‘I am hopeful’ stated Dr. Karen Parker, International Educational Development (IED) Delegate to the United Nations, in her introductory remarks at the Kashmir Peace Conference organized by the IED, ‘that this conference will provide some guidance for resolving the roadblock between where we are now and where we can go to resolve the conflict. We need to get all sides talking to each other with full respect.’
Speaking at the first session, ‘Kashmir: Human Rights Dimension’, Ramsey Clark, former United States Attorney General from 1967-69 under President Lyndon B. Johnson, began by describing the state of Jammu and Kashmir as ‘a place of beauty caught in geography and history that makes the possibility of general peace and prosperity a challenge, not only for its people but also for its neighbors.’ If peace could be achieved, Kashmir could be a symbol for the world, demonstrating the possibility of peace existing in the midst of beauty.’ But, he cautioned, how does a world ‘full of ambition and too many hands possessing the capacity for total destruction’ achieve such a goal? ‘We don’t like to think about it but we still spend billions of dollars on how to kill millions of people where hunger and sickness could be eradicated. We know better but we obscure our knowledge, because the truth hurts, it hurts to know the existence of poverty and suffering.’
Unfortunately, when trying to highlight the situation in Jammu and Kashmir Mr. Clark conceded that the average American’s knowledge about Kashmir was ‘less than negligible’ and that, when hearing the name ‘Kashmir’, they were more likely to think of a bouquet of soap rather than the disputed state. ‘We’re busy and it’s a big world and everybody has their own problems and needs and wants.’ But, he said, knowing about the suffering and needs of others ‘is essential to peace on earth. Kashmir remains in the mind as a lovely sounding place that few have ever visited, which means that we have a real challenge in terms of education.’ Observing the human rights of others was also a most important component of bringing peace. ‘Peace in Kashmir and a resolution of the conflict is a major element of peace in the region.’ But, he concluded, ‘we are a long way from justice as a dominant condition in the world.’ When questioned on the role of the United Nations, he described how the ability to focus on the real needs of the population was overshadowed by the special interests ‘of those who control the representation of power that guides the United Nations’.
Human rights activist, Khurram Parvez, convener of the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society, focused on the context in which human rights abuses in the state of Jammu and Kashmir were perceived. ‘You cannot understand human rights if you don’t understand the context. Human rights abuses are taking place all around the world, in many places, including in India,’ he stated. ‘But the difference is these are happening because of aberrations, deficiencies in governance, and because people transgress the law. What is happening in Kashmir is not an aberration, it is part of an institutionalized policy of the Indian government.’ Highlighting the publication in September of the report of the International Peoples’ Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Indian-administered Kashmir and the Association of Disappeared Persons, Structures of Violence, The Indian State in Jammu and Kashmir, Mr. Parvez described how the report not only involved the documentation of 333 cases of human rights abuses but also described litigating these cases in different courts. ‘Our argument is that if we don’t do it we will never be able to prove that human rights abuses are taking place. We have been able to engage with the Jammu and Kashmir judiciary.’ With information coming from both police and government sources, he emphasized that in the cases under review, including Kunan Poshpura in 1991 and the massacre of Sikhs on the eve of President Clinton’s visit to India in March 2000, there were 972 alleged perpetrators. ‘In all these cases we have gone to the courts and tried our best to find justice within the Indian system.’
Part of their work involved meeting the families of those who have disappeared and been tortured. ‘We found out that what was happening was that people were not able to get justice. People were being engaged in the process but justice was not being delivered. 1,080 people in these 333 cases have been killed, 172 have been disappeared.’ At least, Parvez said, the Indian government admitted the incidents had taken place. ‘They are not my figures but have been provided to us by the government.’ Prosecuting the perpetrators had been less successful. ‘We tried to examine why no one has been prosecuted; we found out that it requires a sanction to prosecute anyone from the armed forces and that sanction has not been given in a single case.’
Furthermore, Mr. Parvez emphasized that the cases they had reviewed were not the only cases. ‘There are thousands of others. Filing a First Information Report (FIR) is a big task in itself, it can take 1-2 years to get the police to register a complaint, so you can imagine how difficult it is for people to fight for justice. Then there is a phase of investigation and sometimes the charge sheets have not been honored. This is especially true in circumstances where the army feels itself above the law’. Repression and cover-up has become institutionalized, he said. In terms of delivering justice, he emphasized that the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) ‘has become one of the factors of impunity. It has to go.’
Mr. Parvez also explained that one of the main reasons relating to disappearances was the monetary incentive for killing a ‘militant’ in Kashmir. ‘If you want to make money you have to kill a militant.’ According to government figures, since there are only 150 militants left in Jammu and Kashmir, invariably those killed were claimed to be unidentified foreign militants. But he said, ‘how do you know the nationality of people if they are unidentified?’
Turning to discuss the role of the international community, Mr. Parvez related how previously it had used human rights abuses to push India towards dialogue. But, he said, the Indian government views dialogue as an ‘end in itself’ and the rights of the people cannot wait for the resolution of the dispute. ‘We are being held hostage for even our basic needs. Even when dialogue is taking place, human rights are being abused. We accept that the Indian government needs some time for resolution but that does not mean the rights of the people should be suspended. We believe there has to be a process, now in Kashmir, for improving human rights abuses on the pattern of special procedures. If it was done for Sri Lanka and Rwanda why not for Kashmir?’
‘Human rights are a world problem,’ Mr. Parvez concluded. ‘They are not an internal matter. We have seen the transformation of the movement from violence to non violence.’ But, he warned, there was a trend among young people again resorting to violence. ‘It is very sad for us, that young people should want to use violence. But the argument they use is that our voice does not reach anywhere.’ While India continues to ‘legitimize’ its presence, Mr. Parvez pleaded for the international community, whose assistance to date had been ‘dismal’ and all the organizations working for Kashmir to bring pressure to lobby for a United Nations ‘probe’ on the situation in Kashmir. Without such intervention, he said, ‘we cannot proceed forward. We are now at a stage where it is a complete dead end. We have done everything, we have met everyone in the government but nothing has changed. Instead of working to resolve the issue, both the governments of India and Pakistan have used the situation in Kashmir for political rhetoric, side-lining the aspirations of the Kashmiris. ‘They need a respectful and dignified place in the dialogue.’ A ‘game changer’ in moving forward, he suggested, would be if the Azad Jammu and Kashmir government could relinquish its dependence on Islamabad ‘That would encourage everyone in the region and would be an example to look up to.’ Describing the Pakistani administered region of the state as the ‘base camp’ of the Azad movement, he said ‘we don’t see the base camp as powerful enough. It is also struggling for itself.’
Nasreen Sheikh from Azad Jammu and Kashmir, now living in the United States, and an educationalist for the past 35 years, emphasized that ‘as human beings, regardless of gender, nationality or sex, we all have the right to life liberty and security.’ In addition to political, economic and cultural rights, she said, ‘we also have collective rights and that is the right to self-determination.’
Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, a disputed territory administered by Indi, she said, are an ongoing issue. The abuses range from mass killings, forced disappearances, torture, rape and sexual abuse to political repression and suppression of freedom of speech.
Having outlined the history of the dispute over the status of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir since the partition of the subcontinent in 1947, Mrs. Sheikh also highlighted the arguments of the different stakeholders: Indian, Pakistani and Kashmiri. Whereas the Indian government accused Pakistan of waging a proxy war, Pakistani opinion was that because of the ‘two-nation’ theory the state with its Muslim majority, should have become part of Pakistan and that, the plebiscite, agreed between the two leaders, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Governor-General Mohammed Ali Jinnah, should have been held. Kashmiri opinion, she said, was difficult to gauge. According to a recent survey, ‘43% want independence; some want to stay with India, others want to go to Pakistan.’ Yet despite differing opinions, she was insistent that ‘we should always talk about a resolution.’ The first step she suggested was dialogue between New Delhi and Srinagar, ‘closely followed by dialogue with Pakistan.’ Highlighting four essential components, Mrs. Sheikh said that the talks would have to start without conditions. We also have to stop talking about the past. The whole state and its other constituent parts must be involved. The dialogue should be ‘transparent.’ Finally, the talks must address the political dispute of Kashmir and not be subsumed by economic and social issues.
Examining the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir in its ‘Regional and International Dimension’, British author of Kashmir in the Crossfire and Kashmir in Conflict, Victoria Schofield emphasized that there were five important reasons why a resolution of the dispute was imperative: firstly, because the dispute had been going on for 67 years creating longstanding enmity between India and Pakistan in a world that had become more dangerous; secondly because both India and Pakistan were nuclear powers and any flare-up between the two hostile neighbors could lead to a nuclear exchange. Citing the attack on the Delhi Parliament in December 2001, she reminded listeners that both armies mobilized along the international border, and that newspaper articles appeared in the international media highlighting the locations where potential nuclear strikes could be made. Thirdly, the unresolved dispute meant that ‘any non-state’ actor could perpetrate an act of terrorism in the name of Jammu and Kashmir which could also bring India and Pakistan to the brink of war creating unimaginable suffering for the inhabitants of the region. Fourthly, the humanitarian situation on the ground warranted resolution. Pointing to the effect of the trauma of the ongoing conflict, she highlighted the fact that in addition to human rights abuses, thousands had been killed or disappeared. ‘Women whose husbands have disappeared cannot re-marry. They are half-widows, which also brings hardship.’ Fifthly, because of the unresolved dispute, resources which could be spent improving the lives of all people of the subcontinent were spent maintaining conventional and nuclear arsenals.
