The situation in Kashmir is far from normal. Both the state and the Central governments still seem to be groping in the dark for the real causes and solution to the turmoil that started on June 11.
There is also no evidence that separatist groups organised the agitation. Young people, with their faces covered, told the media that they were dis]illusioned with the current separatist leadership. It seems that mutual rivalries between groups, and the attitude of the Pakistan government that patronised one group after the other, has eroded their support. In these circumstances, offers from the Union government for talks with all leaders of Kashmir, including the separatists, will hardly help. Nor is the proposal to resume dialogue with Pakistan relevant at this juncture. This, essentially, is a revolt of teenagers that use stones as their weapon, and modern technology to mobilise support in the Valley and elicit sympathy from outside. The only model which seems to inspire them is that of the intifada in Palestine, and the Albanian teenagers in Kosovo, who also used stones as their main weapon of revolt. A new-found connectedness through sites like Facebook and Twitter, and their consequent awareness of movements elsewhere, facilitated the growth of this agitation.
The first step to deal with the situation should be to establish contact with the young leaders and understand their frustration, as well as the minimum conditions to restore normalcy. An “agreement” with separatist leaders may not be acceptable to them.
Simultaneously, the CRPF and the police should be trained in modern methods of crowd control, so as to disperse them with minimum casualties — as has been done by Israel in dealing with the intifada, and in Kosovo; or was done in Canada to disperse large demonstrations against the G-20 conference.
An independent enquiry should be held after every incident. Why was no enquiry held immediately after Tufail Ahmad Mattoo was killed on June 11, though his autopsy confirmed that he was killed by a teargas shell? The government announced a commission of enquiry more than a month-and-a-half after the first death, by which time 19 more young people had died.
Some expressions of “azadi”, the inevitable rallying slogan of every popular movement in Kashmir, should be allowed — at least, some demonstrations, as long as they are peaceful. Even Syed Ali Shah Geelani, the hardline leader, has advised the youth to do the same. And if they continue to use violence, they will lose what popular sympathy they have aroused in the Valley and outside.
While long-term measures for enlarging autonomy for the state are worth considering — subject to the safeguards provided in the Nehru-Abdullah Agreement in 1952, and after consultations with regional leaders — some measures can immediately be introduced. For example, J&K is the only state of the country which does not have panchayati raj, and the act under which it will be introduced, actually winds up making panchayati raj institutions a means for further centralisation and regimentation of the system.
Then there are a number of institutions in the rest of the country which protect citizens’ freedoms. Were the National Human Rights Commission’s jurisdiction extended to J&K, it would not abridge the state’s autonomy but would certainly guarantee more freedom to the people. At the very least, the state human rights commission, which its former chairperson described as a “toothless tiger”, should be brought to par with other states. The same is true of the state women’s commission, which does not have powers equivalent to its counterparts elsewhere. Similarly, while the state is beyond the jurisdiction of the national Right to Information Commission, which has radically enlarged people’s power in the rest of the country, its own RTI is yet to start operations. Another example is the state accountability commission — defunct for at least the last five years.
The case for more autonomy for the state will be strengthened if the power it has already got is not used merely to empower the ruling party. The over-centralised system is a major source of discontent in every region, sub-region and ethnic community. In Jammu, popular discontent is expressed in anti-Kashmiri or ultra-nationalist sentiment, while in Kashmir it finds an anti-India outlet. Only a federal and decentralised system can reconcile the aspirations and interest of the state’s many communities.
This can done by the state itself, with the Centre needed just for expert advice. It is only when people do not get “azadi”, interpreted as the freedom of expression and power to decide their affairs at various levels, within India that they seek it outside. Once these reforms are given a trial, then it will be much easier to work out a consensus on the withdrawal or reform of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, or reduce the size of the army presence — as also to work out a basis of dialogue with Pakistan.
Balraj Puri, Convenor People’s Union for Civil Liberties, has questioned the use of army to disperse protestors in Baramulla. He has endorsed the view of the state police which has called the army action as unwarranted and uncalled for.
