Talk:Human rights in India

human rights in india

implementation schime ? of human rights in india

OBCs, Dalits and Sachar Committee report

While I'm not doubting the validity of statements in this article they need to be moved to a more relevant section such as Caste in India, or Economic status of minorities. Human rights refers primarily to things like freedom of speech, religion etc and not to economic status. Muslims, Dalits, OBCs are poor but that's for another article. If they are also oppressed (by the state or by other groups with state support or lack of legal enforcements) for being Muslim, Dalit etc then that comes under human rights —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.199.177.246 (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Edits by user Ghanadar galpa

User Ghanadar galpa has edited the custodial death section. The previous version was

In India, torture is rampant in police custody, which is a major reason behind deaths in custody.Torture main reason of death in police custody Custodial deaths in West Bengal and India's refusal to ratify the Convention against Torture According to Arundhati Roy, India has the highest number of custodial deaths.Custodial deaths highest in India: Arundhati Roy The police often torture innocent people until a 'confession' is obtained to save influential and wealthy offenders.Custodial deaths and torture in India

The new version created by the user is

Under the Constitution of India, the police are the responsibility of state governments with the organisation and operations of police forces governed by rules and regulations framed by state governments.Thus, each state or union territory, which is under the control of the central government, has its own separate police force. In addition, there are also central police organisations established by the national government for specialised work. The combined strength of the state and central police in India in 2003 was more than two million personnel with 1.47 million belonging to the state or union territory police forces and the remainder forming the country's five central paramilitary organisations.[1]

In India, torture is widespread in police custody, which is a major reason behind deaths in custody.Torture main reason of death in police custody Custodial deaths in West Bengal and India's refusal to ratify the Convention against Torture. However, recent advancements in technology, as well as the increasing adoption of modern law-enforcement methods from western examples seeks to improve this situation.

The main issue at hand concerning police violence is a lack of accountability of the police, a feature characteristic of many developing nations. The uniqueness of India in this regard, unlike other developing nations, is that one of the most vigilant watchdogs over the operations of the police in the country is the media. The media in India enjoys a wide measure of freedom and has enormous reach and power. Technological advances witnessed during the last few decades have revolutionised the world of communications and opened frontiers that were hitherto unknown to the media or were beyond its reach. Any violation of human rights occurring anywhere in the country can be known throughout the rest of the country quickly, provided the media reports the abuse that has taken place.This provides the Indian media with the ability to criticize police brutalities effectively and swiftly, as has happened numerous times in recent years.[2]

Now see how is this user's edits.

• Under the Constitution of India, the police are the responsibility of state governments with the organisation and operations of police forces governed by rules and regulations framed by state governments.Thus, each state or union territory, which is under the control of the central government, has its own separate police force. In addition, there are also central police organisations established by the national government for specialised work. The combined strength of the state and central police in India in 2003 was more than two million personnel with 1.47 million belonging to the state or union territory police forces and the remainder forming the country's five central paramilitary organisations. This paragraph is absolutely irrelevant in a human rights page. This paragraph is depicting the structure, organization and function of Indian police force. The text in 2003 was more than two million personnel with 1.47 million belonging to the state or union territory police forces and the remainder forming the country's five central paramilitary organisations have nothing do in human rights article. Tell this in Indian police article. This edits are completely in contradiction to WP:IINFO. Note that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

• What the text The main issue at hand concerning police violence is a lack of accountability of the police, a feature characteristic of many developing nations have to do here.

• The uniqueness of India in this regard, unlike other developing nations, is that one of the most vigilant watchdogs over the operations of the police in the country is the media What this text have to do here? The particular phrase most vigilant watchdogs is completely irrelevant in this section. Look the title of the article. This article is about Human Rights situation in India. Not about the mechanism of minitoring on police.

• The media in India enjoys a wide measure of freedom and has enormous reach and power. This section is about custodial death, not about press freedom. If you want to tell this, say it in press freedom section.

• Technological advances witnessed during the last few decades have revolutionised the world of communications and opened frontiers that were hitherto unknown to the media or were beyond its reach. This article is not about Mass media in India and the process of operation of the media. Say this in Mass media in India article not here. You are again violating WP:IINFO by adding such texts in this section.

• Any violation of human rights occurring anywhere in the country can be known throughout the rest of the country quickly, provided the media reports the abuse that has taken place If you want to say this fact, say this in press freedom section. Not in custodial death section.

See WP:IINFO, WP:MOS.

