Open Access Research Article
PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND KASHMIR – A MYTH
Published Paper
Article Details
PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND KASHMIR – A MYTH
(Role of Social-media in protecting human rights)
AUTHORED BY
- MAITRA BADAGI
Abstract:
Human rights are standards that
recognise and protect the dignity of all human beings. Human rights govern how
individual human beings live in society and with each other, as well as their
relationship with the State and the obligations that the State have towards
them. Human rights law obliges governments to do some things, and prevents them
from doing some other things. There is a responsibility on the individuals,
they have to respect others rights as well while enjoying their rights. No
person or Government have the right to do anything that violates the rights of
others.
In the present paper the author tries
to explain how the Militants violate the human rights of other individuals and
talks about the two distinct subsets of militancy in Kashmir. Before that the author briefly explains the human
rights in India, the law relating to that, and how the rights are being
protected. And also International law applicable in India.
At the later point the author talks
about the Militant actions. That has allegedly violated the human rights from the
year 1996 and even before till today. The paper also brings to the notice of
the readers about the attacks that were made on human rights activists, the
press, medical workers. Then the author tries to explain the role of Government
of India and the violations made by it.
Before concluding the paper the
author will be explaining about the role of social media, its impact both in a
positive and in a negative way. The positive would be how it has helped in
protection of human rights. And has any change has occurred in bringing to the
light about the activities of the militancy. The negative impact of social
media would be how it has helped the militants and they have got support.
In the conclusion the author would
talk about the impact of social media on growth of militancy in the other parts
of India.
Key words: Social-media, Human
Rights, Kashmir, Militancy, Government
1. INTRODUCTION:
Human rights belong to each and every
one of us equally.
What are human rights?
Human rights are standards that
recognise and protect the dignity of all human beings. Human rights govern how
individual human beings live in society and with each other, as well as their
relationship with the State and the obligations that the State have towards
them. Human rights law obliges governments to do some things, and prevents them
from doing some other things. There is a responsibility on the individuals,
they have to respect others rights as well while enjoying their rights. No
person or Government have the right to do anything that violates the rights of
others.[1]
Human rights are inalienable and
universal. All people from any corner of the world are entitled to these
rights. No one can waive the rights nor can they take away the rights from any
person.[2]
Human rights are of the nature of
social, political, cultural, economic and civil rights. They are indivisible,
inherent in the dignity of every human being. Human rights are inter-dependent.
Realization of one human right depends on realization of another human right.
Like right to health depends on realization of right to information.[3]
All human beings are equal before the
law. They are entitled to human rights without any discrimination.
Discrimination such as race, religion, colour, place of birth, origin,
property.[4]
State and other authorities should
comply with the legal norms standards as provided by the human rights laws. If
the authorities fail to do so and any person is aggrieved of his human rights,
the person has remedy. Aggrieved party can institute proceedings against the
State or the authority before the competent court or other adjudicator in
accordance with the procedure established by law.[5]
Who are militants?
A militant is a person who is engaged
in a war or who acts aggressively for their cause.[6]
Militant is a term used to describe people who believe in something very strongly and are active in trying to bring about political or social change, often in extreme ways that other people find unacceptable.[7]
Militancy is aggressive activism or combativeness in
supporting or agitating for a cause. It is the act of engaging or readiness to
engage in war or armed aggression.[8]
2. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK OF HUMAN RIGHTS
LAWS:
2.1.International Framework:
The international human
rights movement was strengthened when the United Nations General Assembly
adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in the year 1948 on 10th
of December. Drafted as ‘a common standard of achievement for all peoples and
nations', the Declaration for the first time spelled out basic civil,
political, economic, social and cultural rights that can be enjoyed by all
human beings. Over a period of time it has been widely accepted as the
fundamental norms of human rights that everyone should respect and protect. The
UDHR, together with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
and its two Optional Protocols, and the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights, form the International Bill of Human
Rights.[9]
A series of international human
rights treaties and other instruments adopted since 1945 have conferred human
rights and developed the body of international human rights. Other instruments
have been adopted at the regional level reflecting the particular human rights
concerns of that particular region and providing for mechanisms to protect
human rights. Most States including India have adopted in Constitutions and
other laws which formally protect basic human rights. And international
treaties and customary law form the backbone of international human rights law.