In a statement issued here today, he said that the army should be deployed mainly to defend the border and handling of civilian protest should be entirely left to the state police and the CRPF, which are under the discipline of the state government. Army action, on the other hand, is neither accountable to the state government nor subject to human rights enquiry, he added. He urged the Union Defence Minister to held enquiry to find out who called the army in Baramulla and issue strict instructions that such actions are not reported.
Balraj Puri meets PM over Kashmir situation Tribune News Service
The Director, Institute of Jammu and Kashmir Affairs, and veteran journalist, Balraj Puri, had a detailed discussion with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the present situation in Kashmir recently.
According to him, needs of the teenagers, who were in the forefront of the current protests, should be understood and redressed. “They should also have the freedom to demonstrate and protest, and should be dealt with by the police and the CRPF with modern techniques of crowd handling, which involves dispersing the crowd without killing and injuring anybody. Every killing should be followed by an independent inquiry,” he suggested.
Referring to political measures, Puri told the Prime Minister that Jammu and Kashmir was privileged to have more diversity than any other state of the country and, thus should be helped to be a model of unity in diversity. With this objective, Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah had agreed on the autonomy to the state and regional autonomy within the state, he said.
“This formula was agreed upon at an all-party conference convened by Sheikh Abdullah in 1968 and attended by all political parties of the Kashmir region, except for the Congress. It was also incorporated in the National Conference manifesto in 1975,” he said, adding, “The present system, which centralises all powers in the hands of the state government, should be reformed so that people at all levels are empowered and get some degree of freedom.”
Talking of Kashmiri Pandits, he said, “They comprise the most intellectual community of the state and can play an important role in enriching the unique cultural heritage of Kashmir.”
Puri said their services should be used fully. In this context, he referred to the visit of 40,000 Kashmiri Pandits at Khir Bhawani, which is their religious place of pilgrimage, this year and a warm reception extended by Muslims to them there.
“It demonstrated their potential role in the socio-cultural life of Kashmir. The Prime Minister assured Puri that the Central government was considering all suggestions seriously and was determined to resolve all problems of the people of the state,” he added.
Balraj Puri, Director, Institute of Jammu and Kashmir Affairs, had a detailed discussion with Prime Minister on the present situation in Kashmir. According to him, the current protests were essentially of teenagers whose urges and needs should be understood and redressed. They should also have Azadi to demonstrate and protest, and should be dealt with by the police and the CRPF with modern techniques of crowd handling, which disperse it without killing and injuring anybody.
Refering to political measures suggested by the Prime Minister recently, Puri told him that Jammu and Kashmir was priviledged to have more diversity than any other state of the country and, thus, should aspire to be a model of unity in diversity. With this objective, Nehru and Abdullah had agreed on autonomy of the state and regional autonomy within the state. This formula was agreed upon by the All Parties Conference convened by Sheikh Abdullah in 1968 and was incorporated in the National Conference manifesto New Kashmir in 1975. He added that the present system which centralizes all powers in the hands of the state governent be decentralized so that the people at all levels are empowered and get some degree of Azadi.
Prime Minister told Mr. Puri that his government was considering all suggestions seriously and was determined to resolve all problems of the people of the State.
Agreed,"for three consecutive summers, Kashmir has been on a boil". But,it is also a fact that for the three consecutive summers incidents and toubles only happen in the Kashmir Valley. And if these happen in other parts of state, they do not "boil" to that proportion as in the valley.
Is this region in the big state of Jammu And Kashmir ( including Ladakh ) faces more malignity, or somehow it gets much more attention than others? There is no level-field in reporting,attention-drawing or reactions to happenings in all parts of the state.
