Huge
Blind Spot, Only For J & K
By Bharat Bhushan
08 February, 2007
The Telegraph
Srinagar, Feb. 6:
Has Kashmir become a blind spot for Indian human rights activists and
the media?
Kashmiri civil society activists
certainly believe so. The serial killings in Noida, near Delhi, they
point out, occupied the nation's attention for days on end. But Indian
civil society and media did not get agitated in the same way with the
exhumation of bodies of innocents killed by the security forces in Kashmir.
"The Indian civil society
seems to have written off Kashmir and Kashmiris. In the 1990s, human
rights activists used to come here. But now hardly anyone comes,"
laments Pervez Imroz, a lawyer and head of J&K Coalition of Civil
Society.
Khurram Pervez, a human rights
activist, who lost a leg while on election observation duty in the last
Assembly election, also feels the same way. "Indian civil society
activists are very clear about opposing communalism. They showed their
power of lobbying with the media during and after the Gujarat riots.
But when it comes to Kashmir, they don't mobilise public opinion in
the same way. They talk of minority issues (Kashmiri Pundits) but ignore
custodial deaths and disappearances," he points out.
Imroz believes that several
factors have contributed to this. "It could well be that India's
many problems engage their attention. But I think everyone in India
is under the influence of ultra-nationalism. The Indian media indulges
in self-censorship and does not do anything to harm the army's image.
What is surprising, however, is that they find time to make strong
statements about Iraq but completely ignore developments in their own
backyard in Kashmir," he points out.
He says about 10,000 Kashmiris
have disappeared, about 70,000 killed in the conflict and there are
about 2.5 lakh torture victims. "A large number of youngsters have
been rendered impotent because of torture. Even after the introduction
of several confidence-building measures between India and Pakistan,
the ground situation has not changed. The security forces operate with
the same impunity as earlier," Imroz claims.
"Indian commentators
wax eloquent about everything on TV but when it comes to Kashmir they
all talk of 'valiant Indian soldiers'. Why is that on Kashmir everyone
follows the state's line of curbing militancy with its full might? Why
do we have to be Indian first before human rights violations in Kashmir
are addressed?" asks Khurram.
Imroz argues that while the
government is expected to support the army, it is the civil society
which can hold it accountable. "In the present situation, there
is no Indian civil society engagement here, Kashmiri civil society has
not come up and the international community has disengaged itself,"
he points out.
Imroz says that respecting
human rights also concerns Kashmir's future. "We see it as an investment
in the future of Kashmir. We want to build institutions to protect democracy
and dissent to ensure that our future is not worse than our present,"
he says.
He claims that attempts to
build alliances with human rights organisation in the rest of India
have been relatively less successful than with the European civil society
organisations.
Khurram points out that in
the 1990s no one had invited Indian human rights activists to come to
Kashmir but yet they came on their own. "But we still appeal to
the Indian civil society organisations to come here and see for themselves
what is happening here. At least they should take note of the crimes
against humanity taking place here," he argues.
However, Imroz seems sceptical
when he says: "I feel about Indian civil society what Leo Tolstoy
said about the man who sat on another's back, choking him and forcing
him to carry him - yet he assures himself and others that he feels sorry
for him and wants to lessen his burden by all
means except getting off his back. I don't want to name such people
in Indian civil society but they are there."
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights