The last week’s developments at the U.N. Human Rights Com- mission meetings at Geneva have come as a stunning blow to the cause of human rights in India. The commission’s proceedings were a culmination of the world-wide movement against Indian security forces’ campaign of slaughter of Kashmiris, Sikhs and other groups waging political battles in that country. This movement was joined in personally by President Clinton himself who not only made a pointed mention in his speech at the U.N. general assembly but also through repeated statements.
Casting away all norms of civilized behavior, India not only had been continuing with its barbaric treatment of Kashmiris, Sikhs, Assamese and others notwithstanding the international cry but had also shut its doors to such respected human rights groups as Amnesty International, Asia Watch etc. It was to halt the Indian policy of genocide that certain countries mooted a resolution of Geneva to propose investigation of the Indian crimes in Kashmir. At the last moment, when a vote was about to be taken, Pakistan withdrew its resolution. The initial explanation offered by Rawalpindi was that it had withdrawn the resolution following an assurance given by India through diplomatic channels that it would allow a team of the organization of Islamic Countries to enter Kashmir and make investigations. But this was hardly convincing as India lost no time in denying any such assurance. Meanwhile, it is becoming clear that India prevailed upon China and Iran not to back Pakistan’s anti-Indian move. Both China and Iran have been Pakistan’s traditional supporters. The two countries for their own strategic reasons have joined hands to defuse moves to internationalize the Kashmir dispute. India appears to have succeeded in convincing China and Iran that the USA was behind Pakistan’s Kashmir moves and that any political destabilization of the valley would be injurious to their own long-term interests. The events at Geneva could be considered a resounding success of India’s diplomacy.
That may be so but its immediate fallout on Kashmir and other sensitive Indian states is not difficult to imagine. Indian prime minister in his reaction was far more naughty on Kashmir while his security forces stepped up violence in the valley killing a score of Kashmir youths in the claimed encounters. This is likely to go on even as India will continue harping on its farcieal restoration of democratic process in Kashmir.
The U.S. administration may not have anticipated the turn of events at Geneva, particularly the emerging, new China-India- Iran axis. The US delegation apparently became far from interested in the proceedings when it refrained from making a reference to the Kashmir problem. This so-called “impartiality” should be seen in the contest of new position adopted back home by U.S. official Robin Raphel who brought back the “Shimla agreement”. In dealing with Kashmir At the same time, Raphel spoke of immense potential for Indo U.S. business cooperation.
India has a history of attempts aimed at covering up the violations of rights of Kashmiris, Sikhs and other groups when it describes freedom fighters as terrorists in the same way as British colonialists earlier dubbed Indian freedom fighters as anarchists. The U.S authorities have been slow to distance themselves from India’s position and has hardly ever made a clear distinction between the fight for freedom in India and the latter’s unwarranted and self- serving false propaganda, on the terrorism issue. Besides, the U.S. officials have yet to give up their tendency to use the fight for an end to the violation of human rights in India with commerce. India has not been wrong in concluding that the real U.S. interest is in trade on its terms rather than an uncompromising fight for human rights. Pakistan, too, has of late been guilty of a selective approach to human rights in India. Its prime minister openly admits having helped India in crushing Sikhs’ human rights in Punjab. At the same time, she wants the world to believe Pakistan’s commitment to human rights in Kashmir. Obviously, Benazir Bhutto’s short- sighted and narrow view of human rights in India amounts to communalizing the Kashmir issue on the world scale, Human rights can not be compartmentalized. All humans whether Kashmiris, Sikhs or Assamese have rights which should be protected. That unfortunately is not being understood by Ms.Bhutto. If Dr.Sohan Singh distanced himself from Bhutto’s Pakistan, he may not have been far wrong in his assessment. Ms. Bhutto may have to pay for what happened at Geneva.
Article extracted from this publication >> March 18, 1994
