Releasing it’s first ever report on “Human rights situation in Kashmir” the United Nations sought an international inquiry into the abuses. The report asserts that there was an “urgent need” to address the past and ongoing human rights violations, it states, “any resolution to the political situation in Kashmir should entail a commitment to ending the cycles of violence and accountability for past and current human rights violations.”
India has however slammed UN and rejected the United Nations report on “human rights situation in Kashmir” calling it ” fallacious, tendentious and motivated,” the External Affairs Ministry said in a statement. Adding that the report is a “selective compilation of largely unverified statements,” the Ministry said that the report “violates India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” and “questioned the intent” behind it. “The entire state of Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India. Pakistan is in illegal and forcible occupation of a part of the Indian state through aggression,” it added.
Even senior leader and Rajya sabha MP Subramanian Swamy has condemned the report. He said “I would throw the report in the dustbin. They United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNOHCHR) are highly-prejudiced left dominated organisation. We should say to them, ‘to hell with you’. We don’t comment on reports written by people who don’t know about the subject.
The opposition has even supported the the Modi Government’s protest against the UN human rights report on Kashmir. Taking to Twitter, Haryana MLA and Congress media-in-charge Randeep Surjewala has written “Jammu & Kashmir is an integral & inseparable part of India. We reject UN Human Rights Report as a prejudiced attempt by vested interests to hurt India’s Sovereignity & National Interests. Congress party supports the Government’s stand in dismissing the report.
UNHRC prepared this report remotely with zero understanding of situation in J&K. How does the report justify terrorism by self styled militants of JeM & Hizbul Mujahideen? Should the UN overlook the state sponsored terrorism being exported on Indian soil by Pakistan?
The 49-page-report, which tries to give an impression that it is balanced in its assessment of the situation in Kashmir, appears on closer inspection to be fatally biased against India. In a series of omissions and lapses, the report refuses to cite Pakistan-based outfits like the Lashkar-e-Taiba as terrorist groups, makes no mention of Pakistan initiating the Kargil War, and doesn’t appropriately address its own concession that: “Despite the Government of Pakistan’s assertions of denial of any support to these groups, experts believe that Pakistan’s military continues to support their operations across the Line of Control in Indian-Administered Kashmir”.
The report also states that that it is not based on any on-ground assessment and is instead based on “remote monitoring”. It cites a number of publications and reports in India and also states that such quality and quantity of information wasn’t available in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. It says “The quantity and quality of information available on Indian-Administered Kashmir contrasts significantly to Pakistan-Administered Kashmir. Despite challenges, NGOs, human rights defenders and journalists are able to operate in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, generating documentation on the ongoing human rights violations there. Restrictions on the freedoms of expression, opinion, peaceful assembly and association in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan have limited the ability of observers, including OHCHR, to assess the human rights situation there. Nevertheless, OHCHR used the information that is available to address the human rights violations occurring in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan.”
The report also sought repealing of the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990 “urgently” and also “immediately remove the requirement for prior central government permission to prosecute security forces personnel accused of human rights violations in civilian courts.”