.art) |
Distr.
GENERAL
E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/NGO/19
14 July 2003
Original: ENGLISH |
English only
COMMISSION ON
HUMAN RIGHTS
Sub-Commission on the Promotion
and Protection of Human
Rights
Fifty-fifth session
Item 2 of the provisional agenda
QUESTION OF THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL
FREEDOMS, INCLUDING POLICIES OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AND SEGREGATION, IN ALL
COUNTRIES, WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO COLONIAL AND OTHER DEPENDENT COUNTRIES
AND TERRITORIES: REPORT OF THE SUB-COMMISSION UNDER COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
RESOLUTION 8 (XXIII)
Written statement* submitted by International
Educational Development, Inc,
a non-governmental organization on the
Roster
The Secretary-General has received the following
written statement which is circulated in accordance with Economic and Social
Council resolution 1996/31.
[4 July 2003]
Human rights in
Kashmir
1. It has been thirteen years since International Educational
Development/Humanitarian Law Project prepared a written statement (U.N. Doc.
E/CN.4/Sub.2/1990/NGO/26) on the situation in Indian-occupied Kashmir. In 1990
humanitarian law violations at the hands of the military forces in
Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir were very grave, and the people of Jammu and
Kashmir were determined to have the UN-mandated plebiscite as soon as possible.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 39 of 20 January 1948 established a
Security Council Commission (later named the United Nations Commission on India
and Pakistan) to resolve the crisis in Jammu and Kashmir at the end of the
colonial rule of the United Kingdom. Both the Commission and the Security
Council as a whole subsequently decided that the future of Jammu and Kashmir
would be decided by a plebiscite of the people in that area. See, for example,
Resolution of the United Nations Commission of India and Pakistan, adopted 5
January 1949, reprinted in United Nations Document S/1196 of 10 January 1949.
The Security Council, in its resolution 80 (1950), set up a number of steps, as
yet unfulfilled, "for the expeditious determination of the future of the State
[of Jammu and Kashmir] in accordance with the freely expressed will of the
inhabitants." In 1949 the Security Council had established a "line of control"
(the LOC) between the part of Kashmir forcibly seized by India in 1948 and the
part of Kashmir under Pakistani influence (Azad Kashmir). The United Nations
Military Operations Group for India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) was established in
1949 and still is in place along the LOC. We note that from the beginning of the
"Kashmir crisis" in 1948, the United Nations determined that, consonant with the
principle of self-determination, the Kashmiri people have the right to determine
their own political future. We also note that the Security Council has rejected
the notion that elections held unilaterally in Jammu and Kashmir (or in "Azad
Kashmir" for that matter) are the equivalent of the plebiscite, holding instead
that only a plebiscite administered by the United Nations would qualify as the
"UN-mandated" plebiscite. Security council resolution 122 of 24 January
1957,
2. Since our first statement at the Sub-Commission there has still
been no action by either the Sub-Commission or the Commission on Human Rights
regarding this on-going crisis, in spite of a dramatic deterioration of the
situation in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir. Indian-occupied Jammu and
Kashmir is essentially under a continual state of siege. India's military forces
include the Indian Army, the Border Security Forces, the Rashtriya Rifles, the
Special Operation Groups and nearly 80,000 state police. Grave breaches of the
Geneva Conventions have occurred with alarming frequency: assassination of
political leadership, disappearances, murder and torture of POWs, torture
(including rapes) and custodial deaths of civilians, military attacks on the
civilian population, attacks on hospitals and medical aid providers, restriction
on medical aid and the like. Refugees continue to flee. The United Nations
Security Council resolutions regarding the plebiscite remain unimplemented.
3. States that could play a vital role in resolving this situation and
achieving the necessary conditions to carry out the plebiscite hide behind the
false analysis that this is a "bilateral" problem between India and Pakistan.
But this issue is an international issue in which both the will and ability to
implement Security Council resolutions are at stake.
4. The Kashmir
situation is made even more volatile by the Indian government's constant
repetition of the term "Islamic terrorist" as if it were synonymous with
"Kashmiri." Yet even under India's description of the legal status of Kashmir,
that government cannot be considered "excused" for either Geneva Convention
violations or violations of human rights. India remains liable for all
violations of the Geneva Conventions and human rights instruments that have
occurred in the course of its long occupation of Kashmir. While India constantly
emphasizes the religion of the Kashmiris, it is not their religion that is the
issue but their denial of the plebiscite. The vast majority of the Kashmiri
people want the plebiscite not because they are Muslim but because they are
Kashmiri and were promised this plebiscite by the United Nations Security
Council.
5. States that could play a positive role in implementing the
Security Council resolutions instead criticize the victims -- the Kashmiri
people and their representatives -- for even daring to present their plight
here. Criticism is laced with racist innuendo or even outright racism that if
employed with other groups and situations would be severely chastised. We
believe that Kashmiri concerns should be respected and the plea of the Kashmiri
people to implement the UN's own plebiscite plan should be honored.
6.
The risk of another war between India and Pakistan will remain high as long as
the Kashmir question is unresolved. At this time there is tension between India
and Pakistan along the LOC. Both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons in
their arsenals and either side could be sufficiently provoked to use them. If
either side uses these weapons, the whole world will suffer nuclear fallout. A
further concern is that we believe remnants of Al Qaeda groups have been
infiltrating into Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, playing on the restlessness
of Kashmiri youth. While all the participant parties and groups in the All
Parties Hurriyet Conference (APHC - the main multi-party coalition in
Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir) renounce Al Qaeda, we believe that there are
some Kashmiri groups that are increasingly vulnerable to pressures from Al
Qaeda. This is occurring in spite of the vastly different cultural and religious
practices between typical members of Al Qaeda and the predominantly Sufi
Kashmiris. These two elements alone, out of the many factors in the overall
situation, make Jammu and Kashmir one of the greatest threats to stability,
peace and security in the world.
7. We urge the Sub-Commission to
address this issue under agenda item 2 as a matter of overwhelming urgency. Such
action could include requesting the Security Council to undertake renewed
efforts to bring about the plebiscite. We especially urge the Sub-Commission to
stress the importance of the participation of the Kashmiri people, through the
leadership of the APHC, in any action undertaken to afford them the right to
vote regarding their political future and indeed in any discussions or
consultations regarding Jammu and Kashmir. We also urge the Sub-Commission to
condemn the humanitarian and human rights violations that have occurred in
Indian-occupied Jammu and
Kashmir.
__________________________
*This written statement is
issued, unedited, in the language(s) received from the submitting
non-governmental organization(s).