Arjimand Hussain Talib
In any credible democratic system, the rule of law is paramount. India’s democratic values, press freedom and commitment to the rule of law within its borders are generally well respected globally. When it comes to Jammu & Kashmir (J&K), the standards fall short of global benchmarks and Kashmiri expectations. The current state of human, civil and political rights, civil liberties, freedom of speech and assembly and press freedom in J&K does not meet international benchmarks.
In such a backdrop, the statements issued by the Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the Amnesty International (AI), to some extent, about the Kashmir situation this week seem to have fallen short of expectations in Kashmir. AI’s demand for release of human rights activists is welcome. HRW’s point that the J&K government should carry out a High Court order to ensure protection for the arrested children is welcome too, but the language used leaves a lot to be desired. J&K High Court has not given directions to the government on the establishment of juvenile courts and observation homes for children only, it routine gives directions on a number of cases of detention, arbitrary arrests, etc; which the government chooses to ignore and which HRW has chosen to remain mum about.
HRW said “Hundreds of these children, locally known as the "stone pelters," are at risk of arbitrary detention and abuse as authorities struggle to identify the often-masked culprits and contain the protests.” An international human rights body is not expected to use terms like “often masked culprits”, which sounds too judgmental. The language used also seeks to absolve the central government of its responsibilities in Kashmir, which has the primary and the final say on law and order and security matters in Kashmir. Both the organizations did not speak about the curbs on civilian movement, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, undeclared curfews, ban on SMS use, media clamp down, threats to Facebook users, etc.
HRW’s struggle to strike a balance in its stand seems to have lost sight of some plain facts. It said “Teenagers have thrown stones at security forces and destroyed public and private property. To contain the rioters, the police have sometimes used excessive force, causing deaths and injuries with live bullets, rubber bullets, and teargas canisters.” Use of such language creates some degree of justification for arrest of children.
Quoting Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director at HRW, the statement said, "Violent protesters and the people inciting them are breaking the law and should be punished…but the J&K government needs to comply with Indian and international law for detention and prosecution, and give special attention to the requirements for
children." While mentioning the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), HRW’s statement read, “CRC, to which India is a party, permits the prosecution of children for criminal offenses but requires authorities to arrest or detain a child only as a matter of last resort and for the shortest appropriate time. Every detained child has the right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance.” But the question that arises is: does participation in peaceful protests by
children amount to criminal offence?
Ms Ganguly’s statement, "The authorities believe that greed and misplaced anger motivates these children to commit violence," adding "But leaving children vulnerable to abuse in detention, without proper access to justice, will only fuel the unrest" again raises some serious questions. The use of words like “greed” and “misplaced” anger with children are highly judgmental.
The HRW statement further said that “the protesters as well as the security forces have been responsible for casualties during the protest marches.” It is, again, something which is far from the truth. The HRW statement’s use of terms “apparently” “allegedly” makes certain political statements which are unbecoming of an advocacy-based human rights group. A human rights group of such repute is supposed to do its home work well and not rely on desk work alone – without engaging in fact finding on the ground by impartial people devoid of a political baggage of their own.
(c) Arjimand Hussain. Not to be reproduced anywhere else.
