Grilling India on violations in J&K, but ignoring Pakistan’s role smacks of ‘propaganda’

Lt Gen D S Hooda (retd)THE Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, on June 14, published the Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Kashmir for the period of June 2016 to April 2018. While the report covers both sides of the Line of Control, its main focus is on the incidents of alleged excesses committed by the Indian security forces following the killing of Burhan Wani in July 2016. The report was swiftly and categorically rejected by India. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) called it “fallacious, tendentious and motivated” and “a selective compilation of largely unverified information. It is overtly prejudiced and seeks to build a false narrative”. The MEA also said the “report violates India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The entire state of Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India…The incorrect description of Indian territory in the report is mischievous, misleading and unacceptable. There are no entities such as ‘Azad Jammu and Kashmir’ and ‘Gilgit-Baltistan’”. There have been a number of accounts dealing with human rights in Jammu and Kashmir, but the first reaction on reading the report is a sense of disbelief that a respected international organisation like the United Nations would bring out what could more accurately be described as a “propaganda manual”. Perhaps after being denied “unconditional access to Kashmir”, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights is showing his ire by a compilation that is completely prejudiced, and, in many ways, impinges on the sovereignty of the Indian state. The report claims to base its methodology using the “reasonable grounds” standard of proof based on a “reliable body of information”, but it selectively uses data to build a completely biased picture, questioning Indian lawmakers, judiciary and security forces. Its main source of information is the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society, whose data of persons killed in the 2016 protests appears to take precedence over the figures announced by the Chief Minister in the Legislative Assembly.In completely ignoring the role of Pakistan in exporting terror into Kashmir, and describing the Hizbul Mujahideen (which has been designated as a terrorist group by India, the European Union and the United States) as an armed group, the bias and motivations are clearly visible. There is a lengthy section on the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), 1990, which has given the “security forces virtual immunity against prosecution for any human rights violation”. The report also claims that Section 4 of AFSPA that allows any person operating under the law to use lethal force “contravenes several international standards on the use of force and related principles of proportionality and necessity”. It completely ignores the dos and don’ts which form an integral part of AFSPA and which state that minimum force will be used, and that a clear need will be established for opening fire. This is just one example of how the report has used facts selectively.The report also comes down heavily on the military courts and the Armed Forces Tribunal, accusing them of “impeding access to justice”. While there is a lively debate in India on AFSPA and military courts, these are sovereign functions of Indian lawmakers. By questioning these functions, the UN High Commissioner is clearly overstepping his authority.When the report commences the discussion on the events from 2016 to 2018, it clearly demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the situation that existed, particularly following the killing of Burhan Wani. The security forces are accused of using excessive force while no mention is made of the violent mobs that attacked police stations, army convoys and patrols. Figures are extensively quoted for civilian casualties, but there is no mention of the more than 3,300 security personnel who were injured in the very first month of the protests. The report has bold headings on “Torture”, “Enforced disappearances” and “Sexual violence”. While stating that there have “long been persistent claims of torture by security forces in Kashmir”, the report has listed three cases of “torture” in the 2016-18 period — one of whom is Farooq Ahmad Dar, who was tied to a jeep. There is one incident of “enforced disappearance” and no reported case of sexual violence. These are again examples of an attempt to embellish and sensationalise the report.It is illuminating to compare the tone and tenor of this report with the Afghanistan Annual Report on Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict: 2017, published in February 2018 by the same Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the United Nation Assistance in Afghanistan (UNAMA). Between January 1 and December 31, UNAMA documented 10,453 civilian casualties in which there were 3,438 deaths. Of these deaths, 745 were attributed to pro-government forces, with aerial operations alone causing 295 deaths. Despite these casualty figures, the report says, “UNAMA observed that the number of airstrikes conducted by international military forces and Afghan air forces has increased significantly compared to 2016, while the number of civilian casualties has increased by 7 per cent. While emphasizing that no civilian casualties are acceptable, the reduced harm ratio suggests improvements in targeting and civilian protection procedures.” There is no strident criticism.The timing of the release of the report is also intriguing. It was released during the period of the Ramzan ceasefire, at a time when the government was making its most sincere effort to create a period of calm in Kashmir. Such a malicious piece of work can only serve to vitiate the environment in Jammu and Kashmir, and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights could not have been unaware of this. If this was done with a deliberate intent, the matter is extremely serious.Today, Kashmir is mourning the killing of Shujaat Bukhari, one of its most respected journalists. Terror attacks have intensified and the ceasefire is unlikely to be extended. In this highly volatile environment, this clearly motivated and prejudiced piece of work deserves to be thoroughly condemned. The writer is a former GOC, Northern Command