The Kashmir lockdown enters the Third Month but Modi is undeterred from Lifting Curfew in Indian Occupied Kashmir ever since he took the unilateral move to change disputed Status of Jammu and Kashmir by Scrapping Articles 370 & 35-A of Indian Constitution.
The Maiden Speech of PM Imran Khan in UNGA was curtain-raiser since he advocated the case of Kashmir aggressively and strongly along with raising Key points of Islamophobia and Blasphemy. On the contrary, Modi even did not mention Kashmir dispute.
Imran Khan’s UNGA Speech was very impressive and represented the spirit of Statesman. The world was apprised that Indian unilateral move has put Kashmir at stake and over 90 days lockdown has brought the State into Turmoil and severe Economic Crisis since the Shops and Businesses are closed. Services of Telephone, Cell phone and Internet services are suspended.
There is a complete ban on Electronic and Print Media. Even Indian Opposition leaders were returned from the Airport by Indian Forces to hide the draconian laws that are aimed at ethnic cleansing by Killing innocent Kashmiris with pelt Guns and the banned Cluster Bombs.
Pakistan has urged the world Community especially UN to send independent observers to review the law order situation and the grave human rights violation and the misery caused by unjust and inhuman 90 days lockdown that has created serious Food and Medicine shortage and 12 Million People are restricted to House arrest and all the leadership is detained.
Pakistan has highlighted the issue and the Issue went Global that has baffled India to follow up PM Imran Speech by levelling biased and baseless allegations that had nothing to do with the PM’s Speech or Kashmir Dispute.
Even the Trump administration realized that the lockdown or 90 Days curfew has played havoc with the lives of the innocent Kashmiris making the situation miserable and abysmal for living. On the contrary, the Ceasefire violations on part of India on LOC are very intense that escalated the already tense Situation owing to Modi’s unilateral move. The Recent LOC Shelling by Indian armed forces is targeting Civilian settlements that are tantamount to Human rights.
Pakistan Army invited a great number of Diplomats belonging to various countries to visit sites affected by the Indian Army Shelling along the LoC. They all opined that India has deliberately targeted civilian Population since they did not find any sign of Terrorist Camps since the area is residential and categorically rejected Indian claims. They also declared the people as peaceful citizens.
According to Indian claims that they hit the terrorist camps and destroyed their hideouts but so far it has failed to provide any solid evidence.
Even, the Indian High Commissioner was invited to visit the site but he did not bother to visit the site owing to Modi’ extensive Pressure to serve Indian interests. India has been playing with fire to drag Pakistan in the conventional war that would be disastrous for the two arch-rival neighbours and the whole region. since China has already expressed its concerns regarding Kashmir conflict. Indian doesn’t miss any opportunity to blame Pakistan if any adverse thing happens in India or IOK.
The point behind these war tactics of India may be that it wanted to divert the attention of the world community from J&K atrocities, Genocide and ethnic cleansing towards escalating LOC situation by exchange firing to target civilians.
The world stands mum over the grave situation in J&K after Modi’s move of forcible annexation of August 5, 2019, making J&K and Ladakh as Union Territories and allowing Indian citizens to buy properties and getting citizenship so that the bloody plan of converting Muslim majority into a minority could be perpetrated.
Despite recording protest on the international platforms of UN and UNSC, Pakistan has not been able to win much support from the world powers except China and Russia since fair-weather friend the US has left Pakistan and especially Kashmir people echoing in the desert where the world sleeps but Kashmir bleeds.
Pakistani Premier also raised his strong voice against Islamophobia and advocated the case of Blasphemy against Sacred beliefs and Personalities and specially presented the case of Kashmir in a strong manner that was seconded by China, Malaysia, Turkey and Iran
The presence of 8 lac armed forces in Jammu and Kashmir heralds the actual scenario and the gravity of imbroglio and conflict further aggravated after the 90 Days continuous curfew that has made over 12 million Kashmiris as hostages -a grave human rights violations goes unnoticed by UN and World powers having a stake in New World Order.
Over 90 Days curfew has restricted Kashmiris in houses resulting acute shortage of Food Items, Medicines and other utilities. There has been complete Media Blackout, Internet and Telecommunication has been suspended and people are plunged into darkness.
The Schools, Colleges and Universities are closed calling for immediate UN intervention to put pressure on India to lift the illegal and inhuman curfew lasting for over three months that has paralyzed the paradise-like valley.
The People of Kashmiris are denied fundamental rights that have thrown these innocent souls in the well of Disappointment and deprivation since these unarmed souls are helpless before the cruel armed forces who are there to loot, plunder and torture the youth and take them to detention centres in order suppress the demand and dismantle freedom movement.
Calling itself a secular state but coward inside to extent that it has unscrupulous plans to have Kashmir sans Kashmiris and to give vent to his ambitious plan through, the turmoil, genocide, chaos and bloodshed and causing bloodbath will never be fulfilled.
Despite the passage of 3 months, there is no respite for innocent Kashmiri People. The situation has been so tense that our PM apprised the world that Kashmir has become the nuclear flashpoint and if two nuclear efficient neighbours got engaged in a conventional war, the repercussions would be very gruesome and will expand to the whole region.
Though Pakistan has globalized the Kashmir dispute, the world response has been quite dismal as UNGA has not called a session to discuss the issue to prevent nuclear war between India and Pakistan over the core issue of Kashmir as both the neighbours are claiming to hold the control of the valley but the plebiscite is the only solution in light of UN resolutions to determine the future course of action that whether Kashmiris want to be annexed with Pakistan, India or just want to retain their Independent status .
Pakistan has shown the real face of Modi at every world platform so that the world should come forward to exert pressure on India to lift illegal Curfew and release the Kashmiri leadership inclusive of those who were pro India.
