Impeachment against Honorable Chief Justice Sushila Karki: A blatant attack against the independence of Judiciary?

April 30, 2017, will go down as a dark day in the history of judiciary of Nepal. This day marks the filing of a motion of impeachment against the Chief Justice of Nepal for the first time. This is an attack on judiciary as well as foundation of democracy. The action comes against the first female Chief Justice who during all her judicial career has been applauded for the job well done in various high profile cases including the case of Lokman Singh Karki. Much about the impeachment has been said and told, but few things need to be re-stated before moving ahead with the discussion.

What the Constitution of Nepal says about Impeachment

According to Sub-section 2 of Section 101 of the Constitution of Nepal, 2015 "A motion of impeachment against the Chief Justice or any other Judge of Supreme Court, member of Judicial Council and Head or official of Constitutional Bodies may be moved by at least one-fourth majority of the total number of the then members of House of Representatives on the grounds of serious violation of the Constitution and law, his or her incompetence, misbehavior or failure to discharge the duties of his or her office in good faith or his or her inability to discharge his or her duties because of physical or mental reason; and if the motion is passed by a two-thirds majority of the total number of the then members of joint session of both Houses of Federal Parliament, he or she shall ipso facto be relieved of his or her office".

Sub-section 6 of the same section says, "Once the process of impeachment is set in motion as per clause (2), then the person against whom the impeachment motion is moved, whether Chief Justice or Supreme Court judges, members of Judicial Council or chiefs or members of Constitutional bodies, shall not perform his/her duty till the process over the motion is complete".

Timing of the motion of Impeachment

The motion of impeachment filed the largest parties in the ruling coalition was carried out in a hurry. It came out as a major surprise to almost everyone. The sense of urgency can be clearly seen in the action as the subject was not well discussed. The motion of impeachment was safeguarded by the parties and leaders as if it was a matter of "National Secret."  Besides those involved directly in the motion as signatory or strategist others had no clue, it was coming.

Not only in public domain, but the motion of impeachment was also not discussed within the parties as well. The resignation of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs Bimalendra Nidhi over alleged dissatisfaction with the move to impeach Chief Justice reflects how closely guided move it was.

Secondly, the motion has been filed exactly before the final decision of a high-profile case relating to the appointment of Inspector General of Police and other verdict of other high-profile corruption cases. It must also be considered that the Chief Justice had a little more than a month to serve the judiciary. The urgency of the government to impeach Chief Justice who had a month in the bench, exactly before the hearing of such cases and in the context of government's open dissatisfaction over the judiciary in recent judgments reflects that impeachment motion is nothing more than a motive-directed move.

The timing and urgency to file a motion of impeachment clearly indicates the Mala Fide interest of the government. This leads to an obvious conclusion that government's strategic move against the Chief Justice in the form of motion of impeachment is an attack on independent and functional Judiciary.

The Allegations and Grounds

The allegations raised as grounds for impeachment is preposterous. The allegations of the biased verdict, interfering with executive duties, favoring certain judges and others are surprising. The allegations specified in the motion of impeachment indicates that they were sought for reasons which, won't be justified during later course but can get the job done for now (i.e. get the motion filed and suspend the Chief Justice). The allegation raised and the unfolding of the event shows that the parties wanted to get rid of Chief Justice as soon as (technically) possible.

One of the interesting things in an allegation is that some of the regular allegations on the judiciary in general/and judges, in particular, are missing i.e. issue of corruption.  The missing allegation of corruption can help us conclude that the Chief Justice was not corrupt by any means. Further, the initial writings on her role as a judge have clearly established that she was headstrong, not influenced and unbiased. This leads to the conclusion that she was too strong for the executive branch and they lost their head over it and decided to attack judiciary in the form of motion of impeachment.

Considering the immunity of government towards these allegations and its effort to activate impeachment in prior instance clearly establishes that the allegations are ill-founded and sought for only to satisfy the procedural requirement.  We have had the head of constitutional bodies and even Chief Justice/Justices who are alleged of a more severe allegation that these but never was a prospect of impeachment considered before. Thus, let us all understand this is not about the claim that has been made. There is more to it that what has been filed in the form of motion of impeachment.

The Precedent

One of the lasting damage the motion of impeachment will lead to is the precedent that "impeachment" can be used as a tool for political gain when favorable and desirable. This motion filed has significantly downsized the gravity of impeachment itself giving the executive upper hand. This at present may look like an isolated event but this opens up for similar attempts in future.

