OHCHR report on Kashmir

On June 14, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) released a "Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Kashmir: Developments in the State". India from Jammu and Kashmir from June 2016 to April 2018 ". This is the first report of its kind on Jammu and Kashmir by the UN. It covers both the areas controlled by India and Pakistan of the former princely state. The Government of India rejected the OHCHR report as being "misleading". The spokesman for the Foreign Ministry of India claimed that the report was openly "prejudicial" and sought to "build a false narrative". He said the report violated the sovereignty and integrity of India. "He also pointed out that the report had described internationally designated and banned terrorist entities by the UN (as Lashkar-e -Toiba and Jamaat-ud-Dawa / Hizbul Mujahideen) as "armed groups" and terrorists as "leaders." India has also rejected the reference of the United Nations High Commissioner to "Pakistan administered Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Gilgit and Baltistan "as a separate entity on the grounds that" the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India. "Pakistan remains in illegal occupation from one part of our territory.The two can not and should not be badimilated. "

The Indian government's badertion that the report was" misleading "and" a selective compilation of ". largely unverified information "poses problem because it's the gov't Indian elite who rejected repeated requests by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights for unrestricted access to Jammu and Kashmir. Explaining the methodology adopted by the team that worked on the report, the High Commissioner explains: "As OHCHR has been denied access to Kashmir, it has not been possible to verify allegations directly. "OHCHR bases its conclusions on its methodology. "On the question of the Indian government qualifying the OHCHR report as a violation of the sovereignty and integrity of India, let us briefly review the mandate of the UN Human Rights Council and the United Nations Human Rights Council. India 's role in the Council which is mandated by the UN General Assembly to promote and protect human rights in the world.Many UN member countries, including the United Nations. India, were dissatisfied with the oldest body of the United Nations, the Commission on Human Rights, because they felt that the Commission was being manipulated by powerful countries such as the United States, like Israel. by the General Assembly in 2006. The Council has 47 members elected by the United Nations General Assembly for staggered terms of three years on a regional basis.India has been a member of the Council for two terms until 2017. After being re-elected to a second term, India 's ambbadador to the board, Asoke Mukerji, pointed out that India would focus on the effectiveness of the system' s rights rights. United Nations man. thanks to a constructive approach. The Council has put in place the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process whereby the human rights record of each of the 193 UN member countries is reviewed. 39, a peer review every four or five years. As part of the UPR process, the recommendations made by Council members when examining each country's dossier are entrusted to a "troika" made up of many countries. India has been a member of the Troika in the past.

In September 2017, human rights records from India were reviewed as part of the UPR process. Issues raised during the UPR included continued discrimination, stigma and violence against Dalits; restrictions on the freedom of expression and work of human rights defenders; attacks against religious minorities; reports of excessive use of force by security agents, including Jammu and Kashmir; fight against impunity and ensure accountability and delays in court proceedings. Of the 250 recommendations that were made, India accepted 152 and took note of the rest. In addition, India is committed to keeping its twenty-year-old promise to ratify the UN Convention against Torture. India, an active member of the United Nations Human Rights Council, has submitted the UPR process three times, and as a member of the Troika made recommendations to Other countries to improve their human rights situation. baderts that the OHCHR report on the situation in Jammu and Kashmir is a violation of the sovereignty and integrity of the Indians.

President Bush withdrew the United States from the Human Rights Council. President Obama has reinstated the United States to the Council. It is said that President Trump is considering withdrawing the United States. I wonder if India, under the leadership of Prime Minister Modi, will follow the lead of President Trump.

The OHCHR report is based on information widely available in the public domain, including information obtained by Indian citizens through the right to information. Act. The report also used government documents and statements, questions to Parliament and the government's response, court orders and police reports. It has relied heavily on the Press Trust of India (PTI) for official government statements. In addition, the report's authors also drew on research and monitoring by local and national non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and human rights defenders. The OHCHR team also conducted a small number of interviews to corroborate the information.

While the OHCHR clarified the sources of its data, explained the limitations and detailed methodology it had to adopt in the face of the denial of access to Jammu. and Kashmir by the government, the Indian government, in turn, gave no reasoned or rational explanation for qualifying the report as spurious and based on unverified information.

