By Ashok Nilakntan Ayers
NEW YORK: On Tuesday, UN experts called for an independent investigation into Indian authorities’ conduct in a recent crackdown on protests, saying demonstrators had sustained injuries and some reported ill-treatment.
The statement carries 24 signatures, including the special rapporteurs on peaceful assembly, torture, human rights defenders, freedom of expression and violence against women. These experts are appointed by the UN Human Rights Council but are independent of the UN itself. Their findings carry moral and legal weight, but they are not binding. The statement makes five objections.
First, the experts say police used lathi charges against unarmed students and prevented thousands from joining the protests.
Second, they cite reports that more than 7,000 young people, journalists, rights defenders, lawyers and party members were arbitrarily detained in New Delhi and sent to remote centres, where phones were allegedly seized and protest material deleted. Indian Opinion reports that most detainees were released after about 24 hours. The statement also notes that some people were freed only after habeas corpus petitions were filed.
Third, the experts expressed particular concern about reports of sexual violence and other gender-based abuse in the protests and related detentions.
Fourth, any restriction on assembly must be lawful, pursue a legitimate aim, and be necessary and proportionate. The experts flagged Section 163 of the BNSS, the successor to the old Section 144 prohibitory orders.
Fifth, they say they have repeatedly alerted India to undo restrictions on assembly, excessive force and arbitrary detention, and call this crackdown part of a broader, troubling pattern. They want an independent, impartial investigation, accountability and reparations for victims.
What the experts do not do is rule on the underlying dispute. Opposition parties and student groups have demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over a voter-list revision they say favours the BJP. The Election Commission says the exercise is meant to make the rolls accurate, and the BJP rejects allegations of manipulation.
On October 11, the Ministry of External Affairs called the UN human rights office’s earlier concerns “unwarranted” and an “unacceptable interference” in internal affairs. It said the Constitution guarantees peaceful assembly, police act strictly within the law, and courts remain open to redress grievances.
It also accused the UN of selectivity, saying violent responses in India’s neighbourhood had gone uncommented. The Wire countered that the UN rights office has issued statements on protests in Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan. The argument is not new. In 2020, over the citizenship-law protests, India said no foreign party had a locus standi on matters of its sovereignty.
The legal contest is between two principles. Sovereignty is real, and Indian courts remain the primary forum for redress. But India is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which protects assembly and liberty. Rapporteurs measure conduct against obligations a state has accepted, which is why they say the actions “violate India’s core international legal obligations.” Delhi’s position is that its own institutions are the proper check.
The government-side charge is that the agitation is foreign-engineered, on the Bangladesh template. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh accused the Congress and allies of using youth energy to fuel anarchy and of dreaming of a Bangladesh-like situation.
BJP president Nitin Nabin said the opposition’s talk of “regime change” exposed an agenda of destabilising India in collusion with foreign powers. On Thursday, BJP spokesman Gaurav Bhatia cited a Fox News Digital investigation and named the groups Progressive International and Indian Alliance Paris, alleging links to the Congress ecosystem. The Tribune reported that he did not establish a direct organisational connection between the meetings he cited and the groups in that report.
Protest-side voices reject the framing. Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the public demanding a change of government out of dissatisfaction is not a crime.
On the specific claim that foreign students are leading the agitation, I found no official statement making it. The allegations reported so far point to overseas organisations, funding and the opposition. The detainees named in the report are Indian figures. They include AAP convener Arvind Kejriwal and AISA leader Neha Bora. CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke was detained on October 16.
The Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka analogy cuts both ways. Governments were overthrown in Bangladesh and Nepal. Researchers stress that the causes of these protests differ by country. Foreign Policy argued in July that India’s Cockroach movement was unlikely to become a mass movement like those that ousted governments in Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka. Washington is staying out. Secretary of State Marco Rubio declined to comment on the protests.
The campaign against the revision and for Kumar’s resignation remains unresolved. The UN statement is a set of reported allegations, not findings of fact. The 7,000 figure and the abuse claims are unverified, and I found no specific Indian reply to the sexual-violence allegations. The conspiracy theory rests so far on political statements and one media report. It has not been tested in any forum.
An independent inquiry is the one step that could test both accounts. India has rejected that route. Until someone does it, the sovereignty dispute and the conspiracy claim will keep substituting for answers about what happened on the streets of Delhi. (IPA Service)
