On 25 August, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) published its findings from its first review of India in nineteen years.
It declared itself "gravely concerned" at reports of extrajudicial killings, torture and sexual violence against Dalits, Adivasis and Muslims by law enforcement officials, called for urgent action against hate speech and hate crimes, told India to suspend the National Register of Citizens and the Great Nicobar project, and sought an independent investigation of the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
The government answered within a day, rejecting what it called "politically motivated" references "with all the contempt that it deserves".
Why was India in front of a UN committee?
India ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1968. It is one of the oldest UN human rights treaties, negotiated in an era when newly independent India positioned itself against colonialism and apartheid. Ratifying the treaty carries an obligation: every state must report regularly to the committee of eighteen independent experts that monitors the treaty, known as CERD, and answer its questions in public.
India was last reviewed in February 2007. Its next report was due in January 2010. It arrived in October 2023, thirteen years late. The review held in Geneva on 11 and 12 August was therefore India's first in nineteen years.
India entered the review holding a position it has maintained for decades: that caste discrimination and Indigenous Peoples fall outside the treaty. International law says otherwise. The Committee has held since 2002 that caste discrimination is discrimination based on descent, which the treaty expressly prohibits, and that Indigenous Peoples are protected on grounds of ethnic origin. Every other UN body that has examined the question agrees with the Committee. The report India filed for this review nonetheless states that information on Dalits and Adivasis is provided "purely in a spirit of transparency and out of courtesy".
What happened at the review?
Over two afternoons at the Palais des Nations, a delegation led by India's Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, faced questions from the Committee.
Among much else, the members asked:
- Why were around 73 per cent of the cases of atrocities against Dalits registered in 2021 closed by the police as "false", without ever reaching a court?
- Why has India never recorded a prosecution under its 2013 law banning manual scavenging, when at least 1,289 people have died cleaning sewers and septic tanks since 1993?
- Who independently investigates killings during security operations, which reportedly fall disproportionately on Bengali-speaking Muslims in Assam and Adivasi communities in Bastar? And what is the legal basis of a Chhattisgarh policy that reportedly pays security forces for every person "captured, dead or alive"?
- Why do extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances and torture against ethno-religious groups in Jammu and Kashmir continue, often followed by attempts to conceal them?
- How does India guarantee freedom of religion when a March 2026 Supreme Court judgment strips Dalits of caste protections the moment they convert to Islam or Christianity?
- How did India ensure that updating the National Register of Citizens, which excluded 1.9 million people, would not lead to statelessness, detention or arbitrary deprivation of citizenship?
- Why did West Bengal remove 77 Muslim communities from its backward classes list in June, and on what legal basis has Assam converted more than 1,200 madrasas into general schools?
- What is being done to protect the roughly 300 surviving Shompen, whose island is slated to receive 600,000 settlers under the Great Nicobar project?
- What is being done about more than 1,300 anti-Muslim hate speech events recorded in 2025, including recurring rhetoric attributed to senior officials?
The members' questions were built on the recent records of the UN's own human rights bodies, and on nearly a dozen civil society submissions received before the review (one of them by a coalition of seven Indian, diaspora and international organisations). CERD itself has written to India under its early warning procedure more than a dozen times since 2018, on the Rohingya, on Adivasis in Bastar, on Bengali-speaking Muslims in Assam and on the Shompen.
In response, the delegation repeated the positions India's report had set out. The Committee's stance on caste is "unacceptable to India". All Indians are indigenous, so no community can claim recognition as an Indigenous People.
On the evidence, the delegation insisted that reports put to it by the Committee were "not correct", or a "wrong narrative which has come in the public domain".
A finding by a panel of independent international experts, whose authors have investigated and prosecuted atrocities in Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Myanmar, that the treatment of Bengali-speaking Muslims in Assam may amount to apartheid, was dismissed as "some private report prepared by some private individuals".
Arindam Bagchi, India's Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva, complained that a member's comments were "largely misinformed", and that "the committee seems not very interested in listening to what we have to say". Chinsung Chung, one of the members leading the review, replied that her sources were mostly the UN's own investigations.
The Committee's Chair, Gün Kut, observed: "What I understand is that you do not need any recommendations from our committee."
What did the Committee conclude?
On 25 August, the Committee published its conclusions, formally called Concluding Observations.
On hate crimes and hate speech, the Committee asked that India explicitly criminalise all acts of racist hate speech and hate crimes, in line with article 4 of the Convention, to include all grounds of discrimination recognised in article 1 of the Convention, and to recognise racist motivation as an aggravating circumstance. It asked for effective measures to ensure remedies and redress mechanisms for victims of racial discrimination, including hate speech and hate crimes, to ensure the availability and accessibility of reporting channels to victims, and to identify and effectively address all barriers to justice faced by the victim.
On Assam, the Committee said Bengali-speaking Muslims "are subjected to systematic and structural racial discrimination" in the preparation and updating of the National Register of Citizens. It told India to suspend the register, review the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, and join the two international conventions against statelessness.