Regarding India's objection to the reference of OHCHR in Jammu and Kashmir "And" Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltisatan "as separate entities, it is appropriate to report that multiple United Nations reports as well as the official correspondence of the United Nations Secretary-General have used a nomenclature such as "Kashmir", "Jammu and Kashmir", "State of Jammu and Kashmir", "Indian side" of the control line in Jammu and Kashmir "and" Pakistan administered in Kashmir "- while referring to the territory of the former princely state before 1947. Even in August 2016, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in a statement condemning the terrorist attack on Uri's military post, used the term Jammu and Kashmir administered by the Indians … in fact, I would say that I have not yet met a statement from the Government of India, which opposes the use by the UN "expression administered by the Indians of Jammu and Kashmir"

. The OHCHR report focused on two types of responses. Human rights advocates in India and other countries have called on India to follow up on the recommendations of the first ever United Nations report on the human rights situation. in Kashmir. Others, including supporters of the ruling BJP and right-wing Hindu nationalist organizations, vigorously endorsed the report's rejection by the Indian government.

An interesting commentary comes from a well-known former editor, Mr. Shekhar Gupta. Thin no words, he called the report "silly". He is "silly not because of the quality of his research, but because he expects it to help the people of Kashmir," he said. According to Gupta, the report was "fatally flawed" and "dead on arrival". Discussing its accuracy, impartiality, methodology or motives is a waste of time. An interesting position, which allows you to avoid any discussion about the contents of the report. That's exactly what India's official response did when it condemned the entire report as "misleading". Gupta also accused OHCHR of allowing NGO activists to take control of the world's first human rights body and not allow "political control". Clearly, Mr. Gupta believes that the global concern for human rights should be mitigated by the political interest of states. Mr. Gupta says the report will not fail to help Kashmiris, "on the contrary, it will harden India's approach." It will also encourage Pakistan to push more Kashmiris and its own. Young Consumables in a Jihad (Holy War). "

OHCHR has no political or military arm. The only way to enforce his recommendations is to make repeated requests and to denounce and humiliate. In a civilized world, it is expected that a sovereign and honorable nation-state will honor the promises it makes to the courtesy of nations. India has not kept its promise to ratify the UN Convention against Torture for more than two decades.

million. Gupta argued that the report will not embarrbad India as the country will be able to obtain sufficient political support for discussion on the report and recommendation of an independent investigation. India was able to do just that in 1994 at the United Nations General Assembly (Third Committee) when it was confronted with Islamabad's allegations of human rights violations. the man in Kashmir. India has been able to rally enough support from member states, including "human rights thieves like China and Iran". However, Mr. Gupta forgot to mention that Atal Behari Vajpayee of the BJP, who was a member of the multiparty delegation of India sent to the UN by the then Prime Minister, Narasimha Rao, then said: "For a great nation like us There was some humiliation in having to solicit votes on a human rights issue, let's use this respite to clean up our act in Kashmir where there will be a Geneva every few month. "

The attempt to avoid discussions about the content is an attempt to conceal the gross abuse of the coercive state apparatus against protesting civilians during the 2016-2018 period. Discussions on the content will highlight the problems highlighted by the OHCHR report, such as the killings of about 145 people and a very high number of injuries. The excessive use of pellet firearms that blinded or injured the eyes of civilians, mostly young people. The decision of Commander Litul to have used a Kashmiri civilian as a human shield even before the investigating court had completed his investigation. And the hard fact is that over the past 28 years, the Indian government has not allowed any civil court to hear complaints of human rights violations committed by members of its security forces. Naturally, the Indian government would like to avoid any discussion of the content of the report.

Can India block a discussion on the report of the members of the Human Rights Council? Admittedly, he will have to make very serious efforts to obtain sufficient support to prevent the Council from discussing the High Commissioner's recommendation for an independent inquiry. In this effort, India will join the ranks of Myanmar which has been accused of committing genocide against the Rohingya. India could also point out that the Council's directives do not require the establishment of such investigations in countries where there are legal remedies available to resolve complaints of misuse of powers by the agencies. state security. India will then have to face an enigma of its own making. Under AFSPA, she granted total impunity to her security forces.

Although India is able to block a Council investigation with the support of Saudi Arabia, UAE and possibly China, Russia and the US closely monitored by Geneva. Under these conditions, it is possible that the Modi government is forced to change the purely conventional approach. And it will be the realization of this OHCHR report, with all its "flaws".

Bose Tapan is an independent documentary filmmaker, human rights and peace advocate, author and regular contributor to magazines and news magazines in India, Nepal and Pakistan. His award-winning documentaries on human rights and democratic issues include An Indian Story (1982) on the Blindness of Prisoners Suffering in Bhagalpur and the Link Between the Owner, the Police, and The politicians. Tragedy (1986). His film Behind the barricades; Punjab (1993) on repression of the state in Punjab, as on the films cited earlier, was banned and after a long legal struggle was shown. His latest film is The Expendable People & # 39; (2016), a pbadionate call for justice for the indigenous peoples of India, deceived, dispossessed, impoverished and criminalized in their forest homes, made to pay the price of extractive development