This also establishes that no wider public or party discussion is required for such moves. In a country where political parties can come to any agreement for narrow political gains, this instance makes our political state more fragile. Now parties can gang up against anyone they collectively dislike and use impeachment as an instrument in hand.

For those who believe in the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law the motion reflects a dark day but for those in political power who aim at dictatorship, political control and interference the Act has given a new dimension of what they can do too. This is very unfortunate for a nation.

Larger than single motion of impeachment

The filing of a motion of impeachment requires greater than dissatisfaction over the function of Chief Justice and action taken to rectify it. This is an open attack on the independence of the judiciary. The three branch of government legislature, executive and judiciary much check and balance. However, the executive is crossing all known lines to attack and weaken judiciary simply because the judiciary is doing its job. 

This attack on the independence of the judiciary, if not refuted strongly, will lead to a culture of interference over the judiciary. This challenges the very foundation of constitutional arrangement and philosophy of check and balance. The motion of impeachment is not a strategic tool to be used to seek revenge or political gain. The single act of filing of a motion of impeachment has attacked the independence of the judiciary in one hand and corroded the sanctity and gravity of impeachment itself. This act will go down in history has one worst foul play by executive against the judiciary.

Political parties and Accountability

The motion of impeachment is the most recent example on how political parties do not value accountability towards their actions. They did not feel it was necessary for them to bring the issue for public debate. This reflects that the political parties follow top-bottom approach and what they decide will be pursued irrespective of what is right.

This is not the first nor the last time that accountability aspect has been undermined. It is one of the basic features of Nepali politics to undermine accountability. If the accountability were sought for political parties before then, they would not have gone to this extent. This act of filing of impeachment reflects how undervalued is "Accountability for Actions" for political parties in Nepal.

Another crucial question is the legitimacy of the signatures of that are provided in the application. Some of those in the list of signatories have refuted with media regarding their knowledge of the motion and also claimed that they never signed for such motion. This has raised the question of forgery too. This calls for proper investigation of the signatures presented.

However, this is the question of accountability and unless political parties are made accountable for their action issues like these cannot be addressed.

What Next?

I am confident that the motion of impeachment will not sustain eventually. However, it has done the damage. This should have a negative impact on the credibility of the parties and those who agreed to attack the independence of judiciary. This should raise broader accountability questions regarding the political parties and political leadership.

The impeachment row is unfortunate but a well calculated strategic attack on the independence of the judiciary. 30th April 2017, shall remain as one of the darkest days in the history of the judiciary, democracy and political accountability in Nepal.

Nine [Spiritual] Books I Found Fascinating

The different reader may understand the same book in a different way. Also, as a reader, we all have our personal preferences of what we want to read. The books which I find fascinating may be a below average read for someone else. Despite the personal preference and choice of genre, I decided to list out few spiritual/self-help books which I found fascinating.  People claim some of the books listed below are life-changing and what not. I think these books do have some valuable insight that might be potentially life-changing for the right person at the right time (though can't say for sure).

I will not bore everyone with the detailed review of the book.

i) विचार बिज्ञान  by Khaptad Baba

Probably the best-selling Nepali spiritual book.

Pages: 107

Easily available

 

ii) I am That by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

One of the highest rated spiritual book. Written in question answer form and separated in many chapters so can be read easily.

Pages: 530

Not so easily available.

Detailed Review and Comments:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/299869.I_Am_That?ac=1&from_search=true

iii) The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle

One of the highest selling book in the genre.  Simple and to be honest this one book should be enough in the genre.

Pages: 193

Easily available

Detailed Review and Comments: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6708.The_Power_of_Now?from_search=true

iv) The First and Last Freedom by  J. Krishnamurti

Interesting and easy read. It's a stress buster for me.

Pages: 328

Easily available

Detailed Review and Comments:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/64710.The_First_and_Last_Freedom?ac=1&from_search=true

 

v) Be Here Now by Dr. Richard Alpert (Baba Ram Daas)

Very graphic book. Simple and easy. The book appears like the kid's story book at first glance.

Pages: Not mentioned/Didnot bother to count.

Not easily available

Detailed Review and Comments:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29254.Be_Here_Now?ac=1&from_search=true

vi) Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse

This book is not about Gautam Buddha. This guy is different Siddhartha. Very widely read.

