Try as I did, I could find no mention of Hindus killed at the hands of Christians and Muslims. Take the BBC's report of August 28, "Hindu preacher killed by Tripura rebels." The title should've been "Hindu preacher killed by Christian terrorists." Swami Shantikali Maharaj was killed by ten guerrillas of the National Liberation Front of Tripura who broke into his ashram and riddled him with bullets. The NLFT itself had declared that it would convert all tribes people of Tripura to Christianity. The majority of tribals are Hindus or Buddhists.

Then there's the case of Abhilash, a popular RSS pracharak of Pandalgudi village in Tamil Nadu. Father Arulanandam, Jayaseelan and Victor promised Abhilash all the riches if he converted. On his refusal, Fr Arulanandam and 20 Christians thrashed him in the village market in full daylight. Then they took him to the police station and complained that Abhilash had brought a bomb to the church. The police conducted inquiries and released Abhilash. Hindu leaders - and the public - went to the police station to file an FIR against Fr Arulanandam and his gang. The sub-inspector lodged the complaint only after intervention from higher authorities (FIR No. 71/2000, dated 18-7-2000). So far, four Christians have been arrested. Abhilash is under treatment at the Madurai Government Hospital. Fr Arulanandam, Jayaseelan and Victor are absconding.

Then there's the case of Father Victor Crasta who was gunned down by the NLFT at Bhalukcherra in North Tripura on July 25. Eh...? Uff, no, it's not a mistake. You see, Crasta was a Roman Catholic. The NLFT are Baptists. The principle is the same: Religious persecution.

The HRW is oblivious when it comes to Hindus, but it's even more stringent when it comes to India. Last year, it called upon the five permanent members of the UN Security Council as well as India's trading partners to suspend all military aid and sales to India unless it provides greater accountability of HR abuses in Kashmir. Its report recommended that in the annual World Bank-sponsored donors meeting on India, the participant countries should publicly state that continued economic support for India should not be seen as support for India's policies.

But on Pakistan's proxy war, the report called upon "the groups fighting security forces" to abide by HR norms. Apparently, "These groups should desist from using anti-personnel landmines." Now tell me, why does HRW advise "the groups fighting security forces" to shun only landmines??

The HRW's October 1999 report was even worse. Written by an Indian dramatist (I did not make this up), it said that "India embarked on a policy of ethnic cleansing" and maintained that Delhi must prohibit surveys by district administrations to assess the activities and whereabouts of minority community members and leaders! Hunh? We may as well pass over the Lok Sabha to these dipweeds and bend over and open up.

Now, I've got the low-down on HRW from an American of East European descent: "Despite its influence, HRW is not an impartial advocate. It often collects or adapts 'information' to suit its objectives. Its researchers aren't confused about India - they are deliberately presenting falsehoods and exaggerations - as they have done in other cases, like Kosovo. HRW itself is part of that elite, which includes government departments, foundations, NGOs and academics. It is not a association of 'concerned private citizens.' HRW board members include present and past government employees, and overlapping directorates link it to the major foreign policy lobbies in the US. Cynically summarised, it is a joint venture of George Soros and the State Department.

"HRW is a tool of US/NATO. They helped destroy Yugoslavia and justified NATO intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo by demonizing the Serbs and ignoring terrorism by KLA (Muslim narcoterrorists), Bosnian Muslims, and Croats. HRW has circulated false stories about massacres that never happened or mass graves that turned up empty. HRW helped manufacture the war in Kosovo. Now we have two Islamic states - Bosnia and Kosovo - being established in Europe."

One ethical tradition has become associated with the US, that includes the universal rights set out in its Constitution. In a sense, the US was "designed" as an interventionist power: interventionist HR orgs are a logical result. They express the belief of most US citizens, that their values are superior to all others. To maintain that character, HRW operates a number of discriminatory exclusions: Firstly, it is linguistically racist; although it publishes material in foreign languages to promote its views, the org itself is English-only. Secondly, the org discriminates on grounds of nationality. Its list of functionaries makes clear that non-Americans are excluded at board level. Thirdly, the org discriminates on grounds of social class. Again, the list makes clear that board members are recruited from the upper class and upper-middle class.

Paul Treanor, who has extensively researched the org, writes: "HRW can therefore claim no ethical superiority. It is itself involved in practices it condemns elsewhere, such as discrimination in employment, and exclusion from social structures. It can also claim no neutrality. An organisation which will not allow a Serb or Somali to be a board member, can give no neutral assessment of a Serbian or Somali state. It would probably be impossible for an all-American, English-only elite organisation, to be anything else but paternalistic."

Perceptions... perceptions... Dig deep enough and the truth will out. But, why would the Indian stooges of these dorks care...?

Varsha Bhosle