Publishing of reports is one of the ways for promotion of enforcement of human rights. Under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, State Parties are required to report their performance towards implementation of these Covenants to the Human Rights Committee. In their official reports, States usually boast about their performance and seldom depict the real situation. The reports of non governmental organizations (NGO’s) and international non governmental organizations (INGO’s) help the members of the Human Rights Committee to scrutinize the official reports in a proper manner. The reports of Asia Watch, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Local NGO’s have assumed extra importance on this account. The reports in order serve any purposes have to be authentic, unbiased and objective. The recent report of Human Rights Watch although helpful to the cause of Human Rights lacks credibility, objectivity as well as authenticity to some extent. The report has been prepared by Meenakshi Ganguly South Asian Researcher of the Human Rights Watch. Being an Indian, she has been unable to shed her bias while preparing the report. She has been selective about the sources and aggressive towards Non State actors in her language. The lack of authenticity of facts becomes obvious from the very first page of the report. It has been reported that three hundred thousand Kashmiri Pandits have migrated from the valley. The total population of Hindus in Kashmir Valley according to 1981 census was 130000. These included Rajputs of Uri, Khatris of Srinagar and Baramulla and Mins of Kulgam. Kashmiri Pandits were no more than 112000. Out of these more than 20000 didn’t migrate at all and continue to live in the valley. Assuming that decadal growth of Kashmiri Pandit population between 1981 to 1991 was at par with Indian National Average of 20%, the Pandit population of valley could never have been more than 135000 and that of migrants of not more than 100000. The figures cited in the report simply reflect the exaggerations often communicated by frontal groups of RSS like Panun Kashmir. The figures of Kashmiri Pandit migrants quoted in the present report also contradict Human Rights Watch previous report “India’s secret Army in Kashmir” which put the figure at 100000.
Tracing history of freedom struggle in Kashmir, the report attributes its inception to 1964 when JKLF was formed to fight for independence. This statement contradicts the historical facts. Freedom movement in Kashmir started soon after Maharajas accession of Kashmir to India. From 1948 to 1953, it was exclusively headed by the J&K Political Conferences lead by GH Mohiuddin Karra. After exit of Shekh Abdullah from power the freedom movement was lead by Jammu and Kashmir Plebiscite Front from 1955 to 1975. This organisation was the most popular political party of its times and worked under the patronage of Sheikh Mohd Abdullah. The Peoples League and Al Fattah don’t find the mention within the report despite their historical contribution. Apart from 1990-1993 JKLF remained a peripheral group.
The report mentions the Indian point of view about accession getting endorsement of the State Constituent Assembly but is silent about rejection of any such endorsement by the UN Security Council Resolution of 1957. The freedom movement of Kashmir has been portrayed as a struggle ‘which has slowly and visibly mutated into an even more dangerous fight under the banner of religion, pitting Islam against Hinduism’’. This depiction ignores the fact that the greatest indigenous militant formation has even non Muslims within its cadres and some of its Hindu recruits have risen to the position of Divisional Commanders. The Hindu cadres of Hizb. according to newspaper reports still remains practicing Hindus. The researchers have ignored the fact that maximum killing and migration of non-muslims occurred during 1990-1993 when nationalist groups dominated the scene and Islamic groups had not yet surfaced. The report has overlooked the ethnic cleansing perpetrated in Jammu, Kathua and Udhampur Districts after 1947 which lead to migration of more than 700000 Muslims from these Districts to Pakistan and Pakistan Administered Kashmir.
Inspite of the fact that Indian agencies are yet to ascertain the involvement of Kashmiris in Varanasi and Mumbai blasts. The report mentions that these blasts too are attributed to militants sympathetic to Kashmiri Struggle. It is pertinent to mention here that Indian Courts have penalized some locals of Maharastra for Mumbai Blasts of 1993. The report attributes attacks on tourists in 2006 to the militants on the basis of some newspaper reports but ignores news about attribution of these killings to business rivals of Kashmir Tourism in Shimla and other hill stations of North India. The report also doesn’t hesitate in passing a verdict on the level of popularity of militants and mention that militant groups have become increasingly unpopular (p. 4). The verdict however is contradicted by authors themselves by conceding that “there is a greater political sympathy for militants cause than for the government” (p.118). Those who have drafted the report are familiar with the fact that armed groups conducted a significant emergency relief operations in Pakistan Administered Kashmir but remain unfamiliar with an equally important fact that International agencies like ICRC were not allowed to go for relief operations on this side of Kashmir. The report gives a long list of Government Buildings, Educational Institutions and bridges consumed by the conflict in Kashmir however there is no mention of the school buildings, hostels occupied by the army and its auxiliaries. The report admits that there has been a considerable decrease in the presence of militants from across LOC. 67% of the militants killed during 2005 were locals.
