The manipulated UN report on human rights abuse in Kashmir (English Version) Rakshak News 04 July 2018
The UN Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) for the first time released a report on human rights abuses on both sides of the Kashmir border on 14 Jun. Since neither nation had given the commission access to their part, the report was based on ‘remote monitoring’. The term ‘remote monitoring’ itself is questionable as it opens the report to being influenced by any nation, agency or individuals. Data presented by any agency, nation or organization could have been utilized to determine its ultimate findings. It is evident that elements against the nation are behind providing this data.
The report covered the period from Jul 16 to Apr 18. The question which has yet to be answered is, why Jul 16. After decades of relative calm, there was a sudden surge in internal violence post the elimination of a leading terrorist Burhan Wani and it was evident that violence was being surged by funding from Pak through its proxies. The report should have commenced from 2013 or even earlier. It appears that the period was selectively chosen and given to the UNHRC. The report should have logically covered the reasons behind the sudden surge in violence, including proxy war, but these aspects were completely ignored.
Further, the world is aware that India is not fighting home grown terrorists as Pakistan and other nations are facing. It is a proxy war enforced on the country. India as a nation needs to defend its borders against infiltration of terrorists. Pak on the other hand has no such threat. Hence, India faces Pak grown, trained and funded terrorists. This is an aspect which the report ignored, since it was planned to be anti-India.
Interestingly, the report charged the army on Human Rights (HR) abuses. If it had collated data through remote monitoring, then it should have also collated details of HR cases against the Indian army also available in the public domain. From 1994 to May 2018, there have been 1770 allegations against the army on HR violations from all parts of the country. Of these, 1725 allegations have been investigated in depth. Post investigation, 1625 charges were found to be baseless. From balance cases found genuine, 153 army personnel have been punished and in 53 cases compensation has also been paid to the victims. These details should have been mentioned but have been ignored.
The report terms POK as Azad Kashmir. This term is only used by Pakistan. Other nations including the UN use the term Pakistan Administered Kashmir. The question again arises as to why this term was used. Gilgit Baltistan has been accepted internationally as a part of POK. This report indicates it as a separate province. It is therefore evident that the report has been tweaked by UNHCR to suit the requirement of Pak or written as a proxy by Pak.
The report talks of armed groups in Kashmir. Armed Groups indicates an insurgency with home grown terrorists and NOT a proxy war. Nagaland, at the height of insurgency had armed groups. Kashmir has terrorist groups, trained, funded and pushed into the region by Pak.
The report criticized the employment of Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) in the state. The type, nature and level of force to be employed to quell a proxy war, as against an internal uprising is determined by the state. An international agency, unaware of realities, banking on limited inputs, provided by interested parties has no right to comment. The army has and would always remain as the instrument of last resort. The protection which it is to be provided is determined by the state.
The head of the UNHRC, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein even attempted to justify his report in an article in the Indian Express. In his article he used the right terminologies, which his report ignored. His justification was only beating around the bush as none of the criticisms given by the government were addressed or answered.
The government of India and the army chief have rightly criticised the report being biased, one-sided and without understanding the realities of the region. It is evident that the report has been prepared by an agency from Pakistan. Despite some groups stating the government must act on the report, the fact remains, how can you consider and act on a report which is based on half-truths done to satisfy a nation which includes employment of terror groups as a part of state policy.
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army