Jammu and Kashmir dispute and the UN
Report
Dr
Shabir Choudhry, London. 25 June
2018
1. No matter how impartial or well written is a
report, no report on earth can satisfy all parties to the dispute. Therefore,
it is not expected that report of the UN Commissioner on Human Rights published
on 14 June 2018 will satisfy everyone.
2. This report, first of its kind is titled: Report
on the Situation of Human Rights in Kashmir: Developments in the Indian State
of Jammu and Kashmir from June 2016 to April 2018, and General Human Rights
Concerns in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan.
3. The
title itself is interesting, and somewhat controversial. It says: ‘Developments in the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir
from June 2016 to April 2018’. In other
words, the title of report acknowledges that State of Jammu and Kashmir belongs
to India. If the State of Jammu and Kashmir belongs to India, does it mean it
is not disputed anymore in the view of the UN?
4. Since
the areas of Jammu and Kashmir State controlled by Pakistan, namely Azad
Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan, are also legally and constitutionally part of the
Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir, does it mean, in view of the UN, these
areas are also part of ‘the Indian
State of Jammu and Kashmir’?
5. Furthermore, whereas the author of
the report wants to investigate human rights and developments in the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir; he only wants to know, ‘General Human Rights Concerns in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and
Gilgit-Baltistan’.
6.
As the title of the report clearly
states it only deals with events between June 2016 to April 2018, it means
readers won’t know that it was Pakistan which created this dispute by violating
the Standstill Agreement with the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, and attacking
the small neighbour with intention of occupying it. The readers also won’t know
that the tens of thousands of innocent people were butchered, women raped and
kidnapped and property burnt and looted. It was this unprovoked attack that led
to the first India Pakistan war and subsequent forced division of our
motherland, hence all the suffering since October 1947.
7.
Also,
the readers won’t know that it was Pakistan which refused to implement terms of
the UNCIP Resolution of 13 August 1948. Their refusal to withdraw Pakistani
troops from areas of Jammu and Kashmir under their occupation resulted in impasse,
and have led to violence, bloodshed, human rights abuses, imprisonment, kidnapping
rapes and instability in Jammu and Kashmir and in the region.
8.
As
the United Nations, High Commissioner for Human Rights did not visit Indian
controlled Jammu and Kashmir and the Pakistani controlled areas of the Princely
State, one may not concur with everything in the report. India denied access to
Kashmir on pretext that they are the largest democracy, and they have legal
system in place to provide justice. Furthermore, they also have human rights
organisations working and highlighting all aspects of human rights situation. One
can argue, if you have nothing to hide, then why not provide them access that
they can examine and confirm.
9.
Pakistani
government, on the other hand was clever. They agreed to provide unconditional
access provided India did the same. Pakistan knew longstanding Indian argument
with regard to providing access, so they wanted to be seen as a ‘good boy’,
agreeing to provide access, but in reality, they also did not provide access. If
everything was rosy on the Pakistani side of the divide and Pakistan was
satisfied how they treated people of Gilgit Baltistan and Azad Kashmir, then
why impose conditions.
10.
Since the UN Commissioner wanted to
investigate present and past human rights abuses, there was no way Pakistan
could have allowed anyone to do this as Pakistani record on human rights is
also atrocious. The Report said:
‘There remains an urgent need
to address past and ongoing human rights violations and to deliver justice for
all people in Kashmir who have been suffering seven decades of conflict. Any
resolution to the political situation in Kashmir should entail a commitment to
ending the cycles of violence and accountability for past and current human
rights violations and abuses committed by all parties and redress for victims. Such
a resolution can only be brought about by meaningful dialogue that includes the
people of Kashmir’. 1
‘Obviously,
from Pakistan’s perspective, we have less to lose than the Indians. Unlike
their side of the LOC, there is no independence struggle being waged on our
side. Though that doesn’t mean things are perfect either. Since neither side
cooperated, the OHCHR proceeded with remote monitoring’. 2
12.
