|
Kashmir
Pundits & the 'healing touch'
Romeet
K WATT
New
Delhi
went ecstatic with the successful culmination of October 2002
elections in the trouble-torn state of J&K, and rightly so,
because, for once, their stand on Kashmir was vindicated by the
International community, something, that had not been forthcoming in
the past. The wide spread appreciation and accolades that were
received, from one and all, for rejuvenating the democratic norms
and principles in the Valley was a tremendous set-back for
Islamabad, and since then she has been reeling under pressure to
change tactics on its Kashmir policy. So, to say that the position
of New Delhi vis-à-vis Kashmir has been strengthened would be to
state the obvious.
However,
having said that, it is imperative that New Delhi, which has been
incessantly shying away from the initiating a meaningful policy to
ameliorate the suffering of 3.5 lac internally displaced Kashmiri
Pundits, does take the onus of responsibility to provide just
treatment, as has been mutually agreed upon by member nations in
various conventions held under the aegis of United Nations, and its
affiliate organisations (like UNHCR).
It is pertinent to recall that India is a signatory to the UN
convention on Internally Displaced People, but when it come to
implementing the same very ‘UN
Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement’
to Kashmiri Pundits, they have not shown much interest.
And
why should they? KP’s, unlike their counterparts from Gujarat do
not have a sizable vote-bank to offer, and thus continue to be at
the receiving end for all practical purpose. Whole Nation will
create hullabaloo over the plight of riot-victims in Gujarat, but
they will shy away from any debate on the issue of KP’s, something
which continues to be inconsequential for them. The whole political
system has become so polarised with the Majority (Hindu) - Minority
(Muslim) concept that the Indian intellectual community has been
unable to come to terms with the gross reality that ethnic Pundits
of Kashmir be acknowledged as a minority (at least in the
Muslim-majority state of J&K) in the Hindu-majority state like
India.
There
are currently 25 million internally displaced persons (IDPs)
worldwide. ‘Conflict-induced
displacement’ in India affects more than half a million people,
mainly concentrated to two regions: Kashmir and the Northeast.
“Armed conflict, internal strife, and systematic violations of
human rights,” are cited as key reasons responsible for the tens
of millions of people to be forced from their abodes but continue to
remain within the borders of their own countries, unlike those who
seek refuge in the neighbouring country, and consequently benefit
from the established norms laid down from time to time, and much in
use.
On
the contrary, the people who are uprooted within the confines of
their own country often find themselves at the receiving end for
“their own countries lack predictable structures of support.”
Internal displacement, is widely believed world-wide as having
assumed dimensions, which need immediate attention, least one may
end up being held responsible for paying scanty attention to
humanitarian principles, human rights and security aspects, of a
section of its own populace.
Systematic
violation of human rights in the context of KP’s have been brought
to light, from time to time before various national as well as
international organisations. However, apart from passing references
in their reports, the human rights organisations have not taken a
pro-active stance (as in case of Gujarat riot victims) to impress
upon the policy makers of the country to evolve a mechanism to put
to end their inhuman existence, that too in their very own country. Ashwani
Kumar Chrungoo, a human rights activist, who has been championing
the cause of Pundits has done a yeoman of a service in the aspect of
human rights violations that have taken place against the Pundits.
However, despite his best efforts, he has not been able to make much
head way, which has more to do with the continuous apathy from our
own organisations like the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)
and its “tendency to apply human rights with
selectivity.”
Describing
the crimes committed against KP’s as “stark and tragic,”
deserving “the strongest condemnation,” NHRC in response to the
submissions made to the Commission’s court by Chrungoo, did as a
matter of fact, make a some observations, which were encouraging but
it stopped short of passing any strictures whatsoever against the
politico-administrative set-up, which was at the helm of affairs,
when the maximum damage was done against Pundits, nor did it fix any
responsibility for the human rights violations against Pundits.
