But as someone who has been at the fringe of the democratic rights movement in the city and the country for almost two decades, I am also concerned about some sweeping generalisations and comments in the article. I find them unwarranted, misleading and in sheer bad taste. Let me briefly comment.

Javed writes: "What about the growing instances of the violation of human rights of others by ‘militants’…?" This surely is the language of the state and of those opposed to the spirit of the democratic rights movement. Let me remind Javed that democratic rights are not part of some quid pro quo arrangement: you respect my rights, I respect yours. That is civilised behaviour but political movements and the state are not necessarily civilised in this manner. Thus, it has been the fundamental principle of the democratic rights movement all over the world that the state must always follow the rule of law. That is the basis of the legitimacy of the state itself and its monopoly on the means of violence. So police brutality and other violations by the state are not justifiable, irrespective of whether or not ‘militants’ believe in democratic politics. That aside, I am sure Javed doesn’t believe in ‘eye for an eye…’ kind of justice.

Javed: "Is it ethically right…that the rights groups focus their entire attention on violation by state personnel…?" This is surprising indeed. Javed should recall that in the massacre of Sikhs in 1984 in Delhi and other places after the assassination of Mrs Indira Gandhi and in Bombay riots of 1992–93, state personnel were not directly involved. Yet in both cases, democratic rights groups were in the forefront to investigate the violence and to demand punishment for the guilty and continue their struggle to this day in a variety of ways.

Again, to quote Javed, "Why has the rights movement kept mum on the fact of over four lakh Kashmiris, mostly Pandits from the Valley, have become refugees in their own country?" This statement is simply not true. In the last decade or so, there have been a number of reports on human rights violations in Kashmir by different democratic rights groups and none of them has been entirely oblivious of the tragic plight of the Kashmiri Pandits. There have been variations in focus and attention but that is another matter.

Javed: "…some (democratic rights groups) function as barely disguised fronts of groups like the PWG." The PWG is not just some group. It is an integral part of a political struggle in some parts of the country. I am not their spokesperson and I don’t always agree with their politics but to smugly simply accuse some rights groups of being fronts of the PWG is not fair. If Javed knows for sure, let him name the groups but otherwise any individual can be a member/activist of a democratic rights group irrespective of which other organisation s/he belongs to, a principle that Javed approves of in the same article a few paragraphs before. Besides, Mr Kannabiran was in the conference. He has long been associated with the APCLC, a body routinely accused by the defenders of the Indian State for being a front of the PWG. Does Javed agree with that charge?

Else, is Javed suggesting that the naxalites’ human rights can be violated with impunity by the police and the army because the naxalites don’t believe in democratic politics?

That issue also raises further questions. While, mercifully, some democratic politics continues to define the basic contours of Indian polity, how democratic that polity really is, may I ask? How democratic are our political parties and their political leaders in practice? Why don’t I even see democratic rights groups always observing democratic norms in their internal politics? What I am trying to suggest is that to imply that one must first respect democratic norms before one’s democratic rights deserve to be defended is to define an unrealistic norm. It would make a mockery of even the semblance of democracy that we have and would reduce all of us to the level of gang politics.

And finally, "How is it that this movement for democracy in the ‘70s … sangh parivar?" Frankly, I don’t understand what Javed is suggesting here. Does he mean the PUCL was somehow responsible for the rise of the Hindutva movement! This implication is so ludicrous that it can only be laughed at. Or is he suggesting that the PUCL should have instituted some mechanism to ensure that those who now espouse the cause of Hindutva could have been kept out of it? But how does one demarcate and decide the tricky issue of whom to exclude? It is difficult, almost impossible, to carry out such an exercise.

Besides, it seems to suggest that political perceptions come in a neat, well–defined package. But they don’t. People, all of us, have different levels of understanding of different conflicts. We have different ideas. How does one weave all these conflicts, perceptions and ideas into a clearly defined web? Besides, should one even make any a priori attempt in this direction?

I increasingly feel that a serious problem that confronts many of us in India is that we seem to be plagued by the need for a comprehensive clarity on all issues by an activist. We are too intolerant of confusions and contradictions, of processes through which one learns to listen to others, appreciates their understanding and perceptions even if, especially if, they don’t agree with our own ideas.

These apart, I do hope that the PUHR will effectively add to the voice of democratic forces in the country in the years to come.