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.