Pages: 165

Easily available

Detailed Review and Comments: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/52036.Siddhartha?ac=1&from_search=true

vii) The Prophet by Khalil Gibran

Rich and beautiful. They also have adapted the book into an animated movie.

Pages: 112

Easily available

Detailed Review and Comments: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2547.The_Prophet?ac=1&from_search=true

viii) In Conversations with God by Neale Donald Walsch

What if you could have a conversation with almighty God? Weird right?

Pages: 211

Easily available

Detailed Review and Comments:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15015.Conversations_with_God?ac=1&from_search=true

ix) Tuesdays with Morrie by Mitch Albom

One book I hold dear. The book I read when I was trying to cultivate reading habit. The book is well written, interesting and profound.

Pages: 210

Easily available

Detailed Review and Comments: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6900.Tuesdays_with_Morrie

Some Observations:

i) All of the books appear repetitive and be conveying the same basic idea.

ii) Some of these books are small but very time-consuming.

iii)  Could be a good read for some who are interested in the genre.

iv) No, reading this books would not lead you to enlightenment (personal experience).

v) I am not sure if these books are life changing as review claims. Maybe this is something personal.

In closing, as the title of the post suggests these are the books that I found fascinating. The list does not follow a hierarchy, and it is based on my reading experience.  If you have any other recommendation based on the above-mentioned books do leave a comment.

Happy Reading.

First chance for Rabindra Mishra to show that he is different.

The Context:

I saw this post in the official page of Rabindra Mishra.

एउटा आधारहीन आरोपको खण्डन
(श्यर गरिदिनु भए आभारी हुने थिएँ)
सबभन्दा पहिले यसो भनुँ: विद्यावारिधि गर्नु, विश्वविद्यालयको प्राध्यापक हुनु भनेको, तथ्यको सुक्ष्म र प्राज्ञिक विश्लेषण गर्ने क्षमतामा विशिष्टता हासिल गर्नु हो।

तर दुखपूर्वक भन्नु पर्छ एकजना ‘प्राध्यापक-डाक्टर’ले एउटा टेलिभिजन अन्तर्वार्तामा ममाथि अत्यन्तै आधारहीन र अ-प्राज्ञिक टिप्पणी गरेछन्। आफ्ना विद्यार्थीलाई असल र विशिष्ट प्राज्ञिक संस्कारबाट दीक्षित गर्नु पर्ने व्यक्तिले त्यसप्रकारको सस्तो र चरित्रहत्या हुने टिप्पणी गर्नु दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण कुरा हो।
र, पत्रकारहरूले पनि कुनै अन्तर्वार्ता दिने व्यक्तिले कसैको गम्भिर चरित्रहत्या हुने आरोप लगाएको छ भने “अन्तर्वार्ता दिने व्यक्तिले भनेको त हो नि, मैले भनेको होइन” भनेर त्यसलाई प्रसारण/प्रकाशन गर्नु हुँदैन। लाइभ अन्तर्वार्ता हो भने अन्तर्वार्ता दिने व्यक्तिलाई तुरुन्तै रोक्नु र चुनौति दिनु पर्छ। रिकर्डेड हो भने त्यस्तो अंश सम्पादन गर्नु पर्छ या त्यसको पुष्टी गर्नै पर्छ।
नत्र अन्तर्वार्ता दिने मात्र होइन, अन्तर्वार्ता लिने व्यक्ति पनि दोषको त्यत्तिकै भागेदार हुन जान्छ।

Out of curiosity, I decided to dig deeper to understand what was going on. Then read this, "A veteran political commentator in Nepal has questioned former BBC employee Rabindra Mishra’s moral ground for leading a political party in his native Nepal. Because, Professor Surendra KC argued, Mr. Mishra once ran a media “campaign”, “within the last fifteen years”, during which interviewees were asked if Nepal should be merged into India." http://www.southasia.com.au/2017/03/19/grave-accusation-made-former-bbc-nepali-editor-turned-politician-rabindra-mishra/

My understanding of entire story: A highly regarded political commentator (Professor Surendra KC) made some serious allegations against Mr. Rabindra Mishra in a television interview. Mr. Rabindra Mishra clearly thinks the statement aims at "character defamation" and is a baseless allegation.