From a 1946 conversation between Moulana Azad and Shorish Kashmiri
Dr.Javid Iqbal Azad, a profound Islamic scholar was once called ‘show boy of congress’ by Jinnah. You could disagree with Maulana’s politics; labeling him a show boy was a shade harsh. Shorish Kashmiri had interviewed Azad in April 1946. The historical interview has not been re-produced in any form. Former Union Cabinet Minister; Arif Mohd.Khan obtained the book after a long search. The English version of the Urdu original was published by him in ‘Covert’ magazine. It is a long write-up of nearly 5000 words, we may discuss only the portion relevant to the subject, Islam in India and the power equation between two principal communities-the Hindu majority and the highly significant minority-the Muslims! On Islam in India, Azad told Shorish ”Factors that laid the foundation of Islam in Indian society and created a powerful following have become victim of politics of partition. This communal politics has hurt the religion beyond measure. The political disputes we created in the name of religion have projected Islam as an instrument of political power and not what it is— a value system meant for the transformation of human soul. Under British influence, we turned Islam into a confined system, and following in the footsteps of other communities like Jews, Parsis and Hindus we transformed ourselves into a hereditary community.”
On massage of Islam and Indian Muslims; “The Indian Muslims have frozen Islam and its message and divided themselves into many sects. Some sects were clearly born at the instance of colonial power. Consequently, these sects became devoid of all movement and dynamism and lost faith in Islamic values. The hallmark of Muslim existence was striving and now the very term is strange to them. Surely they are Muslims, but they follow their own whims and desires. In fact now they easily submit to political power, not to Islamic values. They prefer the religion of politics not the religion of the Quran.” The timing of Maulana’s interview to Shorish Kashmiri is of relevance. He had tried his best to work out a power equation in the subcontinent by working on a loose federation. In his interaction with the British mission headed by Sir Stanford Cripps, a formula had cropped according to which the Muslim majority provinces – Bengal and Punjab – would remain within the fold of the Indian state, albeit as autonomous units conceding to the federation the conduct of foreign affairs, defence and communications. However Azad’s proposed federation was stillborn, as Nehru’s statement in Bombay came forth that constituent assembly in India would debate it. Accusing Nehru of breach of faith, Jinnah called for initiation of direct action. For the first and the last time in his life, the Muslim League’s supreme leader was resorting to a measure, which could lead to breach of law and order. It did infact lead to bloodshed in Noakhali in Bengal, as direct action was initiated on 16th August 1946 A.D. Jinnah got relentless on his demand of Pakistan, on which Azad makes interesting comments, as the power equation, he had worked out failed: Azad on Pakistan: “Pakistan is a political standpoint. Regardless of the fact whether it is the right solution to the problems of Indian Muslims, it is being demanded in the name of Islam. The question is when and where Islam provided for division of territories to settle populations on the basis of belief and unbelief. Does this find any sanction in the Quran or the traditions of the Holy Prophet? Who among the scholars of Islam has divided the dominion of God on this basis? If we accept this division in principle, how shall we reconcile it with Islam as a universal system? How shall we explain the ever growing Muslim presence in non-Muslim lands including India? Do they realize that if Islam had approved this principle then it would not have permitted its followers to go to the non-Muslim lands and many ancestors of the supporters of Pakistan would not have had even entered the fold of Islam? Division of territories on the basis of religion is a contraption devised by Muslim League. They can pursue it as their political agenda, but it finds no sanction in Islam or Quran. What is the cherished goal of a devout Muslim? Spreading the light of Islam or dividing territories along religious lines to pursue political ambitions? The demand for Pakistan has not benefited Muslims in any manner. How Pakistan can benefit Islam is a moot question and will largely depend on the kind of leadership it gets. The impact of western thought and philosophy has made the crisis more serious. The way the leadership of Muslim League is conducting itself will ensure that Islam will become a rare commodity in Pakistan and Muslims in India. This is a surmise and God alone knows what is in the womb of future. Pakistan, when it comes into existence, will face conflicts of religious nature. As far as I can see, the people who will hold the reins of power will cause serious damage to Islam. Their behaviour may result in the total alienation of the Pakistani youth who may become a part of non-religious movements. Today, in Muslim minority states the Muslim youth are more attached to religion than in Muslim majority states. You will see that despite the increased role of Ulema, the religion will lose its sheen in Pakistan.”
Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi has told Parliament that the government is abandoning the policy pursued by the Musharraf regime on Kashmir, and returning to the previous stance. This involves a resolution to the territorial dispute ‘peacefully’ and under the relevant UN resolution.
