The human rights question

Do we have the courage to go beyond the steps that the home minister has announced and accept what Omar Abdullah proposed on Kashmir?

In May, a “moderate” Kashmiri separatist stood for election to the Lok Sabha. This was a “first”, and there was more than the usual interest because the separatists have always been taunted that they do not subject themselves to the test of popular choice because they know that they do not represent the majority view in even Kashmir valley. Well, Sajjad Lone had decided that he would take the test, and he failed badly.

The election was not a referendum, or a plebiscite, in that the choice before the voter was not his or her future political status; rather, it was the much smaller question of who would represent him/her in the Lok Sabha. Still, if Mr Lone had won, there would have been no shortage of people interpreting the result as a vote for a change in Jammu & Kashmir’s status as an integral part of India. So it is not easy to dismiss the argument that Mr Lone’s defeat, and the increased voting percentages in the Lok Sabha as well as the state assembly elections that preceded it, reflected the state residents’ acquiescence to Indian rule, even if an unknown number retained the azaadi dream in their hearts.

It is hard to gauge how much of the fading of a 20-year insurgency has been undone by the rape and murder of two women in Shopian, but there is no gainsaying the fact that the episode itself and the manner in which it was handled have caused fresh alienation. The local police station refused to file a First Information Report for days on end, even as the authorities insisted that there had been no crime, and that no security forces were involved. The Valley believed differently because it shut down for days; and just as there have been in some north-eastern states, there was the call for abolition of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act.

To those unaware of its history, this 51-year-old law gives armed forces the freedom to act with impunity, and immunity, in a “disturbed area”. In effect, the man in uniform can kill and commit general mayhem without fear of legal retribution. An episode like Shopian suggests that such a blanket law needs review, and the Prime Minister did promise a review and amendment, three years ago.

Nothing has happened since then, which must be why the home minister, during his visit to the state, could not offer anything more than the promise of “baby steps”— which are welcome in themselves, but perhaps not enough.

The truth is that while India treats Jammu & Kashmir as an integral part of the country, it has a terrible record in the state when it comes to human rights. Most people in the Valley and elsewhere suspect that the security forces have indulged in torture and extra-judicial killings. Most people outside the Valley are also willing to turn a blind eye to this, because they think that excesses are inevitable in a war-like situation created primarily by Pakistan. But the whole point about the electoral success is that we are not any more in a war-like situation.

So do we have the courage to go beyond the steps that the home minister has announced and accept what Omar Abdullah proposed during the election campaign, a Truth Commission (on the lines of Bishop Tutu’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa)? And can we hope to forthrightly ban the use of torture, as President Obama has done in the US? You could argue that these questions are premature, but they will have to be faced at some point. And we will be looking at ourselves in the mirror when we ask and answer those questions.