By Ajay Bharti
10th December is the world Human Rights Day. This year the day coincides with martyrdom of Guru Teg Bahadur ji Maharaj, the 9th Guru of Khalsa Panth who offered supreme sacrifice along with his disciples while resisting religious chauvinism of fanatic Aurangzeb. Is this fluke indicative of future?
Human rights, we are told, are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights, it is accepted, are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible.
Universal human rights are often expressed and guaranteed by law, in the forms of treaties, customary international law, general principles and other sources of international law. International human rights law lays down obligations of Governments to act in certain ways or to refrain from certain acts, in order to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals or groups.
If there is any place in the world that has seen consistent violation of human rights of a community for centuries it is Kashmir valley. Worst part of the story is that this essentially a medieval phenomenon continued in what is being claimed as modern secular democratic dispensation. When we scrutinize the role of the governments, both at centre and in the state of Jammu Kashmir vis-à-vis the minorities of the state in general and that of the Hindu Community of Kashmir in particular we find the response to be grossly inadequate and culpable.
The Hindu minority of the valley formed nearly 15 % of the total population of Kashmir in 1940’s. Owing to communalization of political mobilization from 1931 onwards and discriminatory policies of successive regimes in J&K after independence, a good percentage of the community was forced to leave Kashmir. Mass exodus of the community after eruption of armed insurgency in 1989 was in a way logical conclusion of the process of Islamisation of Kashmir.
The objective of Radicalised Wahhabi Islamic Jihadis to enforce ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits from the valley in order to pave the way for Islamic homogenization with sharia replacing secular democratic dispensation is to some extent explicable. But, what about ‘secular democrats’? Why did they become either willing contributors, or at best passive spectators, to the horrendous acts of terror that led ultimately to the mass exodus of the helpless Hindus?
Kashmir from 1947 to 1986
In the backdrop of partition of British India on the basis of communal two-nation theory and successful manipulation of Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru to help Sheikh Abdulla capture power structures in the only Muslim majority state of India pushed a section of Muslims of the vale to helm of affairs. This section of Muslims had used Islam as tool of public mobilisation to what they projected as opposition to autocracy. That the head quarter of this mobilisation is till date named ‘Mujahid Manzil’ is clear reflection of the essence of their politics.
Gross political mismanagement, unprecedented corruption and loot of public exchequer by the emerging neo-elite, which emerged in the process, lead to public disenchantment in the state. In order to protect its position of privilege the ruling establishment collaborated and cooperated with Islamic fundamentalists in diverting the growing public anger towards the Central government, Hindu minority and India as a whole. In his biography, Shiekh Abdullah branded the Pandits as Indian spies and in the subtle way identifies the community as an unwanted symbol of India’s secularist presence in Kashmir.
Pakistani rulers used the situation to project and use essentially pan-Islamic fundamentalist movement as an anti-Hindu and anti-India struggle to complete its ‘unfinished task of partition’. Tools of social mobiliation now became instruments of official policy. Snatching of lands in the name of Land to tiller, easing out Hindus from decision making process by denying them equal opportunities in admission to professional colleges and also in government jobs, encroachment of their common and individual & collective properties and an unwritten policy of discriminatory grievance redresser mechanism ensured a slow but steady process of eviction. Even a pure democratic and secular process of delimitation of territorial constituencies was used in a manner to eliminate every prospect of the minority community wielding any influence in the election of representatives to elected fora. Thus the community which was in a position to send four representatives to the state constituent Assembly is unable to win even a single seat now.
Petro-dollars from Arabian countries, perceived successes of ‘Mujahideen’ in Afghanistan and collapse of the USSR as a superpower encouraged Muslim youths in Kashmir to take to the gun. Organised violence and brutal attacks against the helpless minority Hindu community began right from 1986. Riots broke out against Kashmir’s Hindu minority in February 1986, assuming a genocidal dimension. It was a full dress rehearsal of the plan for their genocide chalked out by Pakistan’s infamous ISI codenamed ‘Operation Topac’. False stories about atrocities on Muslims in the Hindu-dominated Jammu were churned out by the propaganda machine to foment insurgency and unleash religious violence. Slogans like “Islam in Danger” were raised to inflame passions.