The foreign minister in particular lashed out at the ‘secret’ diplomacy used under Musharraf to try and solve the Kashmir problem. Former foreign minister Khurshid Kasuri had alluded to just this in his unexpected remarks at a seminar stating a formula to settle Kashmir had been worked out, but a decision taken not to make it public. This of course is inherently undemocratic. The people of any nation need to know what decisions are being made, especially those that have the potential to have a major impact on them.
Backdoor attempts to reach solutions lead nowhere at all and can create more problems than they solve — and that is why such contacts have failed so far to resolve conflict between India and Pakistan. For one, they result in a breakdown in trust between rulers and people, adding to the difficulties inherent in solving issues.
This is all the more relevant when it comes to an emotive issue like Kashmir. As the foreign minister said, it is important such matters go through parliament. Where there is a difference in opinions persuasion is needed to win over people; stealth will lead nowhere at all. While endorsing the PPP’s call for an end to any kind of covert policy on Kashmir, the fact is that the old policy now being reverted to has, over 60 years, led to very little progress in solving the dispute.
All that it did was to create a generation of Pakistanis who grew up seeing India and Indians as the enemy. Of course this suited the powerful establishment — on both sides of the border — and they used this enemy hype to appropriate for themselves a major chunk of the resource pie. So going back to the old policy, as the foreign minister put it will simply not do. Given this reality, and the pressing need to move towards a solution of issues with India, the government needs to demonstrate a readiness to display some flexibility, and that means having an altogether new policy.
For 70 minutes, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani met today without any aide and came out with an outcome that could lead to forward movement in the bilateral ties. Meeting in the cool climes of Bhutan, far away from the sultry heat of Delhi and Islamabad, the two leaders broke the 17-month ice after heart-to-heart talk over the entire gamut of bilateral relations that included difficult issues like terrorism. Singh and Gilani, who held 90-minute discussions, were alone in a room of Bhutan House in SAARC Village for 70 minutes, sources said. “Even a note-taker was not there,” said a source, adding the two leaders appeared to have been on an exercise to know each other and the difficulties in total privacy. Initially, delegations of both sides accompanied Singh and Gilani. However, after they were introduced by their leaders, the delegation members were asked to leave the room. After the one-on-one meeting, the two leaders called in their Foreign Ministers, Foreign Secretaries and some senior officials. Singh and Gilani told the delegation members about their discussions and gave the directions. After the meeting was over, the two Prime Ministers, who had come to the Bhutan House in their respective vehicles, walked down together for some distance, chatting while the delegation members followed.
Balraj Puri, Convenor PUCL J&K State, has demanded immediate release of the leaders of the refugees from Pakistan administrated Kashmir who were leading a peaceful demonstration for their legitimate demands. These refugees who migrated to this part of the state in 1947, 1965 and 1971 and are the worst sufferers and recommendations of many official committees for their rehabitatrion have not met, he said. He also urged the government and leaders of striking government employees to find a via media to exempt at least the essential services like hospitals from the strike so that patients do not suffer till final agreement on other demands for which ways should be explored.
Balraj Puri, Convenor PUCL J&K State has regretted non-implementation of Right to Information Act in the State. Citing a personal case he said that he had requested Public Information officer, General Department to let him know who can supply him a copy of an the report of an Ansari Commission on 18 Sept 2009. Despite a number of reminders he had yet not got any response. He has asked the government to take appropriate action on his request and against the GAD for its inaction.
L’affaire Kunan Poshpura: Press Council Enquiry Exposed By Balraj Puri
Kunan Poshpura is being recalled in Kashmir, 19 year after the nightmare through which it had passed. What added insult to the injury was the clean chit that the Press Council of India had given to the perpetrators of the heinous crime that the army had committed on the women of the whole town. The team of this independent organization included B G Verghese and Vikram Rao, who unfortunately happened to be my friends.
