Amnesty International, Rather Than Defending Human Rights, Seeks to Shield Rapists from Punishment Under the Guise of Advocacy, Prioritizing Ideological Agendas Over Justice
by Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit
The phony quest for human rights by Amnesty not only lays bare its ideological propaganda but also showcases the hollow nature of its advocacy.
Adorned as a custodian of human rights by the woke ecosystem, Amnesty International stands as an exemplary organization that has abandoned its core objective and taken refuge in the ideological musings of ultra-liberal fantasies. Preserving or defending human rights no longer guides its actions and policies; instead, it is more focused on looking morally superior and casting unfounded judgments.
 |
| Children study under the light of candles at their home after a power cut in Nagaon district of India's northeastern state of Assam, April 22, 2022. (Str/Xinhua) |
DEFENDING THE RAPISTS?
Last week, Amnesty’s ideological agenda was on full display. Aakar Patel, Chair of the Board of Amnesty International, while discussing the horrific incident at Kolkata’s RG Kar Medical College and Hospital, noted that the “death penalty is never the solution.” The statement was shocking, no matter how you view it. Patel’s argument was about the need for “far-reaching procedural and institutional reform” in the long term. However, based on Amnesty’s track record, most of its statements regarding India in recent years have not been about defending human rights but about casting negative perceptions of the country.
Rather than addressing the immediate situation, the organization sought to preach about long-term reforms. Long-term solutions to women’s safety are, of course, critical, and governments are working in varying capacities to implement such measures. But the current priority is to deal with what has already happened. Suggestions from Amnesty (and similar organizations) often miss the reality on the ground, where people in Bengal and beyond are genuinely agitated and demanding justice. Such measures only serve to demean the efforts of the public, as these so-called reputable international organizations, meant to defend human rights, seem to be shielding the rapists from punishment under the guise of human rights advocacy.
HOLLOW ADVOCACY
Amnesty’s phony quest for human rights exposes not just its ideological propaganda but also the emptiness of its advocacy. The organization may be vocal and fierce in its criticism of countries in the Global South, but it rarely directs the same level of scrutiny at the West, except on token issues.
There are other points to consider about the organization. In the 1990s, Amnesty shifted its strategy from publishing long-format reports to focusing mainly on press releases, which now closely resemble standard media reporting. However, unlike the media, which claims to present news as it is, Amnesty is a value-serving organization that prioritizes certain values over others.
Funding is the most crucial aspect to understanding the functioning of any organization, especially those like Amnesty that have a global presence and influence. Over the years, Amnesty has received funding from governments like the UK, the European Commission (EU), and the US State Department, which makes its claims of objectivity appear farcical.
Amnesty, under the guise of objectivity, has engaged in problematic practices, such as giving platforms to Taliban sympathizers. Similarly, reports suggest its highly paid officials have connections to various banned groups around the world, including the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.
Additionally, discrimination, racism, sexism, and mental abuse within the organization have gone largely unnoticed. Despite calling for transparency from others, Amnesty has failed to address its internal toxic work culture. The suicides of its employees have brought these issues to light. Furthermore, there has been internal dissent regarding Amnesty’s work that has not been publicly acknowledged, a level of accountability the organization demands from others.
TARGETING INDIA
Accusing and pointing fingers is not a new tactic for Amnesty, but for reasons only known to its leadership, India holds special interest for the organization. Over the past decade, Amnesty has covered almost every human rights violation story in India. While no such violation is excusable, and no respectable individual, political group, or government would argue otherwise, Amnesty’s portrayal of these crimes as commonplace crosses a line between “what’s true” and “what the organization is trying to make true.”
India is a vast country facing challenges typical of the developing world, including crime, which all governments and regions are trying to address. However, for Amnesty, criticizing India seems convenient—and, frankly, it appears to be a lucrative strategy that aligns with the interests of its funders.
Some may argue that Amnesty’s issues with India stem from its opposition to the BJP-led government, particularly following the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) investigation into the organization’s financial activities, especially regarding foreign funds. However, a similar situation occurred in 2009, when Amnesty ceased operations in India under Congress rule. Therefore, the issue is not tied to the ruling government.
Amnesty seems to have a consistent agenda against India, as evident in its selective coverage. On the Manipur issue, it called for government action against the accused, yet in Bengal, it declared, “the death penalty is never the solution.” Meanwhile, Kashmir remains a favorite topic for Amnesty to portray India as a human rights violator, even as it overlooks the positive developments following the revocation of Article 370.
CONCLUSION
Amnesty’s track record reveals a clear selection bias, driven by ideological preferences, which results in disproportionate coverage of certain issues in specific countries. Governments may underperform, and human evils exist everywhere, but the solution is not to vilify nations based on ideological leanings and parochial interests. The moral policing by international organizations that flout the very rules they demand others follow is the dangerous flipside of these multi-million-dollar entities. The Indian government’s decision to expose Amnesty’s financial misdeeds was necessary. However, countering the false narratives of such organizations is even more crucial in this age of social media and clickbait culture.
When these organizations advocate for leniency towards rapists under the pretext of “the death penalty is never the solution,” it becomes imperative to challenge their false crusades. We must question and discredit these self-entitled paragons of virtue who, while claiming to uphold human rights, serve only their ideological agendas.
Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit is an Indian academic and the current Vice-chancellor of Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
Post a Comment