Some factual errors are either a deliberate attempt on the part of Indian researchers or mistakes that have crept into the report on account of selective use of sources. Throughout the report we find the references of Indian newspapers whereas only local newspaper quoted remains the Daily Excelsior, which is known for its anti Kashmiri Bias. Even the popular and credible newspapers like Kashmir Times and Greater Kashmir have altogether been ignored. So many events and incidents have been quoted from the reports and books prepared by either Indian agencies or Institutions sponsored by them.
The report has given a nice elaboration of the legal framework that empowers Indian Security agencies to operate with utmost impunity and suggests appointment of a special rapporteur by the Human Rights Council of United Nations for monitoring Human Rights situation in all parts of J&K State. This proposal although positive depicts selective approach of the Western Human Rights Groups. If the International Community could appoint war crime tribunals for Bosnia and Rwanda, why can’t Human Rights Watch demand and lobby for a similar tribunal for Jammu and Kashmir as well?
Human Rights Watch has given a detailed account of killings, disappearances, torture on the part of security agencies and their adversaries. One fact that has been ignored in the report is that whatever is attributed to militants does not necessarily mean that they are responsible for it. In a situation of conflict so many personal and political feuds are settled through use of guns and blame is often imposed on the militants. Recent attack on National Conference rally in Kulgam was attributed to Peoples Democratic Party by National Conference Leaders. Killing of Ghulam Nabi Lone Former Minster of the State was perceived to be the result of rivalry between him and supporters of the Finance Minster of that time. This became big issue during election campaign between son of the slain minister and nephew of the Finance minister. Similar allegations were made when former Finance Minister was targeted in Uri few years back. These dimensions of the killings attributed to militants have not been depicted in the report. The condemnation of various blasts involving civilian casualties by militant groups does not find a place within the report.
The report is also mute about the role of private armed groups working for the state whom Human Rights Watch itself has designated as India’s Secret Army in its previous reports. Reports about involvement of such groups in blasts and killings attributed to militants have been ignored. The verbatim used so many photographic captions seems to be simply an effort to malign the image of the Kashmir insurgency. One wonders why a militant in Kashmir is depicted as Islamic Militant whereas similar verbatim is not used in case of Tamil militants in Sri Lanka, other rebellious groups in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. It is strange how this terminology and mistakes remained in the report inspite of assistance of Coalition of Civil Society and Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association during its research. Despite these lacunae the report is a commendable attempt and a welcome step on the part of a reputed International NGO. In order to maintain credibility and authenticity of its reports, the Human Rights Watch is expected to come with better reports in future. Assign the job of preparation of reports to those who don’t compromise the standards of objectivity and authenticity.
Tracing history of freedom struggle in Kashmir, the report attributes its inception to 1964 when JKLF was formed to fight for independence. This statement contradicts the historical facts. Freedom movement in Kashmir started soon after Maharajas accession of Kashmir to India. From 1948 to 1953, it was exclusively headed by the J&K Political Conferences lead by GH Mohiuddin Karra. After exit of Shekh Abdullah from power the freedom movement was lead by Jammu and Kashmir Plebiscite Front from 1955 to 1975. This organisation was the most popular political party of its times and worked under the patronage of Sheikh Mohd Abdullah. The Peoples League and Al Fattah don’t find the mention within the report despite their historical contribution. Apart from 1990-1993 JKLF remained a peripheral group.
The report mentions the Indian point of view about accession getting endorsement of the State Constituent Assembly but is silent about rejection of any such endorsement by the UN Security Council Resolution of 1957. The freedom movement of Kashmir has been portrayed as a struggle ‘which has slowly and visibly mutated into an even more dangerous fight under the banner of religion, pitting Islam against Hinduism’’. This depiction ignores the fact that the greatest indigenous militant formation has even non Muslims within its cadres and some of its Hindu recruits have risen to the position of Divisional Commanders. The Hindu cadres of Hizb. according to newspaper reports still remains practicing Hindus. The researchers have ignored the fact that maximum killing and migration of non-muslims occurred during 1990-1993 when nationalist groups dominated the scene and Islamic groups had not yet surfaced. The report has overlooked the ethnic cleansing perpetrated in Jammu, Kathua and Udhampur Districts after 1947 which lead to migration of more than 700000 Muslims from these Districts to Pakistan and Pakistan Administered Kashmir.
