Silence of UN over Kashmir

By Tyela Shaffan | October 3, 2016 |

It is a matter of common observation among students that during any class assessments, the student who wanted to cheat someone will always ask the victim to hide his blue book. Well, this would be clear later. Let’s move towards another mind shaking scenario. Once again, India-held Kashmir is in the grip of chaos. The dozens of Kashmiri people have died in the violence triggered by the killing of Burhan Wani, a young separatist militant of Hizbul Mujahdeen by Indian army. Growing Indian atrocities have forced the Kashmiri youth to resort to militancy.

The dilemma is that the Indian government has attempted to justify its violence by accusing the protesters of being jihadist since they came out in support of a militant commander. What it fears to mention is that they are protesting the brutal occupation of their land by the Indian Army. The Indian government also does not mention that the only reason the 22-year-old Burhan joined the Hizbul Mujahedeen at the age of 15 was because he felt that was his only option in resisting a dehumanizing occupation as last year the Indian Army tortured and killed his elder brother. There is always an upper hand of Human rights organizations on such sensitive matters as the Great powers are always there to back the victims and to have trials of violators. But what is the case then?

Today the World is silently watching how Indian Army is killing innocent people of Kashmir. In 6 days more than 40 people killed 2000 wounded and due to pellet guns 51 civilians lost their eyesight. A 3 years Old baby is also targeted. Indian Army is using, bullets, chemical Gas, pellet guns on civilians and there is no communication, food, medicine, news details and enquiry. On August 17, more than 40 days after the start of the latest wave of brutal Indian repression of the Kashmiris, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, made a startling statement that his “sincere attempts to independently access the facts in relation to reports of human rights violations have failed” since his office has not been given access to the affected population by the governments of India and Pakistan. Such a statement is oblique on several counts. Firstly, it should not have taken the high commissioner, the UN’s focal person on human rights, over a month to issue his first statement of concern regarding human rights violations in Indian-occupied Kashmir. After all, the UN Secretary General’s office issued a statement on July 9, the day after the latest wave of Indian atrocities started. It should have been the high commissioner to be the first to express such concern. Additionally, there is no response from Human rights organizations so far.

The most important thing to be noticed that there is always the presence of US in providing freedom to the victims of Human rights and is on the front row in granting freedom and democracy. Is this really a case? It is notable that despite internationalization of the Kashmir dispute, US silence over the issue is based upon its shrewd diplomacy reflecting its self-contradictory approach. It is followed by the fact that America which signed a nuclear deal with India in 2008, intends to make India a mini-super power of Asia to counterbalance China and to contain Iran. Besides, US-led western countries consider India a larger market. In this background, US President Obama who has visited India, announced $10 billion in trade deals with New Delhi to create more than 50,000 US jobs, declared the measures.

The truth of the matter is that the universal human rights apparatus has progressively gotten to be instruments of political influence in the hands of Western nations drove by the US. US do not want to antagonize its strategic Indian ally. It is not surprising, therefore, that the UN’s human rights system has remained silent on the Kashmir situation. The part of governmental issues in the UN’s human rights apparatus has at this point turn out to be pervasive to the point that twofold benchmarks and hypocrisy have turned into the request of the day. Especially since the end of the Cold War, politically motivated doublespeak such as “responsibility to protect”, “humanitarian intervention” and “rights up front” have become catchphrases for leverage, intervention and regime change in the name of democracy, freedom and human rights. The glaring examples of this approach are the situations in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria.

Now coming towards the present scenario, the two states have entered into the war like situation or facing a war. There is continuous disturbance on borders and India is trying its best to provoke Pakistan to initiate a war. Ongoing tensions on Line of Control and possibility of nuclear strikes are now on fire. Meanwhile, a statement is released on yesterday by Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton who expressed concern over the possibility of emergence of nuclear suicide bombers from Pakistan if jihadists get access to the country’s atomic weapons. US delivered no statement regarding human rights violation in Kashmir but showed concerns for us to ignore war situation and to save our nuclear program first, otherwise that could be grasped. Don’t you think it’s just like a warning of a student to the other one to safe his task so that someone can cheat yours efforts.

The writer is student of International relations at International Islamic University Islamabad, can be reached #

About Arif Qureshi

Check Also

Uzbekistan’s Firm Commitment To The Development Of Multilateral Cooperation at CIS 2020

By: Nematov Akramdjan Ilkhomovich On December 18 this year, under the chairmanship of the President of …