The team had also made similar observations on what happened in Pazipora and Zakura. I had visited all these places, a also other places from where I received reports of atrocities against innocent civilians and made more thorough enquiries, through official and non-official sources, than Verghese Committee had done. On the basis of my personal study, I had exposed the glaring flows in the Committee’s report, in a long article in the Illustrated Weekly of India, a prestigious journal of that time. A summary of it is reproduced below.
The report of the committee of the Press Council on Kashmir has given a fresh handle to those who were engaged in a campaign to malign the concept and movement of human rights in India.
As the country’s international prestige, its civilized character, future of democracy, emotional links of Kashmir with the rest of the country and performance of the security forces are so closely linked with the strength of he human rights movement that even the Council or any of its committees cannot be allowed to weaken it.
It may be recalled that the Press Council had entrusted this enquiry to the Verghese Committee mainly on the role of media in or about Kashmir, on receiving a request from the army headquarters.
There is, thus, nothing in the report to justify the campaign of militants, nationalists to condemn the human rights bodies in the country. The Press Council panel makes no claim that the security forces have committed no excesses. While there is room for differences between the panel and others—media persons and human rights activists—over judgments on specific incidents, there is absolutely no difference on the fact that excesses have been committed. The report of the panel has devoted maximum attention and space to the infamous case of alleged rapes of Kunan Poshpura. It has completely exonerated the army of all the charges made against its jawans in this case.
The verdict on one case does not imply that all other complaints against the army and other security forces are fake. In fact, the Verghese Committee has referred to complaints against the other security forces only in passing as they were beyond its purview. One should, in fact, wish that the government invites this very committee or any other nominated by the Press Council to study the role of other pare-military forces. Because they come in day-to-day contact with the civil population, while the army is mainly deployed to guard the frontiers. Secondly, these forces are not as rigorously trained as the army is.
The media picked up the news from the FIR lodged with the police by the district magistrate in which, the inter alia reportedly stated that he ‘felt ashamed to put in black and white the kind of atrocities and their magnitude brought to my notice on the spot. ‘The armed forces behaved like violent beasts,’ he added. The government spokesman immediately described the allegation as planted (by a government officer?).
After the visit of the divisional commissioner to the spot, the official spokesman reiterated that the allegation was found baseless. But he divisional commissioner denied having conducted any enquiry and told the press that it was a serious matter which required “a high-level enquiry”. Without specifically referring to the incident, the then Union Home Minister admitted during those days that “some shameful incidents” took place involving excesses by the security forces. A former chief justice of the state high court, after conducting a non-official enquiry, confirmed the allegations.
Can anybody deny that the above facts made put a prima facie case for demanding a fair enquiry? This is what media commentators and some political and human rights activists demanded. If they had not done so, they would not have been worth their salt.
A brigadier of the army did conduct an enquiry into allegations against his men. But under the Indian Army Act, his report could not be made public. The state government entrusted the enquiry to an assistant superintendent of police, who has yet to complete his report.
It is now, roughly five months after the incident, that the Verghese Committee, in its report, points out a number of discrepancies in the statements of the alleged victims of the incident, statements of the government officers, including the district magistrate and the chief medical officer. It comes to a firm conclusion that he ‘Kunan rape story stands totally unproven and completely untrue.’
It the conclusion is correct, the conduct of the government in avoiding a credible enquiry which could have vindicated the honour of the army becomes all the more indefensible. Who served the national interest better: those who demanded an enquiry of those who described the demand as anti-national and thus allowed the country to be defamed all over the world?
Enquiries by an army officer or a police officer in such cases lack credibility. But why even their reports have not been made public so far? Perhaps, the members of the committee would concede that their report, too, is no substitute for a proper and formal enquiry.
The next incident that the committee examined happened at Pazipora, where 25 persons were allegedly killed and a number of women raped by the army. In this case, too, the police registered a case. The doctor in the Kupwara District Hospital corroborated that the five women brought to her from Pazipora “were all definitely victims of rape.”
The committee did not visit Pazipora for want of time and did not examine the victims, their relatives or those who had made allegations. But it has pointed out discrepancies in the following versions of the incident on the basis of the information it collected from official sources. One, by justice Farooqi, two, as reported in India Week by N.V Subramanian and Brij Raj Singh (who certify six cases of rape), and three, by Sukhmani Singh, whose report was published by the Weekly, and four, by Asia Watch (the US-based human rights group).
