Special Correspondent

‘IT is the greatest service done by an institution created to uphold human rights towards the cause of Political Terrorism. The judgement has imparted a secular legitimacy to a militant movement which the entire world now recognizes as Pan-Islamic terrorism’, these were the initial reactions of the Chairman of Political Affairs of Panun Kashmir when asked to comment on the judgement of National Human Rights Commission on the Case No: 938/94-95/NHRC of Panun Kashmir Movement. This organization had stated in its plea to NHRC that the acts of violence, perpetrated against Kashmiri Pandits resulting in their almost total exodus from the Valley, amounted to genocide under the terms of the 1948 genocide convention.

The judgement has been received by the entire displaced community with a sense of shock. ‘It is basically a non-judgement. What has happened to us has been termed as genocide-like and not genocide. The entire hypocrisy of the commission is revealed by this one word,’ said Sh B.L. Fotedar a retired Professor. The debate which the judgement has generated within the displaced community has not as yet reflected openly. A group of prominent Pandit experts met immediately after the judgement and cautioned the Pandit leadership to postpone their public reaction as it might jeopardizes National effort in fighting the terrorist intrusion backed by Pakistan Army in Kargil.

In the meanwhile, this judgement has drawn little appreciation from the cross section of media in terms of its import vis-a-vis correcting the distortions in the Human Rights situation in Kashmir valley. Experts on

Human Rights situation, terrorism and international law have started expressing sense of bewilderment on the judgement. One of the leading columnist of a national daily Tribune commented, ‘Acts akin to genocide and a genocide-type design, but no genocide! That is like saying that we have a war like situations in Kargil but not a war. A description that conceals more than it reveals.’

Dr. M.K. Teng, himself an internationally reputed expert on Kashmir described the judgement of the National Human Rights Commission, ‘as an effort to steer clear of the pronouncements on the major catastrophe that Pan-Islamic fundamentalism has brought to Jammu and Kashmir. Dr Teng further commented on the judgement as, ‘Human Rights have a single dimension and that dimension is universal in content. They are not restricted by civil law and civil procedure of any country including India. International imperatives which have been laid down by Nuremberg Tribunal, Tokyo Tribunal and the United Nations Human Rights Commission cannot be inverted to suit the purpose of any Nation State. NHRC has reversed all these imperatives with regard to the petition of Kashmiri Pandits,’. Dr M.K. Teng

Incidentally had led one of the first delegation of Kashmiri Pandits which approached the National Human Rights Commission when it was constituted in 1993.

Prof. K.N. Pandita another expert on Central Asia and Islamic fundamentalism who has been regularly representing on Human Rights situation in the region at the United Nations Human Rights Commission at Geneva describes the judgement as a very clever act to ‘play safe’ and avoid-telling the ‘bitter truth’. He comments, that, ‘the judgement is a clear attempt to ‘please everybody and every party involved in the tragedy that overtook the Pandits,’

US Congressman Frank Pallone taking note of the inadequacy of the judgement commented very recently that so far National Human Rights Commission of India has not gone beyond acknowledging that Pandits have been victims of ethnic cleaning as a part of militant campaigns to get Kashmir secede from India. Prof ML Koul who has written many books on Kashmir made a more penetrating observation. ‘Hiding the acts of Genocide has always been an inseparable part of the processes which cause Genocide. International experts term it as making a ‘non event’ of a genocidal act. NHRC willy-nilly has done this particular role for the perpetrators of genocide in the Valley’.

While as the debate on the implications of 11th June, 1999 judgement of NHRC has just picked up the total attitude of National Human Rights Commission cannot be judged only on the basis of its  the various pleas of the displaced Hindus from the Valley. Feelings as expressed by Dr. M.K. Teng that, ‘NHRC is typically functioning as a statutory instrument of Indian state conscious of its origin and its status,’ convey more than actually appears to a naked eye. During many hearings at Human Rights court constituted by NHRC no less a person than its Chairman started showing more interest in the political demands of displaced Kashmiri Pandits than various Human Rights issues for which the commission had been approached by the displaced victims from the Valley. Panun Kashmir representatives were baffled when the Commission started asking more questions on their ‘Homeland demand’ than, on the issue of ‘internal displacement’, for which they had approached the Commission.

