Editor,
Apropos the Article, “Who are persons with disability?” by Carmo Noronha (ST, December 4, 2013), the learned author has done commendable work in highlighting the key provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability (2006). However, in paragraph four of the said Article, the author writes that “the reference point should be the first human rights treaty of the 21st century – the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability (UNCRPD).” This statement is factually incorrect and needs to be rectified. To understand the error, one has to first of all know the meaning of the term ‘treaty’. Article 2 (1) (a) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) defines “treaty” as “an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation.” The genus of agreements denoted by the world “treaty” is a wide one, viz., treaty, convention, protocol, pact, charter, agreement, declaration, memoranda of understanding, exchange of notes, etc. The above terms may indicate a difference in procedure or degree of formality, but in generic sense all of them are described as treaties.
In this background, it is worth mentioning that UNCRPD is not the first human rights treaty of the 21st century. Prior to the adoption of UNCRPD, a human rights treaty has been adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations by resolution A/RES/57/199 on 18th December 2002, i.e. Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was adopted on 13th December 2006 during the sixty-first session of the UN General Assembly by resolution A/RES/61/10.
As an avid reader of your newspaper, I consider that it is my humble duty to point out the factual inaccuracy in the said article.
Yours etc.,
Shishir Tiwari
Assistant Professor,
Department of Law
North-Eastern Hill University
Revisiting the Holy Books
Editor,
The Letter of Chandrashekar (ST Nov. 28, 2013) “On Religion and Conversion” and a subsequent reference to it by S.Ahmed “On Islam” (ST Dec. 02, 2013) are indeed informative. As a review to these, there is no doubt that Ahmed’s quoting a verse from the Qur’an elucidates Islam’s tolerance towards other faiths. However, a better counter-argument could have been to substantiate the opposite of Chandrashekhar’s views who refers to the plight of non Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Bangladesh or the forgotten indigenous Kashmiri Pandits who still roam about as refugees. Quoting from the Holy Book appears not to have duly answered Chandrashekar’s assertion. Besides, I presume that Chandrashekar is not uninformed that Holy Books of all Religions, taking in their broader contexts, propagate tolerance towards different faiths. The difficulty is whether the followers live up to the exhortations of the Holy Books.
The need of the hour is “Let not our present generation merely know what the Holy Books endorse, rather let us live and practice the exhortations of the Holy Books.”
Yours etc.
C. Wanñiang
Via email
CSWO & RTI answers
Editor,
Apropos the letter written by one Facta Meshwa Lyngdoh (ST Dec 2, 2013) I’m glad that the writer, unlike others, took time to find out the facts about who the President of the CSWO is and filed an RTI application in this regard. The writer received the same Order as the one I had received vide letter No.E.16/18/2011/152, dated August 24, 2011 which clearly stated the facts as mentioned in his/her letter. Having said that, with regards to the settling of the matter of the CSWO, I wish to clarify that I had never received any such letter from the writer. So it would be appreciated if a received copy of the said letter be sent or delivered to me. Or kindly contact me personally.
Yours etc,
Irene.P.Hujon,
President CSWO