Human Rights: Kashmir

Sarah Owen Excerpts

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams]

We cannot say—this has been said on too many occasions—that this is just a bilateral issue. I will come to that point in a moment.

The last point that was raised is around the discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities. The UN report also noted that the number of armed groups that have been operating across IAK and which were also held responsible for human rights abuses, including kidnappings, killings and sexual violence. The report stated that, despite the Pakistan Government’s denial,

“experts believe that Pakistan’s military continues to support their operations across the Line of Control in Indian-Administered Kashmir.”

The human rights high commissioner made a series of recommendations to both the Indian and Pakistani Governments, and the primary one that covers both is that the rule of law and international human rights must be upheld. Both of these countries are signatories to the universal declaration and they must be upheld.

Specifically, the high commissioner recommended that India repeal the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act 1958 and ensure that the 1978 public safety Act was compliant with international law. It was recommended that Pakistan amend the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, bringing it in line with international human rights standards and safeguards as well as amend the interim constitution of AJK and other legislation that limits the rights of freedom of expression and opinion.

Let us fast forward to July 2019 when a second UN report was published. This was meant to be a progress report, but the high commissioner expressed real concerns that very little progress had been made. It noted that the political and military tensions between them, particularly as a result of the Pulwama attack in February, was having an impact on the human rights of Kashmiris on both sides of the line of control.

On 5 August 2019, as Members will know, after the Bharatiya Janata party’s general election win in India, Prime Minister Modi announced the revocation of article 370 in India’s constitution. The effect was to remove the special status afforded to Jammu and Kashmir since partition. A Bill was rapidly approved by both Houses of Parliament, splitting the state of Jammu and Kashmir into two federal territories, Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, with direct rule from Delhi. The revocation of article 370 was also extended to article 35A, which removes the rights of indigenous Kashmiris, and has the potential to alter the distinct demographic character of IAK—a direct contravention of the 2007 UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for bringing this debate to the House. This week, Narendra Modi will be addressing the United Nations General Assembly. Does she agree that it is high time that Narendra Modi is challenged on the breaking of the UN conventions and on the reports of human rights abuses in Kashmir?

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that whenever and wherever there are human rights abuses—in whichever country, including our own—we should hold that country to account. That still needs to happen.

Accompanying the changes to India’s constitution, the Indian Government sent tens of thousands of Indian troops to the Kashmir valley, imposed a strict curfew and blocked all communications. In addition, initially hundreds and then thousands of people, including politicians, were detained. The National Federation of Indian Women claims that 13,000 teenage boys, some as young as 14, were imprisoned for up to 45 days, far away from their families.

During the weeks and months that followed, it was difficult to get accurate information about what was happening in IAK. There was an imposed media blackout and the Indian Government refused to allow independent observers to IAK, other than through those carefully choreographed visits. Despite that, there were reports of food and medicines shortages, and ongoing communication issues, especially for non-business purposes. Concerns were also being raised about the restrictions on access to essential healthcare as a result of the lockdown measures. Children’s education was severely disrupted, with parents afraid to let their children out of their sight. Although some of those detained have been released, thousands still remain in prison. In some cases, their families do not know where they are. On top of this, there are very concerning allegations of torture.

It is in this context that in early 2020 the all-party parliamentary Kashmir group decided that a delegation should try to visit IAK and PAK as early as possible in that year. The Kashmiri diaspora in the UK had raised concerns about family members still in Kashmir, and this is still a real concern for our constituents. Unfortunately, the Indian Government did not respond to the APPG’s request to visit. However, through the Pakistani high commissioner in London, to whom I express my sincere thanks, the Pakistani Government agreed to allow the APPG unfettered access to PAK in February 2020. We said who we wanted to meet and where we wanted to go, and that was followed.

During our delegation’s visit, we met Prime Minister Khan and Foreign Minister Qureshi in Islamabad, the Prime Minister and President of Azad Kashmir in Muzaffarabad, and the Pakistan parliamentary committee on Kashmir. We used those meetings to ask pointed questions—and they were pointed—about the reports in the UN human rights report. At the time of our visit, Prime Minister Khan had just brokered a peace deal with Afghanistan, and that was his focus. He said, “This will allow us a bit more freedom also to look at what is happening on the east of our border.” If only we had known then what we know now.

It is fair to say that the pressure that Pakistan now faces along the Durand line has significantly escalated since our visit. As I said last month when we were recalled, the international community must step up and offer support to Pakistan and other third countries as this new wave of Afghan refugees migrates across the border. I sincerely hope, given that Pakistan has been such a strong advocate for human rights in IAK, that when it is engaging with the Taliban, it also speaks about the human rights of all Afghanis.

As much as the APPG delegates enjoyed meeting parliamentarians, I think we would probably say that we were particularly moved by our visit to a refugee camp in Gulpur, where we heard at first hand about the experience of people who had fled from IAK. The visit to the line of control at Chakoti, where we were briefed by the Pakistan military, made us acutely aware of the tensions at the border, and we were shown video footage of civilians apparently being shot at by the Indian military.

I found the briefings from the British high commission and the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan particularly revealing. UNMOGIP confirmed an extensive military presence in Srinagar and especially in IAK, with armed forces personnel every 30 metres or so contributing to the feelings of harassment and being under siege reported by civilians in IAK—and this was pre-covid. With the advent of the covid pandemic, civic society stakeholders reported a double lockdown with further detentions of large numbers of young IAK men in the spring of 2020, when we were all grappling with our first experience of lockdown. The use of other legislation, including the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Order and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act were further examples of infringements by the Indian Government of international and human rights law.

The attack on human rights organisations such as Amnesty International India is another area of grave concern.