Inspite of the fact that Indian agencies are yet to ascertain the involvement of Kashmiris in Varanasi and Mumbai blasts. The report mentions that these blasts too are attributed to militants sympathetic to Kashmiri Struggle. It is pertinent to mention here that Indian Courts have penalized some locals of Maharastra for Mumbai Blasts of 1993. The report attributes attacks on tourists in 2006 to the militants on the basis of some newspaper reports but ignores news about attribution of these killings to business rivals of Kashmir Tourism in Shimla and other hill stations of North India. The report also doesn’t hesitate in passing a verdict on the level of popularity of militants and mention that militant groups have become increasingly unpopular (p. 4). The verdict however is contradicted by authors themselves by conceding that “there is a greater political sympathy for militants cause than for the government” (p.118). Those who have drafted the report are familiar with the fact that armed groups conducted a significant emergency relief operations in Pakistan Administered Kashmir but remain unfamiliar with an equally important fact that International agencies like ICRC were not allowed to go for relief operations on this side of Kashmir. The report gives a long list of Government Buildings, Educational Institutions and bridges consumed by the conflict in Kashmir however there is no mention of the school buildings, hostels occupied by the army and its auxiliaries. The report admits that there has been a considerable decrease in the presence of militants from across LOC. 67% of the militants killed during 2005 were locals.
Some factual errors are either a deliberate attempt on the part of Indian researchers or mistakes that have crept into the report on account of selective use of sources. Throughout the report we find the references of Indian newspapers whereas only local newspaper quoted remains the Daily Excelsior, which is known for its anti Kashmiri Bias. Even the popular and credible newspapers like Kashmir Times and Greater Kashmir have altogether been ignored. So many events and incidents have been quoted from the reports and books prepared by either Indian agencies or Institutions sponsored by them.
The report has given a nice elaboration of the legal framework that empowers Indian Security agencies to operate with utmost impunity and suggests appointment of a special rapporteur by the Human Rights Council of United Nations for monitoring Human Rights situation in all parts of J&K State. This proposal although positive depicts selective approach of the Western Human Rights Groups. If the International Community could appoint war crime tribunals for Bosnia and Rwanda, why can’t Human Rights Watch demand and lobby for a similar tribunal for Jammu and Kashmir as well?
Human Rights Watch has given a detailed account of killings, disappearances, torture on the part of security agencies and their adversaries. One fact that has been ignored in the report is that whatever is attributed to militants does not necessarily mean that they are responsible for it. In a situation of conflict so many personal and political feuds are settled through use of guns and blame is often imposed on the militants. Recent attack on National Conference rally in Kulgam was attributed to Peoples Democratic Party by National Conference Leaders. Killing of Ghulam Nabi Lone Former Minster of the State was perceived to be the result of rivalry between him and supporters of the Finance Minster of that time. This became big issue during election campaign between son of the slain minister and nephew of the Finance minister. Similar allegations were made when former Finance Minister was targeted in Uri few years back. These dimensions of the killings attributed to militants have not been depicted in the report. The condemnation of various blasts involving civilian casualties by militant groups does not find a place within the report.
The report is also mute about the role of private armed groups working for the state whom Human Rights Watch itself has designated as India’s Secret Army in its previous reports. Reports about involvement of such groups in blasts and killings attributed to militants have been ignored. The verbatim used so many photographic captions seems to be simply an effort to malign the image of the Kashmir insurgency. One wonders why a militant in Kashmir is depicted as Islamic Militant whereas similar verbatim is not used in case of Tamil militants in Sri Lanka, other rebellious groups in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. It is strange how this terminology and mistakes remained in the report inspite of assistance of Coalition of Civil Society and Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association during its research. Despite these lacunae the report is a commendable attempt and a welcome step on the part of a reputed International NGO. In order to maintain credibility and authenticity of its reports, the Human Rights Watch is expected to come with better reports in future. Assign the job of preparation of reports to those who don’t compromise the standards of objectivity and authenticity.
No comments:
Post a Comment