Focusing her remarks on the United Nations’ definition of self-determination, Dr. Karen Parker emphasized that the state of Jammu and Kashmir ‘obviously’ met the criteria: firstly that there should be an identifiable territory; secondly, that there should be a history of self-governance; thirdly, that the people should be distinct from those around them; fourthly – and Dr. Parker apologized for the benevolent tone of the requirement – that the people should have the capacity for self-governance; finally, the people ‘have to want it’, which Dr. Parker stated they clearly did. ‘Never really since 1947 have the people given up the wish of self determination.’
With regard to the role of the United Nations Dr. Parker said that its role had ‘slowly faded as India became more of a super power.’ But, she said, ‘that doesn’t mean it went away. Kashmir is still a “disputed territory” in the United Nations system.’ Responding to Khurram Pervez’s suggestion of a UN ‘probe’ Dr. Parker emphasized that it was not necessary to involve the United Nations Security Council and that action could be taken by other elements of the UN. She highlighted, however, that a lack of unity among the different groups lobbying the various UN departments acted as ‘an impediment’.
Anuradha Bhasin Jamwal, Editor of the Kashmir Times based in Jammu, was unable to be present due to the passing of her father, Ved Bhasin Ji. Her paper, read by a young student, entitled ‘Human rights Crisis in Kashmir and its Impact’ focused on human rights abuses and the impunity with which they were perpetrated. She said that the conflict has caused massive displacements in seven decades, resulted in heavy casualties and state sponsored violence has perpetuated a cycle of human rights abuse practiced with a culture of impunity. An estimated 70,000 people have been killed, many of them civilians in cross firing, fake encounters and in custody.
The women along with children, Ms. Jamwal emphasized, have been the worst sufferers because they bear brunt of violence as sisters, mothers, wives and daughters. From the infamous gang rapes of Konanposhpora in 1990 to Shopian’s spine chilling double rapes and murders and the equally shocking cover-up by official investigating agencies, two decades of insurgency and counter insurgency period in Jammu and Kashmir is littered with cases that exemplify the victimization and vulnerability of women.
She said that the significance of settling Kashmir for the sake of peace and security in South Asia is felt not only from the humanitarian point of view and for the sake of civil liberties of the people or even addressing their political aspirations. Kashmir is of significance also to the world community today in view of the dangers it poses to entire South Asian region and its direct and indirect impact elsewhere in a globalised world order. It stands on the threshold of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan and the re-emergence of Islamic insurgency. The non resolution of Kashmir and attempts to control it militarily have perpetuated anger that not only spills out in the form of violent street protests but is pushing an entire generation of youth towards religious radicalization and extremism.
Emphasizing that Kashmir was ‘a ticking time bomb’ Ms. Jamwal suggested that ‘the constant inability of India and Pakistan to come to the negotiating table may require a push, if not direct intervention, from global powers.’
Professor Zafar Khan, Spokes-person, Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), was also unable to be present. His paper was also read by a young student, again stressing the right of the inhabitants of the state to self-determination. Professor Khan questioned, ‘who can begrudge Kashmiris for feeling betrayed, at the indifference and abandonment of their basic human rights – the right to national self-determination, a right that India and the major powers recognized.
Without a shadow of doubt, Khan emphasized, ‘peace is the only option for Kashmir, and Kashmiris are ready to play their part in the process. Unfortunately, Kashmiris do not have partners to engage with, for a just and peaceful solution of the future political status of their country. In fact, the pro freedom leadership would want Kashmir to be the common ground for peace making in the region.’ Kashmir, therefore, must become a bridge of friendship and lasting prosperity among India, Pakistan, the 20 million people of Kashmir, and the whole region of South, South west and central Asia, Khan concluded.
In his comments, Dr. Zahid Bokhari, Executive Director, Center for Islam and Public Policy (CIPP), presented a five-point agenda for the next level struggle of Kashmir dispute: 1) The word ‘Azadi’ be accepted in the English language as a standard term for Kashmiri resistance movement as ‘Glasnost’ and ‘Intifada’ were recognized for the Soviet Union openness and Palestinian resistance, respectively; 2) The just resolution of Kashmir conflict will bring peace and prosperity to the region of South Asia. The reduction of defense expenditure will make it possible to eradicate poverty among the half billion people of Indian Subcontinent; 3) An extensive use of social media, especially videos, will become instrumental in highlighting the struggle of people of Kashmir, including the Kashmiri youth; 4) An effective outreach campaign on Kashmir dispute towards the peace loving sections of the Indian civil society and diaspora is the need of the time; and 5) The increasingly negative image of Modi administration as extremist, sectarian and communal should be used effectively to enhance the cause of Kashmir at the global level.”
In her opening comments in the session, ‘India Pakistan relations: breaking the deadlock for Kashmir’, Barrister Suchitra Vijayan, writer, lawyer and political theorist made it clear that she stood ‘in solidarity with Kashmiris.’ She also cautioned against using ‘the language of the occupier’ – for example by describing ‘freedom fighters’ as militants or separatists. Describing a recent visit to the valley of Kashmir on 15 August 2015, she said that she found it unacceptable, that she, as an Indian from Madras, was able to walk unchallenged on the streets of Srinagar, whereas a Kashmiri would not have the same freedom. ‘I had more rights than the average Kashmiri.’
She observed that many Indians had been ‘brainwashed’ into thinking that Kashmir belonged to India, ‘and that to hold on to Kashmir was fine, and to treat Kashmiris as part of India was fine.’ She also described how the bardic traditions in Kashmir had been transformed. ‘Every Kashmiri is a poet, but instead of the traditional histories of happiness and achievement which they recorded, their poems now reflect the pain and suffering.’
Recognizing that the individual experiences of the inhabitants of the state varied, Barrister Vijayan emphasized that there would be no movement forward ‘without Kashmiris believing there is a sense of justice.’ Whilst reaffirming her support for the Kashmiris, she stated: ‘My job is not to tell the Kashmiris what they want, it is their voice and their dialogue which must determine the future.’
Broadening her comments to talk about India, Barrister Vijayan emphasized the regional differences of India, describing how the ‘idea of India’ was the ‘most abused phrase’. ‘What Mohammed Ali Jinnah said of India was correct: “India is a subcontinent of nationalities.”’ Explaining the rise of extremism she said that it existed ‘especially in the areas which became border areas. We talk about partition as though it was surgical, it was a bloody mess, those families still feel the trauma. Delhi changed from being a Mogul city to Punjabi city.’ The second reason why extremism was increasing was because all problems were being considered to be the fault of Muslims. ‘Where does that hate and anger come from?’ she asked. ‘It comes from a sense of not understanding what the history is.’ As an example, she cited how some Indians were upset at making a film about Tipu Sultan of Mysore, because he was a Muslim, without understanding it was the Muslims who fought to preserve the region against the colonizers.
Also speaking on ‘breaking the deadlock’ Khurram Parvez said that he saw Kashmiris having ‘tremendous aspirations’ and involvement in the movement but what was lacking was a plan. ‘Because of the brutalization and the conflict syndrome some of us have lost hope, we have started believing that azadi (Freedom) will never come. I think we need first to believe that it will come. The crimes that we have witnessed by the government are horrible but the worst crime would be when we lose hope.’
Mr. Parvez also emphasized that there was no alternative to the struggle but what was lacking ‘for deadlock to break is that there has to be synchronization of the Kashmiri stakeholders.’ This did not necessarily mean unity as there would always be different stakeholders but that all efforts should be towards one goal. Recognizing the diversity of the inhabitants of the state, he said that he was embarrassed by contemptuous language for Gujjars used by Kashmiris.
‘The struggle has been ongoing since 1931,’ he said. Highlighting the loss of life in Poonch, Rajouri and Jammu in 1947, he said that ‘we in valley remained silent because we were blindly following Sheikh Abdullah.’ So the first step was ‘to seek an apology for remaining silent when it mattered the most. You can’t only blame the Government of India for what is happening. We have to take ownership for what happened.’ Again highlighting the diversity of the state, he said that while opposing the hegemony of India, he warned about perpetuating the hegemony of a particular group in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. With the exception of a ‘handful, the Hindu community in Jammu do not identify with us at all.’ Those who oppose dividing the state of Jammu and Kashmir were, he warned, adopting ‘the same kind of hegemonic approach as the Indian government. No territory is sacrosanct, particularly a territory which has come into being by deceit.
