Round The World
New
Delhi, 21 June 2018
UN Report On
Kashmir
A DIPLOMATIC
CHALLENGE!
By Dr.
D.K. Giri
Prof.
International Politics, JMI
A UN High
Commission on Human Rights 49-page Kashmir Report has made New Delhi see red. Entitled
“Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Kashmir: Developments in the Indian
State of Jammu and Kashmir and General Human Rights concerns in Azad Kashmir
and Gilgit-Baltistan”, it has rattled the Government which has outrightly
rejected it, lodged a formal complaint to the UN and alleged the High
Commissioner on Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein of bias and partisanship.
Expectedly, Parties across the political spectrum have rallied behind the Government
against the Report.
In a hard-hitting
reaction, New Delhi called the summary “fallacious, tendentious and motivated”
and charged the Commission for its “selective compilation of largely unverified
information. It is overtly prejudicial and seeks to build a false narrative and
violates India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity”. In a personal attack
on the UNHCHR Chief, New Delhi added, “individual prejudices are allowed to
undermine the credibility of the UN institution”.
According
to the Report between July 2016 and April 2018 security forces killed 145
civilians and “armed groups” killed 20 civilians. It specifically pointed out
that “the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) 1990 and J&K Public
Safety Act 1978 (PSA) create structures that obstruct the normal course of law,
impede accountability, jeopardise the right to remedy for victims of Human
Rights violation”.
Besides, suggesting
that, “any resolution on the political situation in Kashmir should entail a commitment
to ending the cycles of violence and accountability for past and current human rights
violations”. In a separate statement the UNHCHR Chief called upon the 47-member
Human Rights Council meeting last week in Geneva “to consider establishing a
commission of inquiry to conduct a comprehensive independent, international
investigation into allegations of human rights violations in Kashmir”.
The Report
added that “the impurity of human rights violations and lack of access to
justice are the key human rights challenges in the Indian state of Jammu and
Kashmir and the Indian Government should immediately remove the requirement of
prior permission to prosecute security forces personnel accused of violations
in civilian courts.”
It also
told off Pakistan for its “misuse of anti-terror legislation to persecute
peaceful activists and quash dissent”. Noting that despite Islamabad’s denials
of support to terror groups “experts believe that Pakistan’s military continues
to support their operations across the line of control in Indian-administered
Kashmir”.
Pertinently
New Delhi objects to terrorist Burhan Wani being referred to as ‘leader’ and UN-
designated terrorist outfits like Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen,
and Hizbul Mujahideen called armed groups’. This undermines the UN-led
consensus on zero tolerance to terrorism.
Asserting,
“terrorism is the most egregious violation of human rights”, India avows the Report’s
authors have “conveniently ignored the pattern of cross-border terrorism
emanating from Pakistan and territories under its illegal control.” The
semantic trickery is “deliberate, odious and outrageous” and has glaring in
consistencies.
It talks
of Pakistan occupied Kashmir (POK) as Azad Kashmir when there are no such
entities as Azad Kashmir, Gilgit and Baltistan which are incorrect
descriptions. Moreover, the Report violated the political sovereignty and
territorial integrity of India. The entire parts of Jammu and Kashmir belong to
India as its integral part, as per the Treaty of Accession and so called Azad
Kashmir is illegal.
Recall,
the 1949 UN convention on Kashmir preamble called upon Pakistan to withdraw its
forces from POK thereby acknowledging its aggression. New Delhi underscored that
Indian citizens in Kashmir are well-protected by an independent judiciary, Human
Rights Commission, free and vibrant media and an active civil society. Thus,
the Report is biased.
It did not
mention Pakistan military’s proxy war in Kashmir and even as it calls for an
inquiry into human rights violations it is silent on torture and genocide in
Baluchistan and Khyber-Pakhtunkhawa. Shockingly,
India has objected to the Report setting moral equivalence between security
forces of a democratic country and UN-listed militant outfits sponsored by
Pakistan and pointed out UNHCHR Chief Zeid Al Hussein’s doubtful credentials.
Is there a
political vested-interest angle to the Report? Some observers aver perhaps it
is engineered by a China-Pakistan Axis wherein its authors might have been
‘bribed’. The summary’s timing also raises suspicion as the Financial Action
Task Force (FATF) is meeting in plenary and working group between 24-29 June. The
Task Force bans all financial transactions with a country supporting terrorism.
In all
probability, Pakistan would be ‘grey listed’ which China would find difficult
to oppose. Possibly, the Report was published before this meeting to deflect
Pakistan’s support of terrorism. Two, China would like to hide its own record
in Xinjiang where artificial-intelligence based surveillance has totally breached
the ethnic minorities privacy.
Questionably,
is the Report a diplomatic failure of India’s foreign policy machinery to
prevent its preparation and release? Did they not know it was underway? What
was the need for such a first-time Report given there is a four-yearly
Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights? Why did India not object to its preparation
based on secondary sources and interpretations when no UN official visited
Kashmir? It is another matter India does not allow UN officials as it is an
internal matter.
Further, why
is India on the defensive on Kashmir? Why is it not claiming and campaigning
for POK’s accession to India, which Pakistan is occupying by force? Why is the
Central and State Governments not spelling out its Kashmir policy? In fact,
many including some militants expected that with BJP heading the Centre the
Kashmir imbroglio would be solved.
Furthermore,
despite Prime Minister Modi’s much-vaunted diplomacy the UN came out with a
Report which for the first-time indicts the Indian Government. Not a few feel Modi’s
informal summits marked by sight-seeing and romantic walks around lakes in
China is alienating friends without earning partners.
Interestingly,
RSS’s report on India’s foreign policy dubs China as the main enemy. Is Modi,
caught in a self-contradiction? Is India paying a heavy cost for its balancing
act, a new strategy in-lieu of non-alignment? Questions, which Modi-led New
Delhi has to answer.
In sum, while
the Government might search for answers, we need a more pro-active policy on
Kashmir to stop bloodshed on both sides. New Delhi wants to solve it
bilaterally with Pakistan but how can there be a bilateral solution without
both agreeing to meet or talk? Pakistan-backed terrorists will have to lay down
their arms before any talks can start.
Hugs and
handshakes cannot go with military boots pounding on both sides. Pakistan has
to be made to realise that terrorism is not a preferred way. India should do so,
not by knee-jerk reactions but by a calculated strategic military approach. A
lot of international diplomacy has to precede such a military message. The UN
Report is a wake-up-call for our fledgling diplomacy and feeble military
action. We must do a course correction. ---- INFA
(Copyright,
India News & Feature Alliance)
|