The other instruments, such as declarations, guidelines and principles adopted
at the international level contribute to the understanding, implementation and
development of human rights.[10]
International human rights law lays
down obligations on the States which they are bound to respect. By becoming
parties to international treaties, States have to abide the obligations and
duties under international law to respect, to protect and to fulfil human
rights. The obligation to respect means that States must not interfere with or
curtail the enjoyment of human rights. The obligation to protect requires that
the States should protect individuals and groups against human rights abuses or
violations. The obligation to fulfil means that States have to provide for
facilities for the enjoyment of basic human rights.[11]
Through ratification of international human rights treaties, Governments agree to adopt domestic
measures and legislation compatible with their treaty obligations and duties.
If domestic legal proceedings fail to address human rights abuses, mechanisms
and procedures for individual complaints at the regional level and
international levels to help ensure that international human rights standards
are respected, implemented, and enforced at the local level.[12]
The below mentioned are the list of
international human rights treaties and conventions:
1. 1948
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Universal Declaration)
2.
International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its Optional Protocols
3.
International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and its Optional Protocol
4.
International
Convention on the elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination
5.
Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and its
Optional Protocol
6.
Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and its
Optional Protocol
7.
Convention
on the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocols
8.
International
Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members
of Their Families
9.
International
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol
10. 1948 Genocide Convention
11. 1951 Refugee Convention
12. 1960 Discrimination in Employment
Convention
13. 1966 Racial Discrimination Convention
14. 1966 Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights Covenant
15. 1966 Civil and Political Rights
Covenant
16. 1979 Discrimination against Women
Convention
17. 1984 Convention against Torture
18. 1989 Children’s Convention
19. 1989 Indigenous Peoples Convention
20. 1990 Convention on Migrant Workers
21. 2006 Convention on Persons with
Disabilities
2.2.Indian Framework:
The
Constitution of India makes provisions for basic rights which are the
Fundamental Rights for the citizens as well as for aliens. In India we have
adopted the “Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993” which provides for
constitution of commissions for protection of human rights.
The
table below shows the Civil and Political Rights under Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and under Indian Constitution
|
Article
|
Declaration
|
Constitution
|
|
Equality
before law
|
Article
7
|
Article
14
|
|
Prohibition
of discrimination
|
Article
7
|
Article
15(1)
|
|
Equality
of opportunity
|
Article
21(2)
|
Article
16(1)
|
|
Freedom
of speech and expression
|
Article
19
|
Article
19(1)(a)
|
|
Freedom
of peaceful assembly
|
Article
20(1)
|
Article
19(1)(b)
|
|
Freedom
to form associations or unions
|
Article
23(4)
|
Article
19(1)(c)
|
|
Freedom
of movement within border
|
Article
13(1)
|
Article
19(1)(d)
|
|
Protection
in respect of conviction for offences
|
Article
11(2)
|
Article
20
|
|
Protection
of life and personal liberty
|
Article
3
|
Article
21
|
|
Protection
of slavery and forced labour
|
Article
4
|
Article
23
|
|
Freedom
of conscience and religion
|
Article
18
|
Article
25(1)
|
|
Remedy
for enforcement of rights
|
Article
8
|
Article
32
|
|
Right
against arbitrary arrest and detention
|
Article
9
|
Article
22
|
The table below shows Economic, Social and Cultural Rights under Universal Declaration of Human Rights and under Indian Constitution
|
Article
|
Declaration
|
Constitution
|
|
Right
to work, to just and favourable condition of work
|
Article
23(1)
|
Article
41
|
|
Right
to equal pay for equal work
|
Article
23(2)
|
Article
39(d)
|
|
Right
to education
|
Article
26(1)
|
Article
21(a),41,45,51A(k)
|
|
Right
to just and favourable remuneration
|
Article
23(3)
|
Article
43
|
|
Right
to rest and leisure
|
Article
24
|
Article
43
|
|
Right
of everyone to a standard of living adequate for him and family
|
Article
25(1)
|
Article
39(a), 47
|
|
Right
to proper social order
|
Article
28
|
Article
38
|
In the
famous case of Keshavnanda Bharati v.
State of Kerala, the Supreme Court
has observed, “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights may not be a legally
binding instrument but it shows how India has understood the nature of human
rights at the time of adopting the Constitution.”[14]
3.