NHRC
in
its observations also stopped short of terming the selective killing
of Pundits as “genocide”, and instead chose phraseology, “acts
akin to genocide” to describe the predicament, and carefully
coined the term, ''genocide type design'' to describe the actions
(mindsets) of the Islamic fundamentalists who were responsible for
the ethnic cleansing of KP’s from the Valley. The Commission in
its observation also fails to take into account the denial of the
fundamental rights to Pundits guaranteed by Articles 19 and 21 of
the Constitution.
NHRC,
played a very pro-active role in safeguarding the rights of Muslim
minorities in the aftermath of riots in Gujarat, and passed several
hard hitting strictures, both against the state administration, as
well as the central government for what the commission described as
the inability of the state to protect and safeguard lives of the
minorities in the riot affected areas. Now, one often wonders, had
the Commission played a similar role in the context of KP’s,
things might just have been different, and the plight and miseries,
which seem to be endless could have been provided the much needed
“healing touch”!
What
next? The future course of action should be dictated by the earnest
need to evolve a meaningful policy for the rehabilitation of
Pundits, something which does not appear to take shape, with our own
politico-administrative set-up not too keen, and continuing to
forestall the whole process. New Delhi has, time and again, instead
of according priority
in formulating policy and programmes for the internally displaced,
chosen to maintain a criminal silence on the issue, resulting in
continued sufferings for the exiled ethnic community.
UNHCR
is not directly working with IDPs in India because the necessary
conditions for its involvement with displaced persons, among other
things, requires consent by the concerned government, something,
which New Delhi despite requests, has not given a go-ahead. New
Delhi has, despite willingness by the UNHCR to assist her on the
issue of development and implementation of ‘national legislation
on refugees’ shown little interest for reasons best known to them.
The
stand taken by India over the period, concerning the issue of
IDP’s reflects a lack of consensus at the decision making level,
something, which has had an adverse effect on the condition of
IDP’s in India, with each passing day further pushing them against
the wall. The
contention of New Delhi that rights restated in the Guiding
Principles are also covered by the Indian Constitution, and that
there are Courts and procedures in place to address the rights of
the displaced, are statements which are not entirely true. Should
the mechanism of ‘courts’ and ‘procedures’ have been so
strong, justice would certainly have been done to the plight of
KP’s, whose condition, according these contentions should have
shown signs of improvement, have actually worsened.
‘India
is no Somalia or Rwanda,’ one of the underlying logic, which New
Delhi has been putting forth to explain her reluctance to seek and
accept international assistance for the IDP’s. Fair enough, but
then it has to devise and formulate a mechanism, which would provide
justice to people who have been victims of Conflict-induced
displacement. In the absence of any concrete policy measures,
victims of this predicament will continue to suffer because of this
false sense of pride. In
the context of KP’s, it is imperative that New Delhi formulate
policy, to begin with, on different aspects of protection --
non-discrimination, movement related rights, physical protection and
special needs of IDPs.
It
will be pertinent to recall the observations of the reputed Amnesty
International, which in its report, dated as back as August 1997
observed: “Today, we also need to remind the persons learned in
law, politicians mindful of the consequences, and the human rights
activists not ignorant of what has happened in Kashmir to focus
their due attention on the long pending issue of the human rights
violations of the Pundit minority community in Kashmir and, instead
of maintaining a 'strategic' silence, suggest dispassionately how
their issues of genocide, ethnic cleansing and exile can be
addressed to their satisfaction by this colossal nation- that is
India!”
A
lot of ground-work has already been done on the issue, especially by
KP’s settled in other parts of the world including United States,
and United Kingdom. Frank Pallone, Democratic Congressman in US, has
been on the fore front in highlighting the plight of Kashmir
Pundits. Indo-American Kashmir Forum, and Kashmir News Network have
also been advocating the need to address the grievances of Pundits
within the purview of the charter of UN for internally displaced
persons.
With
this demeaning and belittling background, the likely option for
Pundits would be -- in the opinion of the author -- to approach
International Court of Justice. New Delhi, with its policy of
continued apathy towards Pundits (despite a right-wing Hindu
government at the centre) has left Pundits with very little option
but to battle against its own country (it will be painful, believe
me) in an international tribunal. And, to say that India is not
responsible for the plight of Pundits, would be to over look the
obvious.
>>>
back |
