In a development that carries implications for India’s global human rights reputation, the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) has recommended lowering the accreditation status of the National Human Rights Commission of India (NHRCI) from “A” to “B.”
GANHRI’s Sub-Committee on Accreditation issued the recommendation in April 2025 after deferrals in 2023 and 2024. The committee cited concerns including political influence in appointments, inadequate diversity, dependence on police agencies for investigations, and perceived gaps in addressing torture allegations and civic space restrictions.
Although the reclassification is deferred until March 2026 to allow for reforms, the move signals concerns about the NHRC’s independence and its ability to function as a robust national watchdog.
This assessment takes on added weight in the context of human rights issues in Northeast India, where ethnic conflict, policing practices, and long-standing grievances continue to draw scrutiny—most visibly in the aftermath of the killing of Angel Chakma.
Human Rights in the Northeast: Persistent Structural Challenges
The Northeast—comprising eight states including Assam, Mizoram, Manipur and Tripura—has long experienced conflict tied to ethnicity, identity, and autonomy demands. These tensions have intersected with state security responses, including application of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), which grants broad operational authority and limits prosecution of security personnel.
Despite partial rollbacks, AFSPA remains active in several areas. Civil society groups and local communities continue to report allegations of excessive force, arbitrary detention and custodial violations.
In 2025, independent monitors noted continued reports of sexual violence, encounter killings and custodial deaths linked to law enforcement and security agencies. Manipur remains emblematic of the region’s crisis—ethnic violence between Meitei and Kuki communities since 2023 has caused loss of life, displacement and destruction of homes. Questions over state capacity and impartiality have fuelled public distrust.
At the same time, land rights concerns afflict Adivasi and Indigenous communities amid industrial expansion, infrastructure corridors and extractive projects. While New Delhi has signed multiple peace agreements to settle long-standing insurgencies, critics argue these do not fully address ongoing policing practices, local governance failures, or structural inequities.
Bias and discrimination against people from the Northeast remain a national concern as well. Students and workers living across Indian cities report harassment, stereotyping and violence tied to their appearance, language and food habits—issues the Supreme Court has previously flagged, and which national guidelines have struggled to curb in practice.
The NHRC has sought to engage the region—including hearing dozens of cases during a 2025 camp sitting in Guwahati—but its ability to secure timely relief or enforce accountability is now under greater scrutiny following the accreditation review.
The Case of Angel Chakma
The killing of 24-year-old Tripura student Angel Chakma in Dehradun in December 2025 brought these tensions into sharper public focus.
According to reports, Chakma and his brother objected to remarks directed at them, after which a violent altercation ensued. Chakma suffered serious injuries and died days later.
Police arrested three individuals—identified locally as Avinash Negi and Suraj Khawas among others—and have stated that the incident arose from a quarrel rather than racial hostility. However, activists and community organisations have described it as part of a broader pattern of targeting Northeast youth in mainland cities.
The Youth’s Forum for Protection of Human Rights condemned the killing, and a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed before the Supreme Court seeking guidelines to address racially motivated attacks. The NHRC also requested a report from state authorities, though expectations for a wider inquiry remain unmet for many observers.
Chakma’s death has reignited discussion on the vulnerability of students and migrants from the Northeast, uneven media attention to violence against marginalized groups, and the limitations of existing institutional safeguards.
NHRC Downgrade and Implications
The proposed downgrade illustrates concerns that the NHRC is constrained at precisely the time when its scrutiny is most needed in regions such as the Northeast. Advocacy groups argue that reliance on police fact-finding creates perceived conflicts of interest, especially where allegations involve security forces protected under special laws.
If the reclassification takes effect, the NHRC would lose full voting rights in international forums and may face constraints in engaging with global human rights mechanisms, potentially weakening avenues for oversight or pressure for reform.
With the deferral window closing in 2026, several governance reforms remain possible—ranging from transparent appointments, inclusion of diverse communities, and greater independence in investigative processes.
Absent systemic change, however, cases like that of Angel Chakma risk becoming emblematic of broader gaps between constitutional guarantees and lived experience—particularly for minorities, Indigenous communities and citizens living far from metropolitan centres.
The accreditation challenge is thus more than a procedural issue: it invites renewed debate on how India protects rights, ensures institutional credibility and responds to regional grievances. Strengthening oversight systems may be central to rebuilding confidence—both domestically and internationally—and preventing future tragedies.
---
*Based in Tripura
Comments