The
learned writer, who is also a Visiting Fellow at Harvard Law School in
Cambridge MA, USA, further says:
Similarly, while most laws enacted by Pakistan are applied
to AJK through the AJK Adaptation of Laws Act 1988, AJK has no representation
in the Pakistani National Assembly. Therefore, the report says that while AJK
has trappings of a sovereign state, it is only nominally independent, with
power resting in AJK Council in Islamabad to override decisions taken by the
centre. The same situation exists in GB, which only recently got its
legislature. There are also restrictions in both regions on the right to
freedom of expression and political association. All members of the
legislatures have to take an oath supporting the accession of AJK to Pakistan. 3
13.
Yasser Latif Hamdani, has been candid and courageous in
acknowledging that what Pakistan does in Azad Kashmir and in Gilgit Baltistan
is even against ‘Pakistan’s own commitment to human rights’. He
asserts that because of the wrong doings by Pakistani agencies and the ruling
elite, ‘the situation on the Pakistani side of Kashmir does not present a
rosy picture’. 4
14.
This
is not to suggest that only Pakistan is culprit in Jammu and Kashmir. Despite lofty claims of democratic ideals and
legal systems in place, India has committed human rights abuses and that must
also be condemned. I know India and their supporters argue that these human
rights abuses are taking place because of Pakistani sponsored militancy. They
forget that it is India’s responsibility to defend LOC, and defend people of
Jammu and Kashmir; and even those who are living on the Pakistani side of the
divide. It is their obligations under the Treaty of Accession which we believe
is provisional in nature.
15.
Pakistan
has worked hard to distort history of Jammu and Kashmir and hide facts. They
have been propagating that Gilgit Baltistan had acceded to Pakistan, and that
it was not disputed or even part of Jammu and Kashmir. Despite propaganda of
Pakistani state, their agencies, their media, puppet governments and
organisations established in various parts of Jammu and Kashmir, the UN Report
refuted Pakistani claims on Gilgit Baltistan and Azad Kashmir; and once again
confirmed that these areas are part of the former Princely State of Jammu and
Kashmir.
16.
Furthermore,
the Report has clearly expressed its displeasure on the prevailing political
situation in these regions controlled by Pakistan. The Report explains how
Pakistan controls these regions in the following words:
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 do not enjoy all the
rights and protections available to those under the Pakistan Constitution. 5
17.
The
report also endorsed our contention that militant groups or jihadi groups are
also responsible for committing human rights abuses, and that Pakistan was sponsoring
this militancy, which resulted in violence, intolerance and instability. The
report says:
‘In the same context, since the late 1980s, a variety of armed groups
has been actively operating in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, and there
has been documented evidence of these groups committing a wide range of human
rights abuses, including kidnappings and killings of civilians and sexual
violence. The landscape of armed intervention by groups operating in
Indian-Administered Kashmir has shifted over the years. In the 1990s, around a
dozen significant armed groups were operating in the region; currently, less
than half that number remain active. Despite the Government of Pakistan’s
assertions of denial of any support to these groups, experts believe that Pakistan’s
military continues to support their operations across the Line of Control in
Indian-Administered Kashmir’. 6
The Report further mentions that civil society organisations have
accused these armed groups of attacking ‘civilians, off-duty police
personnel and army personnel on leave, including the killing of 16 to 20
civilians’. 7
18.
The
Report was apprehensive of the application of Pakistan’s Anti-Terrorism Act in Gilgit
Baltistan which resulted in imprisonment of “hundreds of individuals”. This
Pakistani law is ‘being used to target locals who have been raising issues
related to the rights of the people’. The UN Report acknowledged that one national
NGO provided information that authorities in Gilgit Baltistan forcibly evicted
locals in Maqpoon Das area; and the Chief Secretary of GB, a Pakistani officer allocated
this land for the China Pakistan Economic Corridor without giving any compensation
to the local people. The local people also testified that they are not ‘being
properly informed or consulted on decisions affecting them and their
livelihoods’. 8
19.
