OHCHR Report – Another Proof of Indian Atrocities in Kashmir

By C Andrew

The United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), on June 14 published “49-page Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Kashmir: Developments in the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir, covering the period from June 2016 to April 2018”. The UN high Commissioner For Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein called on the UN Human Rights Council to set up an international investigation following the release of the first ever UN report on human right violations in Kashmir. The Report asserted, “impunity for human rights violations and lack of access to justice are key human rights challenges in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir”.

 It described special laws like the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990 (AFSPA) and the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (PSA), as having “created structures that obstruct the normal course of law, impede accountability and jeopardize the right to remedy for victims of human rights violations”.

 It observed that over 1,000 people were detained under the PSA between March 2016 and August 2017. Human rights group had warned Jammu and Kashmir authorities that minors were being arrested under the PSA in 2016 and 2017. Whereas, during the 2016 unrest, there were numerous reports of attacks on, and obstruction of, basic medical services that has a severe impact on the injured and general civilian population in Kashmir………. Days-long curfews and communications blockades also had a major impact on people and their access to medical care in Kashmir.

          The OHCHR report claimed that from July 2016 to March 2018, 145 civilians were killed by Indian security forces, while 20 civilians were killed by “armed groups” in the same period. It deplore the use of “pellet-firing shotgun” as “one of the most dangerous weapons used against protests in 2016”. Citing statistics of the Jammu and Kashmir government, the report noted that 17 people were killed and 6221 were injured by metal pellets over 2016 and 2017. There was also specific mention of the use of a “human shield” by an Indian army major, noting that he was commended for this act by the army chief in May 2017.

The report also called for end to “arbitrary ban” on newspapers in Kashmir and restrictions on access to internet and mobile phone networks. It recommended that India should allow “independent, impartial and credible investigations into all unmarked graves in the state of Jammu and Kashmir as directed by the State Human Rights Commission; if necessary, seek assistance from the Government of India and /or the international community”. It also suggested that powers of the Jammu and Kashmir State Human rights Commissions should be expanded to investigate all human rights violations and abuses in the state, including those allegedly committed by central security forces”. There was also a recommendation for investigation of “all cases of abuses committed by armed groups in Jammu and Kashmir, including the killings of minority Kashmiri Hindus since the late 1980s”.

          On recent rise in tensions in the valley, the UNHRC chief called on Indian security forces to exercise “maximum restraint” and abide by “international standards” on use of force to counter future protests. “It is essential that the Indian authorities take immediate and effective steps to avoid a repetition of the numerous examples of excessive use of forces by security forces in Kashmir,” he stated. The report stated that there was more documentation of human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir as human rights defenders, journalists and NGOs were still able to operate “despite challenges”. The report also stated that Pakistan’s prime minister, the federal minister for Kashmir Affairs and Gilgit-Baltistan and the federal civil service have full control over all government operations in both Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) and Gilgit-Baltistan (G-B).

 According to an international NGO, federal intelligence agencies are deployed across the two regions and have “considerable powers over local elected representatives and officials”. Given such a constitutional relationship with Pakistan, residents of AJK and G-B to do not enjoy all the rights and protections available to those under the Pakistan Constitution”.

The interim constitution of AJK has placed several restrictions on anyone criticizing AJK’s accession to Pakistan, in contravention to international standards on the rights to freedoms of expression and opinion, assembly and association.

          Government of India has rejected the OHCHR report as “fallacious.” The spokesperson of India’s ministry of External Affairs claimed that the report was overtly “prejudiced” and was seeking to “build a false narrative.” He said that the report violated India’s sovereignty and integrity.” He also pointed out that the report had descried internationally designated and UN-proscribed terrorist entities (such as Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jamaat-ud-Dawa/Hizbul Mujahidin) as armed groups’ and terrorists as ‘leaders.’

India also rejected the UN High Commission’s reference to “Pakistan Administered Azad Jammu and Kahsmir, Gilgit and Baltistan” as a separate entity on the ground of its claim that the whole state of Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India. Indian government’s claim that the report was “fallacious” and “a selective compilation of largely unverified information” is problematic, as it was the Indian government which had turned down repeated requests of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights for unrestricted access to Jammu and Kashmir. Explaining the methodology adopted by the team which worked on the report, the High Commissioner explains, “As OHCHR was denied access to Kashmir, it was not possible to directly verify allegations. OHCHR bases its findings on its methodology, using a “reasonable grounds” standard of proof.

          On India’s accusation about the credibility of the information, the UN human rights commissioner’s spokesperson Rupert Colville said that there were 388 footnotes which were sourced from “India’s parliament – as well as the Supreme Court of India, the Ministry of External Affairs, the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly, the Jammu and Kashmir State Human Rights Commission, the Union Ministry of Defence, the Chief of Army Staff and a former Vice President”.