ROLE OF MILITANTS AND GOVERNMENT IN VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS: TRACING
BACK TO THE HISTORY OF KASHMIR
The conflict in Kashmir erupted into
near civil war in the year 1990, which emerged out of a fifty-year political
struggle for control over the territory. Both India and Pakistan claimed
control over Kashmir. Although Kashmir has a majority Muslim population, it has
had a long history of religious tolerance and a unique culture, referred to
as Kashmiriyat, which combines elements of the three major religions which
have flourished there: Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam. However, since the early
1950s, India's attempts to control the state through rigged elections and other
political machinations fueled resentment among the state's Muslim political
leaders, and ultimately led to the emergence of Muslim militant groups
committed to fighting for independence. Such groups found ready support and
arms in Pakistan. By 1990, popular resentment toward India's policies in the
state had grown into a mass movement for azadi-independence. The militant
groups which have been fighting for independence from India are divided between
those who believe the territory should become part of Pakistan and those who
believe that Kashmir should become an independent state. Some of the groups
openly espouse an Islamist ideology; others advocate a secular Kashmiri state
that would include Kashmiri Buddhists, Hindus and others. The Indian government
has sought to hold Pakistan entirely responsible for the escalation in fighting
that has taken place since 1989 and has blamed Pakistan for
"exporting" Islamic fundamentalism to the state. Although Pakistan
has taken advantage of the situation by providing arms and other support to the
militants, in fact, the roots of the Kashmir crisis are indigenous and
originate in India's central government's attempts to exert political control
over the state.
The conflict has its
origins in the state's disputed accession to India in 1947, when colonial
British India was partitioned to create the nations of India and Pakistan.
Kashmir's then ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh, refused to accede to either nation,
apparently in a bid to preserve Kashmir's independence. However, an
invasion by Pakistani tribesmen in August and September 1947 and an
uprising among Kashmiri Muslims in the state's western regions ultimately
compelled the maharaja to seek the assistance of Prime Minister Nehru of India.
Nehru agreed to send troops only if Kashmir formally acceded to India. On
October 27, 1947, the maharaja agreed to Kashmir's accession to India on the
condition that Kashmir be permitted to retain its own constitution. Indian
troops succeeded in halting the Pakistani forces, driving them back to the
western third of the state, which then came under Pakistan's control as
"Azad" (free) Kashmir.
The question of Kashmir's
final status was never resolved, however. British authorities had urged that
the question of Kashmir's accession be settled by a plebiscite as soon as law
and order was reinstated and the invading forces had left. But the plebiscite
was never held. The Indian government argued first that the essential
precondition to a plebiscite, the exit of Pakistani troops from "Azad
Kashmir," had not been met, and later that the Kashmiri people had
effectively ratified accession by voting in local elections and adopting a
state constitution. United Nations intervention achieved a cease-fire on
January 1, 1949.
Through the 1950s and
1960s, political discontent with the central government's attempts to
manipulate politics in the state grew, as successive state governments
controlled by the central government eroded Kashmir's
autonomy. Pro-independence and pro-plebiscite activists were repeatedly
jailed. In 1964 the first militant group, the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation
Front (JKLF), was formed to fight for independence. On July 2, 1972, India and
Pakistan signed the Simla Accord, under which both countries agreed to respect
the cease-fire line and to resolve differences over Kashmir "by peaceful
means" through negotiation. The Simla Accord left the "final settlement"
of the Kashmir question to be resolved at an unspecified future date. Since
then, the Simla Accord has been the touchstone of all bilateral discussions of
the Kashmir issue, even though the accord itself left the issue unresolved.