Some of my personal observations on the matter:

i) People making baseless statements against leaders and public figures is not a new thing. However, the way leader/public figure reacts to this allegation means a lot. The reaction shows the character of the person and tests his belief. To be honest, I am very disappointed with the facebook post of Mr. Mishra. I expected (and still expect more from him) he would clearly indicate the details of the event and the person responsible. The facebook post is a half-hearted reaction which is not a desirable trait in a leader. I do not want Mr. Mishra to get personal but he can always be clear and specific in issue this serious.

ii) If the allegation is baseless and false Mr. Rabindra Mishra should file a lawsuit against the one who made such allegation and the media house who broadcasted the interview. I am not suggesting this as personal vendetta but this in large would reflect that Mr. Mishra believes in the legal remedies (where necessary). There are other implication if the case is registered;

a) The court would find if the one making comment is guilty of defamation of a public figure, who now leads a political party. 

b) The tendency of making baseless comments without concern for legal consequences will eventually decrease. This case could set a precedent and warn those who make baseless and derogatory comments. Maybe it's time we seek accountability for the remarks one makes. 

c) The case will raise the issue of professionalism in journalism. We have seen media fail time and again but have escaped consequence for their involvement in the matter. Maybe this is time to set record straight and tell media that they too are not immune for their involvement in wrongdoing. 

d) This will set an example regarding the respect of individual while exercising one's freedom of expression. As this involves a public figure who have shown political ambition, this case will take its pace and have a social impact too. 

e) By taking legal action, Mr. Mishra can show "he indeed is different". 

Dear Rabindra Mishra Sir, You have sacrificed your glittering professional career to pursue a political career. Don't take things like this in a small way and fight back in a half-hearted manner (without even disclosing the specifics of what/who you are talking about). Start with something small but meaningful. Show that you are different from your action. The big buzzwords like transparency, accountability and impunity are reflected in small acts of seeing redress to issue like this. Else, how can people trust someone who won't fight for one's own personal dignity in a lawful way. 

People want a leader they can rely on and this is the first chance you have been handed to show you are different and profess what you preach.

I hope you think it through and take appropriate actions.

Why we are in bigger trouble than we actually realize?

Our society has shown some worrying signs lately. It does have made progress and come a long way in different aspects. However, our society in large is heading towards more troubles. We all are not aware or have not probably thought it thought but the early warning can already be seen in significant proportion. I personally believe we are heading towards major disaster with enough preparation and homework.

Our society has normalized/institutionalized within itself the recipe for crackdown and failure. Some of my observations that lead me to this conclusion  are:

i) We have normalized violence. The use of violence does not bother us as much as it should. Whether it states actor or non-state actors the general response to violence has been less than what we'd aspect from responsive society. We read about the death of fellow countryman and pass on a shallow comment on it. Our society is being less and less concerned with the use of violence as a tool for various gains. It is now widely accepted as "something normal."

ii) Corruption isn't something that bothers us. Most of us know corruption has been institutionalized in various fonts in Nepal. We have accepted it as part of the system. Some even call it "speeding money" to make it sound legit. We have been so used to it that we are no longer offended by the fact corruption around us. We have normalized/institutionalized corruption.

iii) Being unaccountable isn't a big deal. We have seen it in recent time, we are going through a phase where expecting accountability from those exercising authority is not normal. Those in position say and do what pleases them without feeling the need of being accountable for it. Those who are in the position of exercising authority are blinded by the power that they no longer feel the underlying accountability. Being unaccountable isn't something new...its normal.

iv) We have politicized everything aspect of social life that could be politicized. From students to professionals even the religious groups now come in political colors. We have politicized everything that could possibly be politicized and its normal to do so. There is nothing wrong in political lens overriding everything else. Politicizing everything is normal too.

v) We compromise with the quality of everything. From the food we eat to service we receive. We compromise with the quality of everything including our basic necessity education, health, drinking water, clean environment. Our compromise with the quality of everything isn't a bad thing at all. This is how it works and there is nothing we can do about it. Compromising with the quality of everything we need and consume and receive is new normal too.

vi) Not valuing professional competence is normal too. We value our near and dear one, who need the competent when we can replace them with our own. Why bother with all the competence crap when we can do it easy. We prefer easy over right and beneficial over right. So, appointing incompetent over competent is totally normal, provided they pay well for it. Look at the recent instances and you'll understand what I am talking about.

vii) We are draining both labor and brain and are happy with the remittance we receive. It is normal for us that our productive population is working to make other nations great or in some cases GREAT AGAIN. We are not being able to hold onto our youth and that's fine. It's normal for youth to migrant and we are totally fine with it.