The committee reports that a court of enquiry was instituted by the local army authorities which found that the reports of excesses to be false. Does an enquiry by the local army authorities against its own jawans, the level of which is not known and the report of which was not released to the press, carry any conviction? As the Verghese Committee has not conducted even a semblance of an enquiry, its verdict, too, carries no better conviction than the four versions it has rejected.
It challenges the veracity of the charge of about killings on the ground that post-mortem was not conducted on 13 bodies. Whose lapse was it? Even if only 12 persons had been killed, were they innocent or militants?
One silly argument used by the committee to belittle the allegations of rape is that ‘one of the unwed girls who was allegedly raped reportedly got married some months later to nobody’s shame.’ Is it shameful or greatness to marry a raped girl?
In view of the seriousness of the allegations, supported by four prestigious non-official enquiries, absence of any public enquiry by the government or the Verghese Committee can only be regretted.
Referring to another incident of the army firing at Zakura on August 1, 1990, which according to press reports took a toll of 22 lives, the committee admits that it has no direct knowledge and is unable to comment on it. But it quotes the army version without getting it checked from any non-official source.
The facts, confirmed by official sources, are as follows. A big procession was passing through the Zakura crossing near Hazratbal. It moved at right angle to the left. Five army vehicles came from the right hand side of he crossing. The policemen on duty at the crossing asked the army vehicles to stop (as per the FIR report) till the procession passed. But they went ahead. Three of the vehicles were given the passage by the processionists. But the fourth was stuck and delayed in a scuffle. The army version is that ‘it was stoned, anti-India slogans were shouted and efforts made to snatch weapons from the jawans. Thereupon the troops fired in self-defence.
Three vehicles were ahead of the procession. The jawans in them started firing to rescue those who they feared were trapped in the rear. The firing from both sides, therefore, took a heavy toll of human life.
Whatever be the official version of the incident. It was never alleged that the processionists were armed. Why should unarmed processionists try to provoke the armed jawans by stoning them or snatching a rifle from one of them? It appears that the army men were provoked by anti-India slogans. As such slogans have often been cited as a provocation for firing by the security forces, the issue must be settled at the highest level, ie political, whether non-violent and non-terrorists ex-pressions of anti-India feelings deserve nothing short of death by a firing squad. In any case, wasn’t the Zakura incident a fit case for a public and impartial enquiry?
The Committee quotes a few cases in which the guilt of the army men was established and they were punished. These cases include unauthorized and arbitrary detention of BBC correspondent Yusuf Jameel, rape of a Canadian woman in Srinagar, outraging the modesty of a woman in Awantipur and killing of six persons near Pakherpura. In addition, the report quotes early incidents involving para-military forces in which action was taken and which include the Anantnag bridal rape case (May 1990) and the burning down of shops and houses in Handwara (October 1990). In other cases, the committee simply quotes the army version without conducting its own enquiry an giving its comments.
The value of the enquiries by the army is further reduced, as pointed out by the committee, by the fact that no public pronouncement is made of their outcome in the interest of troop morale and in order to avoid precedent. How do you then satisfy public opinion in Kashmir and outside?
The sum up, the committee has, in most cases, cited the official version, occasionally based on classified records, without giving its own views or conducting its own enquiry.
Perhaps, the committee is right in its judgeemnts that the human rights violations are more a product of human failure or frailty and emotional stress rather than of deliberate state policy or connivance. Views expressed by responsible leaders, including three former prime minister (V P Singh, Chandra Shekhar and Rajiv Gandhi), senior civil and security forces officers, all political parties (barring a dominant section of the BJP), intelligentsia and media persons amply bear out the fact that public opinion in the country does not approve of the excesses committed by the security forces in Kashmir and that it is not a deliberate policy of the state. There is enough realization in the country that the excesses are counter-productive and a cause of national humiliation before the rest of the world.
Press Statements 