After the elections,
militants of the JKLF and other groups stepped up their attacks on the
government, detonating bombs at government buildings, buses and the houses of
present and former state officials, and enforcing a state-wide boycott of the
November 1989 national parliamentary elections. One month later, JKLF militants
abducted the daughter of Home Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, then freed her
when the government gave in to demands for the release of five detained
militants. That event, together with a surge in popular protest against the
state and central governments, led New Delhi to launch a massive crackdown on
the militants. In response, the state government resigned in protest and
governor's rule was declared on January 19, 1990. From the outset, that
Indian government's campaign against the militants was marked by widespread
human rights violations, including the shooting of unarmed demonstrators,
civilian massacres and summary executions of detainees. Militant groups-which
received arms and training from Pakistan-stepped up their attacks, murdering
and threatening Hindu residents, carrying out kidnapings and assassinations of
government officials, civil servants and suspected informers and engaging in
sabotage and bombings. Some 100,000 Hindu Kashmiris, known as "Pandits,"
and thousands of Kashmiri Muslims fled the valley. By May 1990, rising tension
between Pakistan and India following the escalation of the conflict in Kashmir
raised fears of another war between the two countries.
In mid-1992, the
government launched a "catch-and-kill" policy to execute captured
militants. That policy, together with the January 1993 massacre of at least
forty civilians by BSF troops in Sopore, focused international attention on
human rights violations in Kashmir. In late 1993, the All Parties Huriyat
Conference, an umbrella organization of the leaders of all the political and
militant organizations fighting for independence, was founded to act as the
political voice of the independence movement. In October 1993, a militant siege
at the Hazratbal shrine in Srinagar ended peacefully; however, forty
demonstrators were shot dead by BSF troops in Bij Behara. In 1994, the
government released several prominent political leaders, apparently as part of
a government effort to pave the way for elections in the state.
In 1996, the conflict in
Kashmir entered its seventh year, with little indication that
parliamentary elections scheduled for May 23 and 30 would either lead to
peace or end the widespread human rights abuses that have characterized the
war. All of the militant organizations fighting for independence of the
disputed territory have vowed to boycott the polls. In the months preceding the
elections, Indian security forces have intensified their efforts against
militant groups, stepping up cordon-and-search operations and summarily
executing captured militant leaders. Alongside them, operating as a secret,
illegal army, have been state-sponsored paramilitary groups, composed of
captured or surrendered former militants described as "renegades" by
the Indian government. Many of these groups have been responsible for grave
human rights abuses, including summary executions, torture, and illegal
detention as well as election-related intimidation of voters.
At the same time, some armed
militant groups have become more ruthless. To enforce their boycott of the
polls, the militant groups have attacked and killed candidates and campaign
workers. Some militant groups have also continued to kidnap and execute
civilians. Over the past year, militants have also stepped up indiscriminate
attacks on civilians through bomb blasts and the use of landmines.
The election has
intensified the conflict, but the deterioration in the human rights situation
can be traced to early 1995 when the security forces began making systematic
use of these irregular militias. While attempting to reassure the international
community that they have taken steps to curb human rights abuses in Kashmir,
Indian forces have in effect subcontracted some of their abusive tactics to
groups with no official accountability. The extrajudicial killings, abductions
and assaults committed by these groups against suspected militants are instead
described as resulting from "intergroup rivalries." But civilians
have also been their victims, and the militia groups have singled out
journalists, human rights activists and medical workers for attack. They have
been given free rein to patrol major hospitals in Srinagar, particularly the
Soura Institute, the Sri Maharaja Hari Singh (SMHS) hospital and the Bone and
Joint Hospital. They have murdered, threatened, beaten and detained hospital
staff; in some cases these abuses have occurred in full view of security force
bunkers or in the presence of security force officers. They have also removed
patients from hospitals. These abuses constitute clear violations of medical
neutrality.
In some cases, attacks by
these paramilitary groups appear to have been carried out on orders from
security officers; in other cases, the groups appear to operate on their own,
within broadly defined limits to their discretionary powers and the full
expectation on the part of the security forces that they will use their
discretion to take initiatives within the overall counterinsurgency strategy of
fighting terror with terror. Their actions are taken with the knowledge and
complicity of official security forces. When arrested by local police, members
of these groups have been released on orders of the security forces. Not one
has been prosecuted for human rights abuses. In this report, Human Rights
Watch/Asia provides evidence of the culpability of state-sponsored irregular
paramilitary forces in three cases of extrajudicial executions and two
attempted assassinations. We also describe a range of other abuses committed by
these groups.
Violations of human
rights and humanitarian law by the regular security forces - the army, the
Border Security Force (BSF) and the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) - have
also continued. These violations include the deliberate killing of detainees in
the custody of the security forces in Kashmir and reprisal killings of
civilians. Human rights groups and press accounts have registered reports of
such killings every month, but there is no sign that security personnel
have been prosecuted in a single case of summary execution. In the few
high-profile cases in which courts-martial have taken place, soldiers have been
prosecuted for abuses, such as the excessive use of force, which fall short of
murder.