Er, aren't you the one interpreting the research of the human rights group here? IE Original Research? The context isn't something I thought up, it's what the human rights groups themselves state. Ghanadar galpa 05:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, kindly maintain civility. Referring to me in the third person shows a condescending and disparaging outlook, and diminishes your credibility greatly. Ghanadar galpa 05:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Civility. This is article talk page, not your talk page. Referrring someone in third person is not a volation of Wikipedia:Civility. Otolemur crassicaudatus 05:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Finally, please discuss edits for a few days before unilaterally revert-warring. Doing so is Disrupting wikipedia to prove a point, and is tiresome. Ghanadar galpa 05:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Answer to the points I have mentioned here. I want to discuss edits for a few days before unilaterally revert-warring. So please answer. Otolemur crassicaudatus 05:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I already have. Please do not boldify your letters as it indicates you are shouting, which is uncivil. None of what I have entered is my own interpretation, but directly addresses the complexities of human rights issues in India by the human rights groups themselves, as well as by reporters reporting on the human rights topics. This is not an "indiscriminate" collection of information but a very discriminate one. Again, for an example, please read Human rights in Israel, where similar context and background are provided. Ghanadar galpa 06:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Again read Wikipedia:Civility. Boldifying letters is not a violation of Wikipedia:Civility.
• I understand that what you have entered is not original research, but interpretation of human rights groups and NGOs. But this is wikipedia, not a place to collect the opinion of the human rights groups. This article is supposed to depict the human rights situation in India. Not to depict the organization of Indian police force. You have to abide by WP:IINFO.
• And finally Human rights in Israel isn't a valid argument. Otolemur crassicaudatus 06:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It conveys the impression of shouting, which creates a hostile atmosphere where it is difficult for me to work.Ghanadar galpa 06:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but there you are incorrect. The article is supposed to discuss the widest possible cross section of notable, verifiable and relevant issues concerning human rights in India, which your POV-pushing fails to do. The article is not meant to be an anti-India diatribe, or a magnet for Indophobia.Ghanadar galpa 06:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not what I'm saying. This is getting tiresome. Ghanadar galpa 06:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:IINFO. The texts on the organization of police force cleary violate this. I have never said this article is meant to be an anti-India diatribe, or a magnet for Indophobia. I have said, I am again saying that this article is to depict verifiable and relevant issues concerning human rights in India, not to discuss irrelavant facts like those regarding organisation and function of Indian police force. I am creating a new section here on that particular issue. Otolemur crassicaudatus 06:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Texts on organisation of Indian police force

The texts Under the Constitution of India, the police are the responsibility of state governments with the organisation and operations of police forces governed by rules and regulations framed by state governments.Thus, each state or union territory, which is under the control of the central government, has its own separate police force. In addition, there are also central police organisations established by the national government for specialised work. The combined strength of the state and central police in India in 2003 was more than two million personnel with 1.47 million belonging to the state or union territory police forces and the remainder forming the country's five central paramilitary organisations.

• This paragraph is depicting the structure, organization and function of Indian police force. *The text in 2003 was more than two million personnel with 1.47 million belonging to the state or union territory police forces and the remainder forming the country's five central paramilitary organisations have nothing do in human rights article. Tell this in Indian police article.
• This edits are completely in contradiction to WP:IINFO. Otolemur crassicaudatus 06:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The text in the starred point is validly irrelevant, and I'll remove it now. As for the rest, the objective of this article is to inform the reader about the entirity of the Human rights situation in India, not to be a critique of it. In order to do that, points mentioned by Human rights Groups themselves about the Indian police force needs to be mentioned, and is hardly a violation of IINFO or whatever other guideline wikilawyers use to push their POV. Ghanadar galpa 06:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have never said that objective of this article is to be a critique of Human rights situation in India. I am again saying that the objective of this article is to depict the true verificable human rights sitution in India and to add only the texts which are relevant. Otolemur crassicaudatus 07:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Texts on media in custodial death section

In the Custodial death section, a large paragraph is added about the Indian media. The paragraph is

The main issue at hand concerning police violence is a lack of accountability of the police, a feature characteristic of many developing nations. The uniqueness of India in this regard, unlike other developing nations, is that one of the most vigilant watchdogs over the operations of the police in the country is the media. The media in India enjoys a wide measure of freedom and has enormous reach and power. Technological advances witnessed during the last few decades have revolutionised the world of communications and opened frontiers that were hitherto unknown to the media or were beyond its reach. Any violation of human rights occurring anywhere in the country can be known throughout the rest of the country quickly, provided the media reports the abuse that has taken place.This provides the Indian media with the ability to criticize police brutalities effectively and swiftly, as has happened numerous times in recent years.

