Overlooked Danger: The Security and Rights Implications of Hindu Nationalism in India

This Article will examine the rise of Hindu nationalism in India and provide an overview of its already devastating consequences. In February and March 2002, over 2000 people were killed in state-supported violence against Muslims in the western state of Gujarat, led by the Hindu nationalist BJP that also heads a coalition government at the center. The attacks were carried out with impunity by members of the BJP, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (“RSS,” National Volunteer Corps), the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (“VHP,” World Hindu Council), and the Bajrang Dal (the militant youth wing of the VHP). Collectively, these groups are known as the sangh parivar, or family of Hindu nationalist organizations. Police and state officials were directly implicated in many of the attacks. The BJP is the political wing of the sangh parivar. Violence and other abuses against marginalized groups in India are part of a concerted campaign of these and related organizations—whose leadership is dominated by upper-caste Hindus—to promote and exploit communal tensions in order to retain political and economic power. Nationwide violence against India\u27s Muslim community in 1992 and 1993 and against India\u27s Christian community since 1998, including in the state of Gujarat, has also stemmed from the violent activities and hate propaganda of these groups. Human rights groups have long warned of the destructive potential of the sangh parivar\u27s agenda—an agenda that exerts considerable influence over the nation\u27s educational, social, defense, and anti-terrorism policies. The Indian government continues to exploit rhetoric surrounding the global war on terror to silence political dissent while the sangh parivar invokes the threat of Islamic terrorism in the aftermath of September 11 to justify the persecution of Muslims. Operating under the guise of patriotism, the proponents of Hindu nationalism are achieving mainstream credibility. This Article also discusses the “communalization” of education by the Hindu right: a battle to shape the minds of today\u27s youth and tomorrow\u27s leaders. The promotion of Hindu nationalism as a legitimate political and cultural force has consequences beyond its impact on the lives of India\u27s lower castes and religious minorities. Attacks on Muslims in India have their corresponding effect on Hindus in Bangladesh and Pakistan. Similarly, atrocities against Hindus in Bangladesh and Pakistan-supported militancy in Kashmir are often cited as justifications for the persecution of Muslims in India. As the religious right gains significant footholds in electoral politics in Bangladesh and Pakistan, attacks on religious minorities in those countries have also reached alarming proportions

Reclaiming the Right to Food as a Normative Response to the Global Food Crisis

In 2009, the number of hungry in the world crossed the one billion mark, a dubious milestone that has been attributed in large part to consecutive food and economic crises. Over ninety-eight percent of these individuals live in the developing world. Ironically, a great majority are involved in food production as small-scale independent food producers or agricultural laborers. These facts and figures signal a definitive blow to efforts to reduce global hunger and lift the world\u27s poorest from abject and dehumanizing poverty. They also bring to light the deep imbalance of power in a fundamentally flawed food system. Responses to the current crisis have emphasized the responsibility of states to realize the right to adequate food, and have called for greater coordination and cooperation between states, civil society organizations, international institutions, and private sector actors. These calls conspicuously fail to attribute specific obligations or responsibilities to global actors that have had a profound and often devastating impact on the right to food, and whose policies and practices were instrumental in facilitating the current food crisis. Under economic globalization, the power exerted by global actors such as dominant states, international financial institutions (IFIs), and transnational corporations (TNCs), has wreaked havoc on the global food system and has made it increasingly difficult for weaker states to assert full control over policies that are central to their ability to fulfill the right to food. Yet these actors are not given equal consideration in international policy prescriptions, or under international law. This Comment explores both the urgency and paucity of the right to food as a legal and normative framework for addressing the current food crisis. It begins with an articulation of the contours and limits of the right to food under international human rights law, which organizes itself around the obligations of states to individuals in their jurisdiction. It then explores how powerful states, IFIs, and TNCs affect the right to food abroad both directly and indirectly by impeding the ability of states to fulfill their economic and social rights obligations. The Comment concludes by addressing particular doctrinal challenges that are essential to reclaiming the right to food as a relevant normative framework under economic globalization

The Right to Food: Holding Global Actors Accountable Under International Law

Economic globalization represents both an unmet opportunity and a significant challenge for the fulfillment of social and economic rights, including the right to food. While corporate sector accountability and the responsibility of international financial institutions (IFIs) to ensure social and economic rights are now at the forefront of the globalization discourse, greater attention must be paid to how these actors can be held accountable under international law. The existing human rights legal framework is ill-equipped to deal with violations committed by non-state actors, such as transnational corporations (TNCs), and multi-state actors, such as IFIs. Using the right to food as an entry point, this Article argues that international law is in need of rethinking under globalization. Part I examines the impact of IFIs and TNCs on the right to food and argues that effective implementation of the right to food is undermined by international human rights law\u27s state-centric focus and jurisdictional constraints. Part II asserts that under the obligation of international cooperation, States Parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) must respect and protect the right to food extraterritorially. This includes an obligation to regulate the activities of TNCs and IFIs over which they exercise influence or control. Part III addresses the need to locate the right to food outside of the international treaty law framework to ensure the accountability of non-ICESCR ratifying states. It analyzes the right to food as customary international law and concludes that the minimum core component of the right to food--the right to be free from hunger--may have already achieved customary status