Regular forces have also
been responsible for disappearances and reprisal attacks against civilians.
More than one hundred cases of detainees disappearing in the custody of the
security forces have been documented by human rights groups since the conflict
began; to Human Rights Watch's knowledge, not one has resulted in the
prosecution of any member of the security forces. Security legislation has
increased the likelihood of such abuses by authorizing the security forces to
shoot to kill and to destroy civilian property while at the same time
protecting them from prosecution for human rights violations. In the case of
reprisal attacks or assaults by soldiers on civilians during search operations,
the government has ordered a handful of investigations, but many reported
instances of abuse have been ignored by the authorities.
Indian security forces in
Kashmir continue to administer torture systematically to coerce detainees to
reveal information about suspected militants or to confess to militant
activity. Torture is also used to punish detainees who are believed to support
or sympathize with the militants and to create a climate of political
repression. The practice of torture is facilitated by the fact that detainees
are generally held in temporary detention centers, controlled by the various
security forces, without access to the courts, relatives or medical care.
Methods of torture
include severe beatings, electric shock, crushing the leg muscles with a wooden
roller, and burning with heated objects. The Indian government has not made public
any investigations into any of the many documented cases of torture, nor has it
ever announced that a member of the security forces was prosecuted or punished
for torture. Although the government denies that torture is practiced
systematically and as a matter of policy in Kashmir, government officials have
admitted that torture takes place.
Security personnel in
Kashmir have also been responsible for rape as a counterinsurgency tactic. In
response to international attention to the problem, the Indian government has
made public a number of prosecutions of members of security forces for rape.
However, reports of rape and other sexual assaults in Kashmir persist. In
many cases, these incidents are never investigated by judicial and medical
authorities competent to determine culpability.
The Indian authorities
have done little to curb human rights violations by their army and security
forces. In the rare cases in which investigations of abuses have taken place,
the most severe punishments have generally been limited to dismissals or
suspensions from duty. Security officers have also offered bribes and have
threatened individuals and families in an attempt to prevent them from pressing
charges. The Indian government's failure to account for these abuses and take
rigorous action against those members of its forces responsible for murder,
rape and torture amounts to a policy of condoning human rights violations.
Armed militant
organizations in Kashmir have also committed many grave violations of
international human rights and humanitarian law. Armed with sophisticated
weaponry mostly procured in Pakistan, militant groups have launched
indiscriminate attacks that have killed and injured hundreds of civilians. The
militant groups have increasingly made use of car bombs and other explosive
devices in crowded areas. The groups have also deployed landmines on public
roads and in other areas used by civilians. Militants have thrown grenades at
buses and government buildings, killing and wounding civilians. These attacks
have occurred in the Kashmir valley and have also been reported in Jammu.
Militant groups have
kidnaped civilians, including foreigners, and held them as hostages in order to
demand the release of imprisoned militants. They have threatened, assaulted and
in some cases murdered Hindu residents of the Kashmir Valley. In mid-1996 some
100,000 Hindu refugees were still living in refugee camps in Jammu and Delhi
where they had fled after a series of such attacks.
Various armed militant
groups in Kashmir have also committed rape and have launched other violent
attacks on women, creating a climate of fear for women in Kashmir in which
violent abuses are committed with impunity. As the elections neared, militant
groups also assassinated candidates and party workers, particularly those from
the Congress party. The militants also kidnaped and summarily executed
suspected informers and collaborators. They also kidnaped and murdered
civilians and issued bans and other threats against the press.
Many examples of these
violations are contained in this report, based on a visit by a researcher for
Human Rights Watch/Asia to Kashmir in January 1996. He interviewed local human
rights activists, lawyers, health professionals, journalists, teachers and
political figures, and reviewed habeas corpus petitions, High
Court judgments, and medical documents on incidents of abuse by the security
forces and irregular paramilitary groups. Human Rights Watch/Asia also
interviewed witnesses about incidents of abuse by militant groups. In all,
Human Rights Watch/Asia conducted more than sixty interviews with witnesses and
other informed sources, including army, police and other government officials.
