![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Human rights embody universal values that cannot be compromised but there are regional specificities and times of conflict when adherence to absolute values may not be possible. This is not to suggest that human rights in conflict zones can be trampled upon. What is argued here it that circumstances need being given due weight if an impartial view is to be adopted. This hypothesis is argued by reviewing the human rights situation in Kashmir, noticing the parties in contention, and the legal and judicial routes available for redress, before suggesting several remedies to improve the protection of human rights in this zone of conflict.
Notes
‘Civil liberties: for whom the liberty bell tolls’, The Economist 364 (31 Aug. 2002) 8288 p.19.
Ibid, p.21.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute lists conflicts occurring globally, and has noted that ‘in the 13-year post-cold war period 1990–2002, there were 58 different major armed conflicts in 46 different locations … All but three of the major armed conflicts registered for 1990–2002 were internal’. Cf. SIPRI Yearbook 2001: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2001) p.109. Further, ‘In 2002 there were 21 major armed conflicts in 19 locations throughout the world … The only interstate conflict that was active in 2002 occurred between India and Pakistan’. SIPRI Yearbook 2003: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2003) p.109.
‘Amnesty International slams India’, The Hindu 29 May 2003.
Ibid.
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Annual Report 2002–2003 p.2.
Ibid. p.13.
A description of this deterioration in the Kashmir situation is available in P. R. Chari, Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema and Stephen Philip Cohen, Perception, Politics and Security in South Asia: The Compound Crisis of 1990 (London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon 2003) pp. 34–64, cf. chapter on ‘Kashmir: From Simla to Chaos’.
Government of India (note 6) pp.11–12.
The human rights issue in the Kashmir imbroglio is succinctly noted in Human Rights Watch's 1999 report Behind the Kashmir Conflict: Abuses by Indian Security Forces and Militant Groups Continue (New York: Human Rights Watch 1999) pp. 1–3.
Government of India (note 6) p.2.
Human Rights Watch (note 10) pp. 32–3.
Ibid. p.3.
Government of India (note 6) pp. 17–18.
Human Rights Watch (note 10) pp. 5–6.
This statement was made in the state Legislative Assembly on 25 Feb. 2003 as reported in Showkat A. Motta and Hilal Ahmad, ‘Declare ‘em Dead: Families of Disappeared Men Appeal [to] PM’, Srinagar Times 18 April 2003.
Kashmir Times (Jammu) Oct. 28 2002.
‘Mufti wants dialogue with all J & K groups’, The Hindu 6 Nov. 2002.
Muzamil Jaleel, ‘The Burden of Hope’, The Indian Express 8 Nov. 2002; Editorial, ‘Release them all’, Greater Kashmir 12 Nov. 2002.
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Initiatives for Peace in the Valley: The Human Rights Scenario, http://mha.nic.in/pea.htm
Human Rights Watch (note 10) p.44.
Government of India (note 6) p.53.
Government of India, National Human Rights Commission, Annual Report 1997–98 p.8.
Ibid, p.9.
National Human Rights Commission, Important Instructions/Guidelines (New Delhi: 2000) pp.33–35.
Ibid.
Government of India (note 6) pp.52–3.
For instance, on 20 March 2000, just before President Clinton's visit to India, thirty-six Sikh men were shot dead by militants in Chittisinghpura, Anantnag district. Extensive protests were made thereafter by the Sikh community demanding state protection, and by Muslim villagers who staged protests against the countermeasures taken by the Indian security forces. This course of events was perhaps anticipated by the militants, and designed to serve their political purpose of highlighting the Kashmir issue during the US president's visit to South Asia.