The obstinacy of the union government in not allowing the prosecution of armed forces personnel by the civilian courts of Jammu and Kashmir involved in cases of murder, rape and other acts of grave human rights violation has once again raised the question, ‘Does India really want an end to human rights violations in Kashmir’? The veracity of the Indian claims of zero tolerance to the rights abuses in the context of Kashmir stands ridiculed in the face of the recent revelations over the issue.
In a reply to a RTI application filed by a local rights group, the state government has acknowledged that union home ministry has turned down the request for prosecution in all the fifty cases involving serious crimes. The state has once again proved to be no more than a mute spectator.
This hegemonic attitude of the union government over issues of human rights violation at the hands of armed forces has been the prime cause of alienation of the masses in the state especially Kashmir. Voices of concern over the free hand given to the armed forces in the garb of AFSPA to combat militant activity in the state are emerging from various quarters nationally and internationally. The state chief minister over the last few years has been vociferous over the issue of AFSFA and so have many civil society and rights groups. However the fact of the matter is that there are no sincere intentions of Indian government towards correcting the blemished image of armed forces over the issue of human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir.
The successive state governments on their part have absolved themselves by simply forwarding the cases to the union government. In fact the state government is equally to blame for.
Firstly it has never been able to seriously pursue the issue of rights violations in the state with union government, leave alone devising effective strategy to convince it. Secondly the state never strived to take recourse to other legal means to highlight such issues with the aim to bring the guilty to the task.
The union government has managed to stave off such pressures by presenting the plea of ‘upholding the morality of armed forces engaged in combat operations’. India with valued democratic credentials at its back should have been receptive to the state government’s requests to try the erring troopers. The incumbent state government can uphold its credibility by displaying a sense of urgency in pursuing the case with the union government or at least ask them to explain the reasons for withholding sanction to try the troops, accused of gross violations, in the court of law. The state can approach the supreme court of India to challenge the union government’s obduracy in the matter. The least the state government can do is to break its silence and act.