Jammu was never part of the valley, nor were Gilgit and Baltistan. Can we force them to live with us? Would they also not have the right to secede from Jammu and Kashmir territory?’ Highlighting that these were ‘very serious’ questions which needed to be asked, he concluded by stating that solutions would only come from the inhabitants of the state. ‘The best solution is when they sit together and see what do we have to offer each other. What could be the way forward in terms of governance. Do we have a plan? How will we be a state which is not exploiting the poor? We need to think about these issues very methodically in a detailed manner.’
In his paper, Dr. Waleed Rasool of International Riphah University, Islamabad wrote that Kashmir is still longest outstanding dispute pending on the agenda of the UN Security Council. The United Nations passed the very first resolution on April 21, 1948 which gave the right to self-determination to the people of Jammu & Kashmir. This resolution was jointly sponsored by the major world powers, including the United States, Great Britain and France.
Rasool said that the self-determination of the people of Kashmir and international peace and security are inter-related. The denial of this right has brought both nuclear countries of India and Pakistan to the brink of nuclear catastrophe. It is in the interest of world peace that India and Pakistan need to resolve the Kashmir dispute to the satisfaction of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. The final and durable settlement of the Kashmir dispute will undoubtedly guarantee peace and stability in the region of South Asia. It will also have a great impact on the international peace and security.
Sardar Sawar Khan, former Advisor to the Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir said that the right of self-determination of the people of Jammu & Kashmir was agreed here at the United Nations by both India and Pakistan with the endorsement of the world powers. That pledge needs to be fulfilled for the sake of peace and stability in the region of South Asia.
Concluding the conference, Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai said that the aims and objectives of this conference were not to speak against one government or another. On the contrary, our main purpose was to facilitate a sincere dialogue in the form of a peace process. And to do so in the spirit of reconciliation, not confrontation; equality, not discrimination; and hope, not despair.
Fai underscored that despite a significant shift in global politics during the post-9/11, the Kashmir issue remains a major impediment to global peace and security, and its resolution must be a priority for the international community.
The intermittent talks of peace moves between India and Pakistan, like the one between National Security Advisors of India and Pakistan on December 6, 2015 in Bangkok are very healthy developments that need to be strengthened. However, the people of Kashmir feel, Fai warned that it is being done to diffuse the tension between these two nuclear powers and not enough is being said or done to set a stage for the final settlement of the Kashmir dispute. The Kashmiris believe that trilateral dialogue between the Governments of India & Pakistan and the Kashmiri leadership with the understanding and engagement of the United States holds the key to any meaningful progress on the Kashmir dispute.
Fai concluded by describing two principles which had to be the guiding force of a resolution of the Kashmir dispute: firstly, it was the inherent right of the inhabitants of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to decide their future; secondly it was almost impossible to ascertain the wishes and will of the people of the state except in an atmosphere that is free from intimidation and external compulsion.
Others who spoke included: Dr. Imtiaz Khan, Senior Vice President, Kashmiri American Council; Dr. Khalid J. Qazi, Clinical Professor, Sisters; Dr. Ghulam N. Mir, President, World Kashmir Awareness; Mr. Saleem Akhtar, National Director, American Muslim Alliance; Sardar Zarif Khan, Washington, D.C. and Mohammad Imtiaz Khan, New Jersey.
- The conference ended with a declaration resolving that:
- The inalienable right to self-determination of peoples of Jammu and Kashmir as it stood on 14 August 1947, be recognized and instituted;
- The people of Jammu and Kashmir must be an integral component of the ongoing peace process;
- The pace of India-Pakistani dialogue in relation to Jammu and Kashmir should be accelerated;
- All extra judicial laws, like Armed Forces Special Powers act (AFSPA) and the Public Safety Act (PSA) should be repealed, ensuring that peoples fundamental freedoms and basic rights are restored;
- All political prisoners should be released and interrogation and torture centers closed;
- Kashmir specific confidence building measures must be adopted like facilitating intra-Kashmiri dialogue;
- Both sides of the ceasefire line must be demilitarized;
- The rights of all members of minorities in Jammu and Kashmir must be protected. All those persons who have been displaced from Jammu and Kashmir since 1947 should be encouraged to return. The members of the Pandit community displaced in the recent past should be facilitated to return and their rehabilitation guaranteed.
- The international community should be urged to facilitate dialogue among all stakeholders as well as highlighting human rights abuses wherever they occur throughout the state of Jammu and Kashmir.