The Global Land Rush: Markets, Rights, and the Politics of Food

In the past five years, interest in purchasing and leasing agricultural land in developing countries has skyrocketed. This trend, which was facilitated by the 2008 food crisis, is led by state and private investors, both domestic and foreign. Investors are responding to a variety of global forces: Some are securing their own food supply, while others are capitalizing on land as an increasingly promising source of financial returns. Proponents argue that these investments can support economic development in host states while boosting global food production. But critics charge that these “land grabs” disregard land users\u27 rights and further marginalize already vulnerable groups: small-scale farmers, pastoralists, and indigenous peoples who are being displaced from their land and from resources essential to their survival. Amid mounting global protests, two dominant frameworks have emerged to assess and contest the global rush for agricultural land. This Article critically examines both approaches. Part I provides an overview of the drivers and impacts of large-scale land transfers and the problematic land transactions involved. Part II sets out the contours of what I term the market-plus approach and the rights-based approach--the frameworks assumed respectively by proponents and opponents of these deals. Part III analyzes key conceptual differences in each framework\u27s approach to rights and risks and to land distribution. I argue that the market-plus approach tolerates and facilitates rights violations, whereas the rights-based approach sets a normative baseline that repudiates these impacts and addresses key distributive concerns. Part III assesses the potential of each approach to effectively regulate land deals in practice. I find that both approaches emphasize procedural safeguards to protect land users\u27 rights and argue that these safeguards are ineffective at contesting the power dynamics at play in land transactions. Part IV proposes concrete reforms to help empower communities most affected by land deals and argues that international actors must be more involved in securing rights protections

Equal by Law, Unequal by Caste: The Untouchable Condition in Critical Race Perspective

Caste-based oppression in India lives today in an environment seemingly hostile to its presence: a nation-state that has long been labeled the “world\u27s largest democracy;” a progressive and protective constitution; a system of laws designed to proscribe and punish acts of discrimination on the basis of caste; broad-based programs of affirmative action that include constitutionally mandated reservations or quotas for Dalits, or so-called “untouchables;” a plethora of caste-conscious measures designed to ensure the economic “upliftment” of Dalits; and an aggressive economic liberalization campaign to fuel India\u27s economic growth. This Article seeks to answer the question of how and why this seemingly foolproof recipe for equality has done little to mitigate centuries of oppression and exclusion for over 167 million Dalits at the bottom of India\u27s caste system. To the contrary, caste-based discrimination, inequality, and oppression comfortably survive and even thrive in modern day India. The Article further asks whether the clarion call of “Dalit Rights are Human Rights,” increasingly heeded by the international community and heard around the world, can now succeed where all else has seemingly failed. It concludes that “Dalit Rights are Human Rights” is not a self-fulfilling prophecy but one that can galvanize a project of social transformation so long as it does not restrict itself to the constraints of the legal and moral regime in which this struggle now lives. Part II of this Article situates “caste” in a global context, particularly in the context of debates around affirmative action, racial inequality, and racial justice in the United States. Part III focuses on Indian policies for redressing caste discrimination against Dalits, known in legal parlance as “scheduled castes,” and includes an overview of constitutional provisions and protective legislation aimed at abolishing “untouchability” practices and promoting Dalits\u27 socio-economic development. Part IV argues that India\u27s law enforcement machinery enforces the rules of the caste system, and not the “rule of law.” Part IV additionally offers insights into how and why these prescriptions have failed to deliver on their promises. Part V articulates the formidable challenge that the caste system presents to human rights law because of the competing and even inimical theory of graded inequality that it represents. It scrutinizes the human rights framework for its over-reliance on the state as a neutral agent of social change and for the attendant assumption that like economic growth, international laws and admonitions directed to the state will “trickle down” to the rest of the population. Part V argues that human rights actors must be scrutinized for paying insufficient attention to the dismantling of the caste-based hierarchical mindset. Like the economic and constitutional regimes that precede it, the human rights project has, to date, left this project wholly undone. Part VI concludes that the human rights movement can galvanize a project of social transformation so long as it does not restrict itself to the constraints of the legal and moral regime in which this struggle now lives