The incident which took place during one of the penultimate hearings for the ‘Genocide Case’ for which judgement was pronounced on 11th June bears a better testimony of the total attitude of the National Human Rights Commission towards displaced Kashmiri Pandits. Dr Shakti Bhan who had been representing on behalf of Panun Kashmir at the Commission moved an application when the Human Rights court was about to wind up its proceedings for the day. The application which Dr Shakti moved had a dramatic impact when the chairman of NHRC started reading it. No less a person than the chairman blurted out with anger on the reputed gynecologist from the Valley, ‘What do you think you are? Do you want to become a leader? Do you know what you have written? Your case has already been dismissed’...what is your locus standii? Do you represent all Kashmiri Pandits...? etc etc..’ The shocked lady still mustered courage and pleaded ‘Sir if our case has  been already disposed why have we not been communicated? Why is our case listed by NHRC itself for hearing today? Where is the copy of the decision, which you have given on our case? Sir you might have disliked what we have written in the application but this is how my community and I feel about the commission... We do not mean to dishonor the commission and to demonstrate that spirit I for the present withdraw this application’ Dr Shakti Bhan left feeling harassed.

The others who witnessed those proceedings were no less shocked. ‘Even an individual can approach the Human Rights Commission. Why should the chairman talk about the locus standii? It is not a crime to be leader! .... If commission has taken decision why is the case still listed for discussion?’ with such questions the displaced Pandits left the commission premises. This correspondent who was present there was hurriedly able to note the contents of the application moved and subsequently withdrawn under the circumstances revealed here. These contents revealed the reasons for the consternation of the Chairman of NHRC. It read,’ The honorable members of National Human Rights Commission will appreciate our anxiety and concern over two fundamental problems we faced in the proceedings of the commission.

First we have found to our consternation that the proceedings of the commission follow a quasi-judicial process and precept similar to Indian judicial system, leading invariably to delay of  justice and in many cases denial of justice as well. .... Secondly honorable commission has followed other such procedures which have lead   to procrastination of vital decisions on major issues of the violation of human rights in Jammu and Kashmir...In our petition submitted to the honorable commission dated 20/11/97 we had prayed to the chairman of NHRC to, ‘institute a commission of inquiry on the Sangrampora and Gool massacres of Kashmiri Pandits in particular and to enquire the entire gamut of Govt’s, handling of the issue of return in the light of the fresh destabilization of the entire Kashmiri Pandit Community.. , for reasons known to the commission only, such a prayer was ignored.

It took one more gruesome massacre of Kashmiri Pandits at Wandhama to shake the honorable commission out of a self imposed inertia to constitute a commission of inquiry headed by Sanker Sen. Even though the terms of reference of the commission as reported by the press were not comprehensive enough to understand the entire gamut of govt.’s handling of the issue of return of displaced Hindus of Kashmir, yet the report of the enquiry was not allowed to see the light Of the day. Honorable commission has however chosen to embarrass us by responding with unusual haste to a plea of a foreign organization, Indo Canadian Kashmir Forum (ICKF), which sought a phased return of a section of displaced Pandits to Valley, intriguingly overlooking the underlying message of the series of massacres of Hindus which followed Wandhama Carnage.

For more than four years National Human Rights Commission has avoided to give its opinion with regard to the settling of the definitional status of displaced Kashmiri Pandit population and only complimented the dilly dallying tactics of state as well as Central governments. .... We had also time and again pleaded and prayed to the commission to constitute an expert ‘study group’ to  look into the issues relating to the etheno-religious cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits. No action has been taken on that account so far. .... We have enough reasons to suspect that the honorable commission has abnegated its rightful function, avoided taking responsibility, more or less in consonance with the shifting attitudes of the State and Central governments which for obvious reasons have been seeking to camouflage the most severe violation of Human Rights of Hindus of Kashmir. .... The failure of National Human Rights Commission to intervene properly on the issues which our organization has brought to its notice has undermined the faith of the displaced community in the honorable Commission. The attitude of NHRC has also contributed wittingly or unwittingly towards generating a selective sensitivity on the Human Rights scenario in the country.’  Just after this hearing when people were coming out of the Human Rights Court a gentleman perhaps an employee of NHRC commented, ‘you have put the hand on the raw nerve of the Commission’. The judgement on the genocide is bound to cause uproar in coming days.