As Chris Hedges rightly observed, We now live in a nation where doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the press destroys information, religion destroys morals, and our banks destroy the economy. The more alarming concern is that "WE CONSIDER IT NORMAL".

Everything that we have considered normal will have huge impact in our society and we are not even bothered about that.

It is high time to wake up from the "illusion of normalcy".

I sincerely hope that I am wrong about it. I hope our society move on from this without significant bump.

Rest in beats Yama Buddha!!!

A Tribute

I never had an opportunity to know you in person and knew little about you before your tragic death. I knew some of your songs and loved them. After your death (suicide) I heard a lot about you and decided to check available footage of you on youtube. I came across some of the feature news and some interview. I watched some of the interviews and knew more about you as a person. I have shared one of the interviews at the end of the post which I personally was touched by.

Mere interviews are not enough to know a person but it gives the audience a glimpse of who the person is. Turns out you are this guy who was humble, real besides being famous. The way you answer the questions reflects your qualities. 'Never judge a book by its cover' was the quote I was thinking of when I was hearing your interview. We will never know why you did what you did. It is very tragic that you decided to end your life, the life which was already inspirational to many and could have been larger than most can dream of. It is clear from your interview that you were not after money or fame but wanted happiness. I feel really sad that you could not find what you were looking for and now wish that you'd have tried harder or would have looked in right place. (in face of those whom you inspire and entertain with your music).

I hope you rest in your beats.

Yama Buddha (Anil Adhikari) left us and his tragic end has left us with questions as suicide is widespread challenge our generation is facing. The World Health Organization estimates that over 800,000 people die by suicide each year – that’s one person every 40 seconds. Up to 25 times as many again make a suicide attempt. The case of suicide is increasing in Nepal as well. It is high time we start discussing the issue as one of the alarming concern for our societies well being.

We need to connect, communicate and care if we are to combat suicide. Let us work together towards suicide prevention and let people know them that they matter more than they think they do. We need to talk about suicide and create awareness in the underlying cause or at least we need to explain to everyone that suicide is not the ANSWER. We must be loud enough to spread the message that "Suicide doesn’t end the chances of life getting worse, it eliminates the possibility of it ever getting any better".

To those who want to express respect and tribute to Yama Buddha, I urge them to work towards suicide awareness and suicide prevention so we'd deal with actual killer. Let's talk about suicide and spread awareness. It is high time we do something about it. #SuicideAwareness #YouAreNotAlone

The link to the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG-8IO9va1c

All we can wonder is Why?

The person who completes suicide, dies once. Those left behind live in anguish and despair, trying to relive those terrible moments and understand … Why? – Quote by Clark (2001) with minor modifications. 

Does it end here? Is decision against Mr. Lokman Singh Karki an end in itself?

The Context

The Supreme Court of Nepal on Sunday (*8th January 2017) adjudicated that, Lok Man Singh Karki did not meet qualifications required to hold the position of the Chief of the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA). The decision immediately removes Mr. Karki from the position of head of the anti-corruption constitutional body of Nepal.

The Positive

i) The Supreme Court gave a landmark judgment is much controversial writ petition. This judgment is a reminder that no-one (even the head of constitutional body) is above the law. This case had its twist and turns from despatching notice to in court defamation attempt. However, at the end, this case gave the positive decision and upheld the rule of law. This decision has been applauded by many and obviously will further public trust in the judiciary.

ii) The applicant Advocate Om Prakash Aryal has been exemplary figure and has reaffirmed that lawyers are not merely "hired guns". They can play constructive role rectify what has gone wrong and restore rule of law. He deserves big appreciation for his persistence, handwork, and professionalism.

iii) The role of justices of the Supreme Court has been very praiseworthy in this case. The Court took its time but did the rights thing. This Case in days to come will be referred to while discussing the 'independence of judiciary' in Nepal.

The Concerns

i) Now it is settled that Mr. Karki was not eligible to be appointed as head of CIAA. Are those appointing him are in question now? or it is the end of the entire plot? I personally feel that those who had an active role in appointment Mr. Karki have now have an obligation to answer, on what basis was he appointed? Was it an honest mistake and can be rectified with a meaningful apology? or is digging deeper necessary to hold those responsible for "ineligible appointment" accountable?

ii) This case reflects the tendency of appointment culture in Nepal. So, as this appointment fails the rule of law test, how many other appointments might have a similar fate? There are other controversies surrounding the appointment under political influence.

iii) Is this case the starting of accountability questioning or will this be the end in itself as this high profile case is settled now? Will legal fraternity, government, public, and other institution consider this case as a starting point towards accountability and rule of law?

