The UN Human Rights Council (HRC) recently sent submissions on the alleged human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir.
In reaction to this, India has decided to shut down communication with UN HRC's Special Rapporteurs.
What was it about?
The current Special Rapporteurs on Extrajudicial Executions, Torture, and Right to Health had referred to an earlier report of the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR).
The OHCHR's was the first-ever such report on J&K as well as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir that came out in June 2018.
In this context, Special Rapporteurs had written to the Indian government asking about steps taken to address the alleged human rights violations.
In addition, the Special Rapporteurs had listed “13 cases of concern” from 2018 alone.
In this, 4 children were among 8 civilians killed by members of the security forces.
The UN report had come at the same time when another report was released from two NGOs in the State on the alleged cases of torture.
It was endorsed by a former UN Special Rapporteur.
What is India's stance?
India has rejected all the claims, and accused the Special Rapporteurs preparing the report of “individual prejudice” against India.
India had also rejected the OHCHR’s report on the ‘Situation of Human Rights in Kashmir’.
In its objections, the government said the report was “false and motivated”.
Its conclusions and recommendations were violative of India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
India also drew notice to the Pulwama attack, calling terrorism the “grossest” violation of human rights, not the allegations against the security forces.
India refused to respond to questions about deaths of 69 civilians between 2016 and 2018 in violence in the Valley.
The Indian Permanent Mission to the UN in Geneva replied to the OHCHR that India did not intend to engage further on the issue.
Is India's response justified?
India's response is largely in line with its reaction to such international reports over the last few years.
Demands for action against Indian officials and amendment of laws can cross the line on Indian sovereignty.
The previous OHCHR has called for UNHRC to set up an independent and international tribunal to investigate the matters.
This was seen to be invasive, and could be dismissed by New Delhi as well.
However, the government cannot suppress the troubling questions that the UN report and Special Rapporteurs’ submissions raise.
Notably, most of the sources for the OHCHR report are -
official Indian authorities
State and national human rights commissions
international human rights agencies
reputed Indian NGOs
This is therefore a view from within India, and not some disengaged UN official.
Also, two Kashmiri NGOs report has documented 432 specific cases of alleged brutality by security forces in Kashmir.
These include electrocution, ‘water-boarding’ and sexual torture of civilians.
Of these, only about 27 cases were taken up by the State Human Rights Commission.
It is fair if the government press for due process and justice in each of the cases of human rights violations in J&K.
Source: The Hindu
Quick Facts
UNHRC
It is an inter-governmental body within the UN system, made up of 47 States.
It was established in 2006 as part of the UN’s reform process and replaced the UN Commission on Human Rights.
Members are elected by the UNGA with 3-year terms, with a maximum of 2 consecutive terms.
They are responsible for promotion and protection of human rights.
Its resolutions are not legally binding but carry moral authority.
OHCHR
The role of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is not to be confused with the UNHRC.
OHCHR is a separate institution which presents reports independent of the HRC. E.g. the June 2018 report on Kashmir
The HRC and the OHCHR have separate mandate and functions, but both are part of the UN system for human rights protection.
