In history, such campaigns have seldom ‘won’ the war on drugs. America’s ‘war on drugs’, which started with the Nixon administration decades ago and which is always subject to intermittent Republican party revivals, has been highly criticised. A report from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention published last month showed that the rate of death from overdose over the last quarter of 2016 in the United States had exploded to 20.6 per 100,000 people, topping the previous record of 19.1 per 100,000 people seen during the preceding quarter, and a full 20 percent increase over the 16 per 100,000 overdose rate Americans experienced during the fourth quarter of 2015. John Elrlichman, Nixon’s close aide, even confessed in 1994 that the war on drugs was a war against Nixon’s political opposition, meaning black people and critics of the Vietnam War.

But while the goal of America’s war on drugs had to be deciphered by political sceptics, Duterte’s goals are completely overt. He is openly and confessedly committing a crime against humanity by persecuting such a large number of individuals unjustifiably and extra-judicially. The international response to this has not been adequate, with President Trump giving full support and validation to Duterte. However, in contradiction to Trump’s stance, Senators Ben Cardin, Marco Rubio and Ed Markey introduced the “Philippines Human Rights Accountability and Counternarcotics Act of 2017,” a bill that places restrictions on defence aid to the country, provides additional funding for the Philippine human rights community, and supports a public health approach to drug use.

Jude Josue Sabio, a lawyer representing a former hitman of the DDS, has filed a suit against these killings at the International Criminal Court. The suit claims that Duterte has been responsible for the death of 9,400 people over three decades. There has however been no action on this suit yet. There was even an impeachment complaint filed against Duterte for the killings which was dismissed by the Congress, citing Article XI, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution, which bars the initiation of impeachment proceedings against Duterte until May 8 2018.

These rights violations represent a failure of the constitutional machinery of Philippines: the state has failed to respect and protect human rights, which are provided for under Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution. Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, asked for an investigation to be initiated against Duterte, saying that “such acts directly contravene the rights enshrined in Article III of the Philippine Constitution. The killings described by President Duterte also violate international law, including the right to life, freedom from violence and force, due process and fair trial, equal protection before the law, and innocence until proven guilty. As a government official, if he encouraged others to follow his example, he may also have committed incitement to violence.” However, such statements seem to have been in vain: nothing has come of them. The international community needs to act, and needs to act very soon, as the greatest peril Philippines faces is inaction. The first and foremost step is to get Duterte to end his “war on drugs” and subsequently get the UN to conduct an inquiry into the allegations of human rights violations. The situation cannot get any worse.

Slavery in India is mainly dominated by bonded slavery and child slavery. Until very recently, India had not ratified the Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labour, which it finally did in June this year. The existence of bonded slavery can be traced back to the Indian Zamindari system, which heavily relied on the caste system for its perpetuation. The son of a slave had to pay the never-ending debt of his ancestors by serving the zamindar. Although this system was abolished after independence, its interplay with the caste system has had serious repercussions.

Caste in modern India is not dead, nor is it dormant. Caste didn’t disappear with the dawn of modernity and development or Indian independence. The caste system in India has adapted itself to the changing Indian economy and politics, and continues to hold a pivotal place in an Indian’s life. According to the 2015 Equity Watch report, there has been a 19.4% increase in crimes against Dalits from 2014. The number of cases registered under the Scheduled Caste (Dalits) and Scheduled Tribes (Adivasis) Prevention of Atrocities Act has also risen every year since 2011, taking a leap in 2014 to 47,064 cases, from 13,975 cases in 2013. Other reports go on to suggest the existence of serious obstacles that lower caste people face in obtaining justice, with alarming conclusions like, “most cases of caste abuse and of rape most frequently end in compromises.” Women and girls belonging to Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes still face significant discrimination and high rates of sexual violence. However, in the aftermath of the Nirbhaya gang rape case, this scenario is predicted to change, with the wider definition of sexual offences against women after the introduction of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013

It is not that there has been a complete failure on the part of the law, or a lack of inherent Constitutional provisions safeguarding the interests of the minorities. India in fact has strong Constitutional affirmative action provisions, based on reservations, when it comes to representation of minorities. It is a paradox: the best anti-slavery laws co-existing with the highest rate of slavery. The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976 helps the victims of bonded labour by providing them with a little bit of capital once they’re out of slavery. The recent 2016 Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act is a great attempt on the part of the government to better the status of Dalits in India, by instituting special courts for SC/ST victims and making more subtle discriminatory practices offences.

There still remains a lot to be done for the Dalits, but we must also acknowledge the fact that distributing the spoils of state power strictly according to caste only perpetuates the caste system. It looks like a hopeless predicament that India has arrived at. The nation strives harder to get rid of casteism by making use of it, engraving identities in places varying from the Indian Constitution to education institutions. Indians are still living what Dr. B.R. Ambedkar described as the ‘life of contradictions’ and the caste system has, as the Mandal Commission noted, only conditioned the consciousness of the lower castes in accepting their inferior status in the ritual hierarchy. The economic freedom which Ambedkar imagined would emancipate the lower caste Indians has been overpowered the caste system’s strong social existence.

Casteism is a gross violation of human rights and it is closely connected with the high prevalence of slavery in India. This link must be recognised both in India and internationally, and the two must be tackled together. In spite of recent positive steps in India, there is much still to do.