|

Human Rights: Are They Universal?

Only on paper has humanity yet achieved glory, beauty, truth, knowledge, virtue, and abiding love.” George Bernard Shaw

It is tragic that civilized nations have fallen from their lofty calling: namely, human rights for all mankind. There is a sad commentary on the state of human rights all over the globe. It seems to me that until there evolves a generally accepted moral duty among peoples and nations to assist all victims of widespread human rights violations by force or other stiff retaliation, human rights enforcement mechanisms will operate haphazardly and whimsically for reasons unrelated to the harm to the victims or the villainy of the perpetrators. It is the job of all human rights defenders to jump-start that moral evolution.

It might be said that never have so many human rights been proclaimed yet been so routinely violated. Think of the ongoing human rights atrocities at present that are going unsanctioned. Myanmar, where civilians are routinely driven from homes and cities are consistently destroyed. Tragic genocide in Syria. Kashmiris brutalized by 700,000 Indian military and paramilitary forces. The list goes on and on.

The life for Kashmiris has oscillated between grisly and gruesome. Human rights violations are frightful: extrajudicial killings, torture, rape, abductions, arson, and arbitrary detentions. Since 1989, more than 100,000 Kashmiris have been killed. Indian forces routinely commit war crimes with impunity under emergency laws. They do so because the likelihood of punishment by the Indian government is slim to none. The scale of gripping wrongdoing in Kashmir dwarfed what was witnessed in Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor and Southern Sudan prior to international intervention, yet the United States and the United Nations have watched the Kashmiris suffer like spectators at the Roman Coliseum.

Apart from the magnitude of violence unleashed by the Indian military forces against peaceful protesters in Kashmir, the most poignant aspect of the situation is the acute suffering of the whole population caused by the frequent curfews, disregard of normal life, arrests, detentions and sometimes disappearances of innocent civilians by the authorities. This is a situation without precedent in the south Asian subcontinent and with few parallels in the world today. That complacency gives at least the impression that Kashmiri lives and hopes are worth less than those of others. If India believed its rule in Kashmir was by consent rather than by coercion, it would hold a plebiscite with alacrity, just as the Great Britain routinely permits the Scotland to vote for independence

If, however, the world powers and the United Nations are unmoved by international law and moral justice to act, then Kashmiris will be forced to organize their own referendum like in Catalonia, Spain with the assistance of eminent persons of international standing and NGOs to decide their future. If that last alternative is forced upon them, Kashmiris hope that India, with the urging and moral suasion of the international community, will put no obstacles in the way and that the world will honor the results of the free and fair vote.

It is universally acknowledged that Kashmir is a global danger because of spiraling nuclear and missile proliferation in both India and Pakistan, coupled with their respective domestic political instabilities and historical animosities. A similar consensus agrees that the bilateral India-Pakistan formula for resolving the 70-year-old Kashmir conflict has proven empty, achieving no progress during those long years. For the Kashmir conflict to end, authentic representatives of the Kashmiri people – All Parties Hurriyet Conference — must be senior partners at the negotiating table along with India and Pakistan. No solution will endure without their consent voiced in a referendum.

The gruesome status quo in Kashmir is both legally and morally unacceptable and militarily and economically frightening. There is no time for further complacency.

In sum, the ingredients of a Kashmir solution are there. What remains are healthy doses of statesmanship and magnanimity of world powers including United States.

Similar Posts

  • |

    Kashmir: Where the Truth Doesn’t Matter

    NPR’s Julie McCarthy was in Kashmir earlier in September and reported on how different the unrest seems now compared to previous years. “First of all, there’s this unprecedented kind of force being used. There’s these high-velocity pellet shotguns for crowd control. And it’s left thousands of people riddled with pellet injuries. And a lot of them have damaged eyesight. And some demonstrators have thrown stones, attacked police stations and government buildings. And, unusually, this started in rural areas. And it has spread throughout the Kashmir Valley. And it’s lasted over 60 days. That’s also unusual.”

    Perhaps it’s not enough to point out that the champion of this latest uprising, a person who was slain in a fashion frequently called “extrajudicial” by others in the press, and whose killing was the primary provocation for the current uprising, was a self-declared militant who had used social media to resist the Indian occupation. He was someone who had become a symbol of the true spirit of resistance in the hearts of all Kashmiris.