Wherever possible, Human Rights Watch/Asia inspected the sites of reported
incidents.[15]
4. SOCIAL MEDIA: A BOON OR CURSE IN
PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
The internet has played an important role in the rise of the
new militant movement popularising militants and their ideologies and
glorifying violence.
Social media has proven to be the most effective weapon of
the new militancy. Militants no longer need to use coercive means to get some
column space in the press, as they did in the 1990s. Today, hundreds and
thousands of militancy pictures and videos are on social media sites every
single day. New content is published frequently through encrypted platforms
such as Telegram and WhatsApp, e.g. dying declarations of militants trapped in
an encounter; their last phone call conversations with friends, family or even
security officials; videos of training in the jungles of South Kashmir; selfies
showing bonhomie amongst the cadre; pictures of militants playing cricket in
the open fields of the Valley. Such content consumed mostly by young Kashmiris
has flooded the popular culture of J&K. The new militants use this content
to spread the call of jihad and inspire the youth to join their ranks.[16]
The
targeted killings of civilians in October 2021 have given way to the use of a
new term, “hybrid militancy.” A hybrid militant is an unlisted member of a
militant group who receives training in small weapons with the objective of
carrying out targeted killings. After carrying out the targeted killing, the
militant resumes his day-to-day activity instead of returning underground like
his full-time counterparts. This type of militancy poses challenges for
security forces, as hybrid militants are especially difficult to identify. The
series of killings in October 2021 brought back haunting memories of the
violence of the 1990s and compelled around half a dozen Kashmiri Pandit
families to flee.
Some
experts contend that similar to the 1990s where Kashmiri Pandits were told to
either convert to Islam or flee by radical Islamists, the recent spate of
killings was meant to deter the community from returning to the valley and to
prompt those who have resettled to leave. When the attacks persisted in
November 2021, the government was compelled to increase security in the region,
including by installing more checkpoints and bunkers, deploying more Central
Armed Police Forces (CRPF) personnel, and conducting more raids and arrests.
Despite these measures, the security forces have not been able to prevent
militants from carrying out attacks.[17]
Social media is not just a tool of communication; it is a
weapon of war for the Militants.
5. CONCLUSION:
India is facing violations of human
rights from the pre-independence period itself. The history of Kashmir looks
nothing less than a movie. The cruel acts of Militants has not stopped even
today. The
internet has played an important role in the rise of the new militant movement
popularising militants and their ideologies and glorifying violence. And
social media is acting like a boon to them. It is not just a tool to
communicate but is a weapon of for them. The Government is facing challenges
due to this. The action of the Government of removing Article 370 of the Indian
Constitution has not reduced or stopped the militants from acting in a cruel
manner. The 2021 act brought back the haunting memories of violence of the
1990s. Though there are stringent laws to punish such activities, the
Government is unable to curb such violence. India is currently facing
insurgency in North East States where the militants are in direct conflict with
the Government. And the author would like to say that the internet, and the
social media will influence the militants to grow stronger. Hence, complete
protection of Human Rights in India is a myth.
[1]
https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/what-are-human-rights
[2] ibid
[3] ibid
[4] ibid
[5] ibid
[6]
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/militant
[7]
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/militant
[8]
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/militancy
[9]
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-and-mechanisms/international-human-rights-law
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13]
https://www.humanrightscommission.ky/human-rights-treaties
[14] Prasoon Shekhar, ‘Human Rights and
Constitution of India’, October 4, 2020 available at http://blog.ipleaders.in/human-rights-constitution-india/ accessed on 22.08.2023 at 05:58pm.
[15] ‘The Human Rights Crisis in
Kashmir’, A report by Asia Watch, A division of Human Rights Watch, Physicians
for Human Rights available at
https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/INDIA937.PDF.
[16] Khalid Shah, Ideological shift, public support and social media: The ‘New’ in
Kashmir’s ‘New Militancy’, ORF Occasional Paper, January 2020.
[17] Roshni Kapur, ‘A New Phase of
Militancy in Kashmir: Challenges for India’, Middle East Institute, Washington
D.C., February 17, 2022.
Article Information
PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND KASHMIR – A MYTH
Authors: MAITRA BADAGI
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/09/06
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.