Since
the main focus of the Report is human rights situation in Indian controlled
Kashmir, one finds more details about that region. The Report also talks about
several restrictions in Azad Kashmir in ‘contravention to international
standards on the rights to freedoms of expression and opinion, assembly and
association’. As expected both India and
Pakistan liked parts of the Report which were consonant with their agenda and
views; and rejected the parts that they did not like.
20.
Critics
refute this report by saying that some of the information included was not
verifiable. True, but how can everything be verified when practically both
governments refused to provide access to visit the regions, investigate and
interview people. In absence of this access, the UN Commissioner had to rely on
information provided by representatives of both governments, which was contradictory.
In this context, the government documents, official statements, court orders
and reports of NGOs and human rights defenders were also helpful.
21.
It
is believed by some critics that Pakistan has used the forum of OIC to advance
its agenda. They manipulated some members of the OIC, and facilitated their meetings
with those Kashmiris who hold biased opinions, and are promoting Islamabad’s
agenda on Kashmir. It is no secret that some of these members represent
undemocratic and oppressive regimes who have no regard for human rights in
their countries.
22.
It
must be pointed out that some ‘human rights defenders’ are part of Pakistan’s
massive propaganda machinery. They are fully funded, employed, housed, and are facilitated
access to various international fora. Their role is to read out statements
prepared by officials of Islamabad and confuse the UN Human Rights Council,
international community and other human rights defenders. Some of them are full
of religious and cultural hatred and are compulsive liars who find it difficult
to speak truth.
23.
If
the Report is mainly based on statements made by these ‘warriors of Islamabad’
in the UN Human Rights Council and their interviews with the OHCHR, then sadly,
it is not credible. I want to give one example to elucidate my point. I
attended one briefing arranged by these people in the UN Human Rights session,
Geneva. The Chairman gave unverified information to the audience; and told them
that APHC leaders were arrested and they are not allowed to offer their
prayers. He also said, one such leader was in prison. After a few speeches,
which were full of propaganda, the Chair announced, ladies and gentleman, we
are lucky that we will be able to speak to the leader on skype and hear what he
had to say. The person sitting next to me whispered to me and said:
I didn’t know Indian prisons were so
advanced that they provide such facilities to the prisoners that they can
address outside world and directly deliver speeches to the audience in Geneva
on Skype.
Later on we learnt that he was under house arrest, and not in jail.
Later on we learnt that he was under house arrest, and not in jail.
24.
Once
again, I must emphasise, I do not say that human rights violations are not
taking place in Kashmir. Human rights violations are committed by both sides.
It must also differentiate that these militant groups, and other groups are not
responsible for protecting life, liberty and property of the people. This right
exclusively rests with the government; and their job is not to commit human
rights abuses, but to protect life, liberty and property of all the citizens.
India’s human rights record was examined by the UPR process in September 2017,
and out of 250 recommendations made by the UN Human Rights Council, India
accepted 152, and made note of the rest.
25.
New
Delhi needs to seriously look in to the human rights abuses, and formulate a
policy that wrong doings could be stopped; and culprits could be punished.
26.
In
conclusion, I welcome this initiative, and hope that it won’t be the last
report on Jammu and Kashmir; and future reports will encompass all aspects of
the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. Also, I expect the UN Human Rights Council to
understand that what happens on the Indian side of the divide is known
immediately because of the presence of media and human rights groups; but sadly,
what happens on the Pakistani side of the divide is not known. Pakistani system
of hiding wrong doings is much better than that of India. How many people have
been killed and how many thousand houses have been flattened in various parts
of FATA, KPK and in Balochistan, no one knows. In view of that, more attention
needs to be given to find out what has happened to the people of Gilgit
Baltistan and so called Azad Kashmir since 1947.
Writer is a renowned writer and author of many
books. He is also a senior leader of UKPNP and Chairman South Asia Watch,
London.
Email: Drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com Twitter: @Drshabir
References:
1.
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IN/DevelopmentsInKashmirJune2016ToApril2018.pdf
2.
Daily Times, Lahore,
June 19th 2018.
3.
Ibid
4.
Ibid
6.
Ibid
7.
Ibid
8.
ibid
No comments:
Post a Comment