Alongside the Committee noted reports that Bengali-speaking Muslim voters were disproportionately affected under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, particularly in West Bengal. Statements by senior officials in Assam and West Bengal conflating lawful Indian Muslim citizens with foreigners, it said, "would indicate official endorsements of discriminatory treatment on ethno-religious grounds".
On caste, the Committee reaffirmed that caste discrimination is "fully covered" by the treaty, rejecting the position India had argued in the room. It told India to review the 1950 presidential order that strips Dalits of protections when they convert to Islam or Christianity, and to "prevent and combat the formation of organised racist vigilante groups" that target Christian and Muslim Dalits and Adivasis, bring their members to justice, and disband them.
On Adivasis, it urged India to recognise all Indigenous Peoples, applying the principle of self-identification. It told India to suspend the Great Nicobar and Andaman projects until a full and independent impact study has been completed, and to halt forced evictions, including from tiger reserves, while appeals are pending.
On the Rohingya and other refugees, the Committee told India to act "as a matter of urgency" against the discrimination, hate speech and hate crimes targeting Rohingya and Bengali-speaking Muslims, to refrain from collective expulsions, and to respect the international rule against returning people to places where they face persecution.
Across all these communities, the Committee said it was "gravely concerned" at reports of extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detention, torture and sexual violence by law enforcement. It told India to review the laws used against human rights defenders and civil society organisations, including the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA).
It also asked India to adopt a comprehensive anti-discrimination law that contains a clear definition of racial discrimination and encompasses direct, indirect and intersecting forms of discrimination in both the public and private spheres, with an independent equality body to enforce it.
It also asked to strengthen the independence of the National Human Rights Commission, and to restore the content on caste hierarchy, untouchability and the historical struggles of Dalits and Adivasis that was removed from NCERT school textbooks in 2023.
The full document runs to sixty-six paragraphs.
Did India's answers survive scrutiny?
On at least six points, the Committee's Concluding Observations directly contradict what the delegation had told it in Geneva.
On hate speech, the Solicitor General had told the Committee that when the offender is "at a higher pedestal and… expected to be a little more responsible than others, then the sentences are also suitably enhanced". The Concluding Observations record that the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, India's new penal code, "does not recognize racist motivation as an aggravating circumstance". The Committee also pointed to "the failure to adequately recognize, investigate, and prosecute hate speech by politicians".
On residential segregation, the delegation had said of a recent Rajasthan law: "There is no such law. There is a bill which is in question." The Rajasthan assembly had in fact passed that bill by voice vote in March. The Committee recorded its concern at "widespread caste-based spatial segregation" and at restrictions on property transactions in "disturbed areas" designated on vaguely worded grounds such as "demographic imbalance".
On Bastar, the delegation had said "the tribals are happy, tribals are prospering", and had called reports of rewards for killings "not a correct factual assertion". The Committee pointed instead to reports of extrajudicial killings during security operations, and of killings of Adivasis systematically recorded as encounters with armed groups, without evidence.
On statelessness, a delegate had dismissed reports that Bengali-speaking Muslims were losing their citizenship: "It's not fact correct. It's actually just not true." The Committee's conclusion: the implementation of the citizenship framework in Assam "is leading to mass arbitrary deprivation of citizenship".
On its detention centres in Assam, the delegation had said that "there has been no torture of the people who are found to be illegal immigrants", and that detainees were provided with food and legal aid. The Committee described "substandard and inhuman conditions" in detention facilities for migrants, particularly the Matia Transit Camp: overcrowded cells, and inadequate access to food, drinking water, sanitation and medical care.
The delegation had also offered a general principle: "individual incidents in a country of India's size should not be conflated with state policy or institutional tolerance". The Committee wrote of "large-scale violations and abuses" by law enforcement officials against Dalits, Adivasis, Muslims and non-citizens.
The government dismissed the findings the day after they were published. The Ministry of External Affairs called the Committee's references to India "politically motivated" and "highly malicious", and said India rejected them "with all the contempt that it deserves".
What happens now?
The Committee designated three of its recommendations for priority follow-up, on which India must report back within two years: creating safe channels for reporting abuses by law enforcement, suspending the Great Nicobar and Andaman projects, and decriminalising irregular entry and using immigration detention only as a last resort.
After its last review, in 2007, the Committee had asked India for the same kind of follow-up report within a year. Closing this review, the Chair reminded the delegation what happened: "This interim report never came… we are basically talking about pretty much the same problems for which there was no solution, no improvement."
India's next full report to the Committee is due on 4 January 2030.
Concluding Observations are not a court judgment. No sanction follows. But the UN has now formally documented what is being done to Dalits, Adivasis and Muslims in India, through the expert committee India itself agreed would monitor the treaty. The findings will anchor the follow-up report, the next review, and every UN examination of India in between.
And when this period is studied by future generations, these twenty pages will be there: the indelible historical record, undeniable, and no one's “private report”.
No comments:
Post a Comment