 He also dispelled any impression of Mr. Zeid’s contact/meeting with a Canada-based Imam of Pakistan descent namely Zafar Bangash as alleged by Indian media. He also chided claims of Indian media about a photograph of the High Commissioner with three individuals from AJK taken outside the Human rights Councils room in Geneva as a proof of ISI’s involvement in the report. Denying any such collusion, Zeid’s spokesperson said, “this totally untrue”. Whereas on the issue of the Indian government calling the OHCHR report as a violation of India’s sovereignty and integrity, it is stated that the UN Human Rights Council was created by the General Assembly in 2006.

The Council has 47 members elected by the UN General Assembly for staggered three-year terms on a regional basis. India has been a member of the Council for two terms till 2017. On being re-elected for a second term India’s ambassador to the Council, Asoke Mukerji emphasized that India’s focus will be make the UN human rights system more effective and address issues through a constructive approach. The Council set up the process of Universal periodic Review (UPR) under which the human rights record of each of the 193 UN member countries is peer-reviewed every four or five years. Under the UPR process, the recommendations made by the Council members during the review of each country’s record are given to a “troika” of countries drawn through a lot.

 India has been a member of the Troika in the past. In September 2017, India’s human rights records were examined under the UPR process. Among the issues raised during the UPR were continued discrimination, stigmatization and violence against Dalits; restrictions on free speed and on the work of human rights defenders; attacks on religious minorities; reports of excessive use of force by security officers, including in Jammu and Kashmir; combating impunity and ensuring accountability and delays in judicial proceedings. Out of the 250 recommendations that were made, India accepted 152 and took note of the rest.

 Also, India undertook to fulfill its twenty year old promise that it would ratify the UN Conventions against Torture. India, despite being an active member of the UN Human Rights Council, having submitted to the UPR process on three occasions, and as a member of the Troika made recommendations to other countries for improving its human rights situation, it is strange that the government now asserts that the government now asserts that the OHCHR report on the situation in Jammu and Kashmir is a violation of Indian sovereignty and integrity.

          Regarding India’s objection to the OHCHR reference to the “Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir” and “Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan” as separate entities, it is pertinent to point out that multiple reports of the UN as well as the official correspondence of the UN Secretary General have used nomenclature such as “Kashmir”, “Jammu and Kashmir”, “State of Jammu and Kashmir”, “Indian administered side of the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir”, and “Pakistan Administered Kashmir” – while referring to the territory of the former princely state before 1947.

 Even as recently as August 2016, the UN Secretary General in a statement condemning the terrorist attack on the Uri military post used the term Indian-Administerd Jammu and Kashmir. Unlike India, the report was welcomed by Pakistan. In a press release, the Foreign Office said Pakistan “welcome the proposal by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to establish a Commission of Inquiry for and international investigation into human rights violations” in Indian-held Kashmir.

 The report was welcomed by some activists and leaders in Kashmir. Jammu and Kashmir human rights activist Khurram Parvez welcomed the UN report. Kashmiri leader Mirwaiz Umar Farooq wrote on Twitter, “People of Kashmir thank the U.N., especially the bold efforts of its HR commissioner, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, for its support to the right of self-determination.”

          It is pertinent to mention that India’s illegitimate occupation of Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK) for over seven decades has been a perpetual source of gross human rights violation and atrocities against innocent Muslims of IOK. In order to suppress the legitimate voices of Kashmiri populace and forcibly crush freedom movement, India has gathered over 700,000 heavily armed and specially trained armed personnel in the valley since 1989. The devilish army since its placement in IOK has not only resorted to unprecedented human rights violations but also killed over 100,000 Kashmiris (by some reports nearly 120,000). Over 120,000 rape cases at the hands of Indian armed forces have been reported since 1989, which may be a friction of unreported incidents.

 IOK has been used by Indian deep state as “an experiment table” since last many decades. Recent crude and cruel experiment was “imposition of Governor Rule” to facilitate the Indian LEAs to further butcher the innocent Kashmiri people under the umbrella of AFSPA. Moreover, since the cold blooded killing of Burhan-ud-din Wani in last July, IOK has been witnessing an unprecedented movement and open rebellion against illegitimate occupation of India. The intensity of anti India protests and the brutal handling of the situation have also instigated intense debates in India as well. Some sane voices have started questioning Hindu extremist BJP’s strategy to control IOK. Some have even boldly acknowledged that “the Kashmir crisis is a comprehensive collapse of India’s secular project as a whole”.

 OHCHR Report on Kashmir is first ever report of UN on gross violation of human rights and needed to be appreciated, highlighted and debated. The unresolved status of Kashmir issue is somber reminder to the world that Kashmiri people are deprived f their fundamental rights at the hands of so-called biggest democracy (rather mobocracy) of the world. Indian panic is also evident from blatant and indecent comments/personal attack on Un High Commissioner for human Rights Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, who has remained a thorough, refined and unbiased diplomat of highest category throughout his carrier.    

الكاتب : سمير حسين زعقوق

شارك الموضوع

مواضيع ذات صلة