• 'The media in India enjoys a wide measure of freedom and has enormous reach and power' what is the relevance of this text in the custodial death section. This can be added in press freedom section, not here.

• The whole paragraph relies on only one reference. This comment is the view of a particular organization, better to say it is the opinion of the author G. P. Joshi. Please see WP:UNDUE.Otolemur crassicaudatus 09:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Come on. This is wikilawyering. The first point has been discussed to the point of tedium, and need not be repeated anymore. As for the second point, there are thousands of sources that attest to this point. The once cited is merely representative. Ghanadar galpa 19:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You cannot deny the rules of wikipedia and following these rules is not wikilawyering. Moreover you have to follow WP:NPOV. The paragraph is clearly biased. Make it short and NPOV and remove the POV and biased sentences like The media in India enjoys a wide measure of freedom and has enormous reach and power. Otolemur crassicaudatus 04:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Trying to overquote and misinterpret wikipedia policy for the purposes of POV-pushing a clearly Indophobic agenda is clearly wikilawyering. These arguments have been argues to the point of tedium, and need not be repeated further. Ghanadar galpa 04:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arundhati Roy

I will add comment by Arundhati Roy back. She is a noted and respected social activist. Read the article on her. She is far far notable than G. P. Joshi. And please don't delete that again. Doing so is Disrupting wikipedia to prove a point.Otolemur crassicaudatus 04:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No she is not. Unlike Joshi, she has precisely zero qualifications in human rights issues, and is a highly controversial figure (as you can see from the article itself) who rants on about secret conspiracies by Mossad and what not. Including her in what aims to be a balanced article is the equivalent of including David Irvings views on the holocaust, which would be patently absurd. Ghanadar galpa 05:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have valid argument here. I take it. But I am not agree with you regarding the large paragragh associated with G. P. Joshi. Otolemur crassicaudatus 05:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not trying to push in Joshi's POV here. Joshi's analysis of India's generally shitty police force is very trenchant, and reflects the views of the majority of copper watchdogs in the country. That is why there is a paragraph sumamrizing his analysis. Do you have any reliable sources that assert that Joshi is lying and/or misinformed? Do watchdogs claim that the Indian media is not free, and that that is not a factor in exposing and undermining the abuse of coppers in the country or what?Ghanadar galpa 05:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Press-related paragraph

I am not telling Joshi a lier. See this. The media in India enjoys a wide measure of freedom and has enormous reach and power. Technological advances witnessed during the last few decades have revolutionised the world of communications and opened frontiers that were hitherto unknown to the media or were beyond its reach. What does this mean?

• First of all, this paragraph is clearly irrelevant here. What this sentences have to do with custodial death. These are factual information about the technology and working process of the press. You see there is a large section press freedom. You can put these there. These make the article unnecessarily long.
• The media in India enjoys a wide measure of freedom and has enormous reach and power what does that mean? Will you be happy if the press is not given freedom? The sentence here has clearly a biased view particularly in this context.

Instead I suggest a concise version India has a stong press which can which can report human rights abuse quickly something like that. Please respond quickly. Otolemur crassicaudatus 05:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't edit war. I'm presently working on the lead. I'll get back to you in a few minutes. Ghanadar galpa 06:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

When you ask "What does this mean" are you asking me or Joshi. it is not our job to interpret and pick-and-choose what human rights orgs say? Out job is to summarize their salient points, which this paragraph clearly does (in fact, Joshi delves into even more details that have been omitted from the summary as periphereal). The "irrelevance" of this paragraph is your assertion. Joshi clearly asserts the relevance with respect to the custodial death problem and , as such needs mentioning to provide an adequate summary of his views. What I suggest as a compromise is the following abbreviation: "The media in India enjoys a wide measure of freedom and has enormous reach and power, Recent technological improvements have improved their reach significantly". Ghanadar galpa 06:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia and we are editors. We cannot deny our responsibility about providing only relevant information. As the argument you provided in case of Arundhati Roy. See this sentence The media in India enjoys a wide measure of freedom and has enormous reach and power this is clearly a biased view. Will you be happy if the press is not given freedom? Otolemur crassicaudatus 06:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I will now edit the POV texts there. Otolemur crassicaudatus 06:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting increasingly tired of your combative attitude, and your revisionist misinterpretation of wikipedia's policies and purpose. This is and encyclopedia. We cannot deny our responsibility about providing information deemed by specialists as relevant, implicitly or explicitly. Perceived bias of third parties is irrelevant to our purposes, we merely chronicle them after appropriate attribution and leave the reader to his own judgments. Ghanadar galpa 06:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)