulfilling their human rights obligations and providing Secretarial assistance to the Human Rights Council. It should avoid getting into areas not expressly within its mandate.
9. We thank Ireland and the main sponsors for the open discussions and oral revisions that they have made. However, we regret that our principal concerns have not been addressed. In view of the above, my delegation disassociates from the following paragraphs PP8, PP9, OP10, and OP12 and OP14 as contained in A/HRC/27/L.24 as orally revised.
I thank you Mr. President.