Confronting State Violence: Lessons from India\u27s Farmer Protests

In December 2021, following a year of sustained mass protests, farmers in India forced the repeal of three controversial Farm Laws that attempted to deregulate India’s agricultural sector in service of corporate interests. Farmers feared that the laws would dismantle price supports for key crops, jeopardize their livelihoods, and facilitate a corporate takeover of India’s agrarian economy. This Article situates India’s historic farmer protests in the context of the country’s longstanding agrarian crisis and the corporate capture of agriculture worldwide. I argue that the protests arose in response not only to the Farm Laws, but also to decades of state-sponsored ecological and economic violence that have relegated millions of Indian farmers to a state of precarity and desperation. I further argue that the protests hold key insights for social movements around the globe, and for the future of food in India and beyond.The Article analyzes the farmers’ protests using a four-part paradigm to assess contemporary movements for social change: Roots, Resistance, Reform, and Reconstruction. In so doing, it makes several contributions to legal scholarship. First, it makes visible the lived realities of India’s rural masses who have been left behind amidst the country’s celebrated economic growth. Second, it reveals the many ways in which State violence manifests, and how that violence is mediated through agricultural policies. Third, it demonstrates the power of mass nonviolent resistance as a strategic tool to confront State violence. And fourth, it explores the tension between reform and revolution. I argue that the farmers’ reformist demands do not sufficiently address the ecological harms and caste-based inequities that underpin India’s agrarian crisis. But the movement’s building of broad-based alliances across caste and class has opened the door to more transformative change

Under the Radar: Muslims Deported, Detained, and Denied on Unsubstantiated Terrorism Allegations

Through the targeted use of a wide set of immigration and law enforcement policies and actions, the U.S. government has cast Muslims as dangerous threats to national security, leaving Muslim communities across the United States vulnerable to discrimination and discriminatory profiling. This Briefing Paper by the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice (CHRGJ) and the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) documents the U.S. government's deployment of lower evidentiary standards and lack of due process guarantees in the immigration system against Muslims to further marginalize this targeted group in the name of national security and counterterrorism. A number of particular immigration programs and practices -- such as the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS),the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) name-check system in the naturalization process, and racial profiling at U.S. borders have received critical attention for their discriminatory impacts on Muslim communities. This Briefing Paper draws on interviews with immigration and criminal defense attorneys and community-based groups, court documents, and media accounts to identify five key under-documented patterns of government practices that appear to be targeting Muslim communities through the immigration system

The Injustice of Hunger and Our Shared Struggle for the Right to Food

https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/fss2015/1006/thumbnail.jp

Reclaiming the Right to Food as a Normative Response to the Global Food Crisis

In 2009, the number of hungry in the world crossed the one billion mark, a dubious milestone that has been attributed in large part to consecutive food and economic crises. Over ninety-eight percent of these individuals live in the developing world. Ironically, a great majority are involved in food production as small-scale independent food producers or agricultural laborers. These facts and figures signal a definitive blow to efforts to reduce global hunger and lift the world\u27s poorest from abject and dehumanizing poverty. They also bring to light the deep imbalance of power in a fundamentally flawed food system. Responses to the current crisis have emphasized the responsibility of states to realize the right to adequate food, and have called for greater coordination and cooperation between states, civil society organizations, international institutions, and private sector actors. These calls conspicuously fail to attribute specific obligations or responsibilities to global actors that have had a profound and often devastating impact on the right to food, and whose policies and practices were instrumental in facilitating the current food crisis. Under economic globalization, the power exerted by global actors such as dominant states, international financial institutions (IFIs), and transnational corporations (TNCs), has wreaked havoc on the global food system and has made it increasingly difficult for weaker states to assert full control over policies that are central to their ability to fulfill the right to food. Yet these actors are not given equal consideration in international policy prescriptions, or under international law. This Comment explores both the urgency and paucity of the right to food as a legal and normative framework for addressing the current food crisis. It begins with an articulation of the contours and limits of the right to food under international human rights law, which organizes itself around the obligations of states to individuals in their jurisdiction. It then explores how powerful states, IFIs, and TNCs affect the right to food abroad both directly and indirectly by impeding the ability of states to fulfill their economic and social rights obligations. The Comment concludes by addressing particular doctrinal challenges that are essential to reclaiming the right to food as a relevant normative framework under economic globalization

Sources of Affirmative Rights

Americans look to the U.S. Constitution as the source of all rights, but the document only affirms negative rights. Panelists will discuss specific areas of rights deemed “fundamental” by society and the international community, and how the US Constitution’s negative framing intersects with such societal needs. Moderator: Alexander A. Reinert, Max Freund Professor of Litigation & Advocacy, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. Panelists: Smita Narula: Haub Distinguished Professor of International Law, Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University; Cynthia Soohoo: Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Human Rights and Gender Justice Clinic (formerly named International Women’s Human Rights Clinic) at the City of New York School of Law; Eric Tars: Legal Director, the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty; and Joshua Weishart: Professor of Law and Policy, West Virginia University, joint appointment in the College of Law and the John D. Rockefeller IV School of Policy and Politics.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/floersheimer-recordings/1002/thumbnail.jp