The Administration remained busy in placating Muslim fundamentalists Instead of providing protection to the besieged minority community. The happenings of 1986 were factually summed up by Vinod Sharma, a veteran journalist with established secular credentials, in a report carried by the newsmagazine ‘The Weekly’ in its March 23-29, 1988 issue. The very title of the story filed by him, “Valley of Fears: Is There a Sinister Attempt to Force a Hindu Exodus?” conveyed the crux of the situation. Instead of taking effective measures to curb militancy, government released 70 hard core terrorists on one pretext and 5 more in the stage-managed Rubaiya Sayeed abduction case.
1986-1990
Government inaction emboldened the Muslim youth to take-up the gun. Terrorism arrived in full scale. The terrorists struck under a definite design to complete the elimination of Hindus. Dealing the first major blow, Tika Lal Taploo, a leading lawyer and popular political leader, was gunned down on 14th September, 1989. This was followed by hundreds of individual killings and later by mass massacres. Hell broke loose on the night of 19th January, 1990, with almost the entire Muslim community coming out on the streets, raising hateful slogans against the Hindu minority. The government virtually abdicated its responsibility in the fast deteriorating security situation in the state, supinely surrendering before the secessionist onslaught.
Incidents of bomb blasts, attacks on high profile targets, appearance of photographs of fully armed terrorist leaders in the media etc. announced the arrival of ‘gun culture’ in the Valley. Unconcerned about the happenings, the government hardly took any step to instill a sense of security in the people. ‘Civil curfews’; Hartals, violent demonstrations became the order of the day. Sympathetic state machinery visibly supported and cooperated with the subversives. Official vehicles were openly used to smuggle in arms and ammunition as well as subversives.
Kashmiri Hindu leaders tried their best to persuade those in authority to prevent the situation from going out of control. But they were greeted with apathy, ingratitude and disdain. Administrative circles discounted the fears of the scared minority as unfounded. There was no sign of administration visible or invisible anywhere in Srinagar on that day. The fundamentalist terrorists went on rampage, virtually taking over the city and doing whatever they wanted to do.
The minority community of Kashmiri Hindus had no option but to leave for the safety of their life and limb and honour of their womenfolk. They left their homes and hearths leaving everything behind -- movable and immovable property, jobs, and business enterprises, hoping that the situation will soon normalize and they will be able to return to their native land. The dream that has yet to see the light of the day. A proud community with a history of 5000 years was forced into exile from the land of their birth with a passive government watching their uprootment and devastation with total apathy.
1990 onwards
The response of the government to the uprooting and sufferings of an entire minority community was is and has been one of callousness and indifference. First an attempt was made to deny the tragic fact of their displacement altogether and then a disinformation campaign was launched against them. It was only after persistent protests, demonstrations and representations, expressing outrage against this callous attitude that an attempt was made by the government to provide some relief. Even then the response was reluctant, confused and far from adequate, betraying a naked bias.
The government’s stated policy was “to ensure that difficulties and hardships at the migrants camps are minimized. But it did not want the relief measures to be “as comfortable as to act as a disincentive to the process of return.” It did not matter that if in the process humanitarian considerations were ignored.
Official records say that 56487 families are registered as Kashmiri “migrants”. Out of these 34562 families are in Jammu, 19338 in Delhi and the remaining in other states. But only 15078 families in Jammu, that is less than 50%, and 4335 families in Delhi, that is about 21%, are receiving cash assistance from the government. 5242 families in Jammu and around 250 families in Delhi have been provided camp accommodation -- that is just 10% of the registered families. The remaining families have been left to fend for themselves. These people are living in extremely miserable and subhuman conditions.
