I like the way Levine selects his words: "Dissidents" formally has a wide connotation but was hurled more to depict opposition to authoritarian regimes which wr not Kissingerian "our SOB". Levine is telling his peers, he thinks of India's regime kinda same as XiJinPing or USSR.
Why do I find him so insightful? A long time ago I read his "Human Rights without Borders: The Movement for Moral Globalization and Universal Protection" PMLA, Vol. 121, No. 5 (Oct., 2006), pp. 1651-1655. It reveals a world view that shd explain his selective bashing.
(1) with ref to Darfur & Sec council response he says " Pakistan, which was part of the security council through 2004 and Qatar have shown solidarity with a fellow member of the Islamic Conference". Note he is perfectly aware of Islamic practice.
2)"while the move away from respect for sovereignty and toward the promotion of human rights across national borders is..one of the most important developments of the last forty years, we have yet to see the kind of moral globalization where rights consistently trump sovereignty"
Stand alone it looks like an excellent idea: here is a guy who implies he wants a "moral globalization" where "rights consistently trump sovereignty". But what he says later makes this a lethal prelude something far wider in scope and profound in its sleek selectivity.
3) His fundamental defense of his selective attacks and silences starts with "we do work within an established political and economic order. This is not to endorse it or to deny the historical injustices that created it."
"But, as human rights activists, we strive to find a balance between principle, rooted in international human rights standards, and pragmatism-getting things done and effecting change...we have to seek to mobilize those who can influence the government"
"Reinforcing colonial injustices? Guilty as charged. But we didn't create these relations, and it's our job to use whatever leverage we can to protect the victims of human rights abuses and to bring their oppressors to justice."
"Those victims will not thank us for being too sheepish about working within the existing political order and seeking to mobilize political clout in favor of their human rights."
"Are we inconsistent in our demands and recommendations? If that means striking a balance between principle and pragmatism as we seek the greatest possible influence, the answer is yes. We work in an imperfect and frequently unfair world:"
"our advocacy strategies have to reflect our values and be contextualized by what we can realistically and reasonably hope to achieve...Without a vibrant and active civil-society movement holding governments' feet to the fire,.."
"we will surely see a reversal of much that has been achieved. Such a movement will require a greater and more constructive dialogue between academics in the humanities as well as in law and human rights activists and practitioners."
"We in the movement look to the academy to help provide intellectual backing-across national boundaries, legal systems, languages, and cultures-in support of these principles."
read it all together and you see why Iain is likely to remain more silent on Islamist atrocities on Hindus than the other way round. Its also the same reason he will cackle in glee on anyone bashing Modi or alleged Indian authoritarianism.