  • |

    Kashmir’s Jalil Andrabi and China’s Chen Guangcheng: A Similar Path, but a Fork in the Road

    One of the darkest chapters of Indian judicial partiality was left hanging half closed and banging in the wind when Major Avtar Singh, the killer of internationally known human rights activist and Chairman of Kashmir Commission of Jurists, Advocate Jalil Andrabi, was found dead after he killed his wife and two children, and finally himself this past Saturday morning, June 9, 2012, in Selma, California. Avtar Singh, a fugitive from justice, who lived in the hot dry central California community, a suburb of Fresno, was clearly haunted by his past, a past that had seen the blood spilled of more than one man by his own hands. He had killed four others to hide the murder of Andrabi, and now he had killed his own family.  

    In killing Jalil Andrabi, Avtar Singh certainly did not act on his own volition. He was only a major.   His act was no doubt a response to orders from above and occurred in a longstanding climate of impunity that the Indian army enjoys in Kashmir.   The Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which gives any Indian soldier the right in Kashmir to take a Kashmiri’s life under any circumstance, has enabled such a climate for decades.  And Jalil Andrabi had become a hated, despised man by the Army, a man dangerous to the status quo of continued murder and torture that had been taking place in Kashmir’s jails, interrogation centers and detention facilities for many years.  

  • |

    Intervention of the United Nations Must for Peace In Kashmir

    New York, October 1, 2017. In a memorandum submitted to Mr. Antonio Guterres, the Secretary General of the United Nations, Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai, Secretary General, World Kashmir Awareness Forum and Barrister Sultan Mehmood Choudhary, former Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir highlighted the following:

    We are writing to urge a leadership role of the United Nations in resolving the 70-year-old Kashmir conflict that has inflicted pain, agony, and injustice on a scale that makes East Timor, and Southern Sudan pale in comparison: more than 100,000 killings in the past two decade alone, and routine rape, torture, mutilation, plunder, disappearances, arbitrary detentions, and ruthless punishment of peaceful political dissent.

  • |

    Kashmir Dispute: A Way Forward

    The dispute over the status of Kashmir can be settled only in accordance with the will of the people which can be ascertained through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite, internationally supervised. This was the common ground taken by all the three parties to the dispute – viz.: the people of Kashmir, India and Pakistan. It was supported without any dissent by the United Nations Security Council – and prominently championed by the United States, Britain and France.

  • |

    How I became Involved in the Cause of Kashmir at the international level

    I want to tell you a little story that touched my life in a very personal way in 1979. It is important to consider, I assure you, because of its historic significance, not only in having an impact in a very real way upon my own survival and the personal vision I came to adopt for the rest of my life, but how it came to shape the very destiny of Kashmir itself. My own life became inextricably linked just as intimately as a man and woman united in marriage. Each detail of this story is integral to understanding who I was then, who I am now, and the process that formed my calling and the rest of my life.
     
    I was in my late 20s then with a driving zeal, as is in every young man’s heart in Kashmir, to make a significant impact somewhere and somehow on life’s stage. At this particular time, I had been placed in charge of the international section of a major conference being held in the Capitol of Kashmir, Srinagar. I was inspired to invite a speaker of an international stature whose presence could be used to energize and internationalize the issue of Kashmir on the right of self-determination.
  • |

    Kashmir is an international issue and not internal matter of India

    Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai, Secretary General, World Kashmir Awareness said that Ms. Sushma Suraj’s assertion at the United Nations that Kashmir was an integral part of India was factually and legally wrong statement. Because under all international agreements, accepted by both India & Pakistan, negotiated by the United Nations and endorsed by the Security Council, Kashmir does not belong to any member state of the United Nations. If Kashmir does not belong to any member state of the United Nations, then the claim of Ms. Sushma Suraj that Kashmir was an integral part of India does not stand. Again, if Kashmir was not the integral part of India, then Kashmiris cannot be and should not be called secessionist or separatist, because Kashmiris cannot secede from a country – like India to which they have never acceded to in the first place.