Blessing in disguise for Mr. Karki

As there was ( a high) possibility of Mr. Karki being impeached by the parliament, I consider this decision as "blessing in disguise" of him.

i) Mr. Karki is deemed ineligible to have been appointed as the head of CIAA. It is not his mistakes or doing that removes him from the position. Technically, he did not fail the test, those appointed him are under scrutiny and are responsible for blunder (logically).

ii) Had he been removed via Impeachment procedure it would have been Mr. Karki's doing. He would have been the person responsible for his dismissal from the position of the head of the constitutional body. That is quite some burden to carry with you but to Mr. Karki's rescue, the Supreme Court gave the order. The decision is not a favorable one for Mr. Karki but it has done a huge favor for him.

iii) Further, the Court has saved many politicians who were in shaky position in the question of impeachment of Mr. Karki. They must be the biggest winners here and must have had a sigh of relief that they do not have to take a stand in the matter now.


The Supreme Court and all those involved in the case deserve the appreciation for a landmark judgment. However, I personally feel the decision has raised a new question; How can those appointing an ineligible person in the head of CIAA hold accountable for their doing?
Those appointing Mr. Karki are responsible for what they did ?  or will we be satisfied with the dismissal of Mr. Karki. The appointment of Mr. Karki was "bi-product" not the "cause". We need to identify the cause and address the cause or we will spend our energy dealing with bi-product and never get anywhere. 

Let us make an effort to understand human rights

On the occasion of international human rights day 2017, I felt the urge to pen down some my ideas regarding human rights. These are the basic postulates I believe needs clarity while entering into the discourse of/on human rights.

i) Human Rights is broader/more than international human rights law.

Yes, the value of human rights has been translated into international human rights law. The international human rights law regime is probably most important dynamics/aspect/body of human rights. It has helped in translating the values of human rights into law. In no way, we can negate the role and influence of international human rights law. However, the notion of "human rights" is bigger than "international human rights law".  The values of human rights have been translated in form of rights and have been codified in international and domestic legal instrument but we should not forget the basic idea that "human rights" is more than "international human rights law".  Generally speaking,  human rights is bigger than a legal construct that what can be translated in the legal instrument.

ii) Human Rights is a means to an end, not the end itself.

Most of us consider human rights as an end that we are striving to achieve, as a goal. However, properly assessment of notion of human rights would reveal its true nature, a means to an end. A just society or a peaceful society where all individual could live a dignified life could be an ends (maybe) but not human rights. Human Rights is a means, not an end in itself. Human Rights sets basic values and norms of minimal entitlements to every human being and these basic entitlements should not be deemed as an end. The observance of human rights is the desired criterion of a just and functional society.

iii) Human Rights is work in progress.

The idea of human rights is not a rigid and evolve with the society. The foundational idea of human rights may be same but it tends to grow. Thus the idea of human rights should be seen work in progress. If we look at the development of the human rights we can see the growth of human rights. The substantive aspect of human rights keeps on growing with its root in the idea of human rights. The basic value human rights adhere to remains the same whereas the substantive content and understanding of human rights evolve with the society. Thus, we can argue human rights is work in progress and will keep on evolving.

iv) Human Rights is not an alien concept.

The value human rights reflect is observed in its crude form in various religion and civilization. The present day idea of human rights is the refined form of the ideals that were in our religion and culture from time immemorial. The text of Vedas, Quran, and other religious text embodies the values expressed in the present day as human rights. If we look into our own idea of just society we will realize that concepts and ideas know as human rights is not an alien concept for us.

v) Human Rights rhetoric is not sufficient to translate human rights into practice.

With the translation of human rights into human rights law, the number of human rights instruments is increasing. We have seen the unprecedented growth in human rights rhetoric without its proportionate translation in practice. The states express commitments to ideas of human rights and sign and ratify the documents, however, the human rights observance does not tell us the similar story. Human Rights rhetoric is necessary but without its translation in practice it merely isn't of any use.

There still is a need for understanding human rights. The understanding is where observance of human rights truly gets strength from. When we understand the idea and believe in it, translating the idea into practice gets a lot easier.

Happy International Human Rights Day!!!