The minority Hindu community has not been displaced from Kashmir only physically but also culturally. Their imprints on the history and geo-culture of Kashmir are being deliberately erased. Taking undue advantage of their absence historical places with pre-Islamic names are being renamed, existence of their cultural heroes denied and access to their language is being denied to the displaced Hindus as part of the plan to prevent their return. Official institutions are misused to deny the community their share in government spending and also with a long term vision of erasing their claim on the land of their origin. The census figures are manipulated to show the numbers of Kashmiri Hindus much below their actual population, and gave an unreal picture of their existence. Kashmiri Hindus have been unceremoniously eliminated from revised voter lists. Land and property belonging to the community is being encroached upon by individuals, organized groups and even government without their consent and or with proper compensation.
The Government of India, in its official note to the International Commission of Jurists, (ICJ), an international NGO of repute, communicated in writing the story of ethnic cleansing and exodus of the Pandits. It is fully reproduced in its published report on Kashmir, 1995.
Section A paragraph 9 of the Report of the representative of the UN Secretary General to the Commission on Human Rights states. Loss of life, brutality, violence and threats thereof that create a climate of insecurity frequently force people to flee their homes: for instance, in cases of direct or indiscriminate attacks on civilian sites. In fact, violence and threats affecting life and personal security are a particularly effective and frequently used means of inducing displacement and are often also employed in the course of displacement. In some cases the forced movement of persons may amount to genocide, including “ethnic cleansing”, or to inhuman and degrading treatment. (E/CN.4/1998/53/Add.1. p.5)
Article 1 of the Genocide Convention recognizes genocide, committed at any time, to be an international crime. Article 11 of the Genocide Convention defines genocide as “ … any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, such as:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part …(E/CN.4/1998/53/Add.1. p. 18)
Despite this ground reality, the Government of India has, so far, refused to declare the Pandits of Kashmir as IDPs and take appropriate action to punish the guilty. It is a matter of regret that neither the Government of India nor the Government of the Jammu and Kashmir State has instituted a Commission of Inquiry into the rise of religion-based terrorism allegedly with full connivance of sections of local authorities, political groups and segments of civil society.
Principle 28 of the Guiding Principles in Section V relating to ‘Return, Resettlement and Reintegration of the IDPs’ states:
1. Competent authorities have the primary duty and responsibility to establish conditions, as well s provide the means, which allow internally displaced persons to return voluntarily, in safety and with dignity, to their homes or places of habitual residence, or to resettle voluntarily in another part of the country. Such authorities shall endeavour to facilitate the reintegration of returned or resettled internally displaced persons.
2. Special efforts should be made to ensure the full participation of internally displaced persons in the planning and management of their return or resettlement and reintegration. (E/CN.4/1998/53/Add.2. p. 14)
This principle makes it clear that It is the responsibility of the State authorities to care for their “return, resettlement and reintegration.”
Natural Justice demands that: 1. The Union Government constitutes a Commission of Inquiry with the following clear terms of reference:
(a) Probe into the causes of the rise of extremist religion-based armed insurgency in Kashmir in 1990
(b) Probe into the causes and events of selective killings of Pandits followed by their ethnic cleansing in 1989-90. The report of the inquiry into 1986 Anantnag attacks on Pandits is made public.
Constituting this commission is essential for preventing recurrence of communal pogroms in future and also for strengthening secular democracy of India. It will pave the way for the return of the IDPs.
2. The affected people are immediately declared Internally Displaced Persons, in accordance with the definition of the UN or its subsidiaries/commissions/ working groups etc.
3. Subject to the inception of an Inquiry Commission, the State government constitutes a Rehabilitation Committee with representatives of the community, experts and government as its members.
(The writer is the President of Jammu-Kashmir Vichar Manch, NCR chapter)
No comments:
Post a Comment