It is the right of Kashmiris to decide about their future regardless of any pressure or force since violence has aggravated the situation and added fuel to fire in an already grave situation in IOK.
Pakistan has done a tremendous job in highlighting the Kashmir and taken into confidence UK, US, Iran, China Malaysia, Russia and Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) pleading to raise the voice against serious human rights violations and atrocities committed by 8,00,000 lac forces who are ransacking houses, killing innocent Kashmiris in order to establish their Nazi-type writ in IOK .
The issue should be discussed in the UN and the Kashmiris be given right of self-determination by holding a plebiscite under the UN in Jammu and Kashmir. The state should be restored to previous disputed status so that Indian claims may be quashed as per partition plan of 1947.
In a recent move to escalate the situation and integrate the disputed state, Delhi has formally repealed the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir’s constitutional autonomy and divided it into two federal territories in an attempt aimed integrating it in entirety with India instigating yet another reason for escalation on Loc and protests in IOK.
The unilateral and hegemonies move by Indian Premier Modi calls for immediate UN intervention to prevent war since after the Wednesday’ move to divide IOK into two states and giving them in direct Federal control has irked the sentiments of Kashmiris and Pakistanis altogether having established strong reasons for escalation that may lead to full scale war between Pakistan and India given the grave circumstances .
India has crossed all the limits of atrocities and the innocent Kashmiris are looking towards Pakistan and the World powers especially UN to play their active and strong role to put pressure on India to backtrack from its aggressive policy and settle the dispute through dialogue and in light of UN resolutions.
Pakistan has always played the role of peacemaker and has been the frontrunner in War on terror and brought the Taliban on Negotiation table to sign a peace deal with the US so that US Troops withdrawal may be possible.
Even PM Imran’s visit to Iran and Saudi Arab is aimed at diffusing tensions between Two Islamic countries to avert economic crisis likely to emerge if Oil prices go up due to conflict between two major oil-producing countries.
Finally, the Azadi march led by Moulana Fazal and other opposition parties likely to benefit India in their move to annex IOK and their control over the State.
One might be wondering that what prompted Moulana for Azadi March, demanding resignation from PM after 13 Months, is still unclear but some analysts are of the view that there must be some hidden hands involved behind this Azad March or some figures of power corridors that are supporting and financing the marchers in background. These characters may appear on the big screen as the time goes by and as Moulana unfolds his agenda of March or so-called dharna.
Being an analyst, I predict conspiracy against PTI government to put pressure on Government to get unethical demands accepted made by opposition or there would be anarchy if any skirmishes emerge between the marchers and The Government.
This was not the perfect time to march or stage dharna since Pakistan is in state of unannounced war with India and the Poor Kashmiris are looking towards Pakistan to express solidarity with their indigenous freedom movement and extending support.
Moulana Fazal Rahman is a senior Politician and a very sensible person, will not commit any blunder revolting against the state but to some extent, the march could be vindicated given the inflation and sudden increase in the prices of Commodities.
Let’s hope that Opposition’s rehbar Committee and Government’s Committee will resolve the issues peacefully and the marchers will return safely to their home if both committees agree on the legitimate demands except PM’s resignation since it would be unjust to topple the Government.
Let PTI Government complete their 5-year Term so that opposition may have the valid reason to criticize the Policies that put the economy on risk or become responsible for isolation owing to weak or ineffective diplomacy.
At the moment Both Government and Opposition should come on the same page so that our enemies may not take benefits of internal differences; all attention should be directed towards national interests rather than personal interests.
The ‘Live and Let Live’ Era is Over: China and the US Are on a Collision Course
The notion of ‘live and let live’ has long been touted as a potential cornerstone for a stable and cooperative relationship between China and the United States, the world’s two largest economies. However, recent developments paint a rather grim picture, suggesting that this once-envisioned approach may be teetering on the brink of collapse.
A Brief History of ‘Live and Let Live’
The concept of ‘live and let live’ gained prominence during the Cold War era, when the US and the Soviet Union, the two dominant superpowers, sought to avoid direct confrontation while maintaining their respective spheres of influence. This approach, characterized by a degree of tolerance and accommodation, helped prevent global catastrophe.
In the context of China-US relations, ‘live and let live’ has been interpreted as a tacit agreement to coexist peacefully, acknowledging each other’s interests and refraining from interference in domestic affairs. This approach has been credited with fostering economic interdependence and preventing major conflicts.
The Erosion of ‘Live and Let Live’
- Ideological Differences: The fundamental ideological differences between the two countries, with China’s authoritarian system contrasting sharply with the US’s democratic values, have created a persistent source of tension.
- Economic Rivalry: The rapid rise of China’s economy has transformed the global landscape, leading to concerns about its economic dominance and potential threat to US interests.
- Geopolitical Competition: The expanding geopolitical influence of China, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, has heightened US anxieties about its strategic ambitions.
- Technological Advancement: China’s rapid technological advancements, particularly in areas like artificial intelligence and 5G, have raised concerns about potential US vulnerabilities.
The Impact of Recent Developments
- Trade War: The ongoing trade war between the two countries has imposed significant economic costs and raised concerns about a broader decoupling of their economies.
- Technology Crackdown: The US’s crackdown on Chinese technology companies, such as Huawei and TikTok, has intensified technological rivalry and raised concerns about protectionism.
- Taiwan Tensions: The heightened tensions surrounding Taiwan, with China’s increasing military assertiveness, have raised fears of a potential conflict.
- South China Sea Disputes: The ongoing territorial disputes in the South China Sea have remained a flashpoint for potential conflict.
The Path Forward
Amidst these challenges, the future of ‘live and let live’ between China and the US remains uncertain. Both countries face a difficult decision: to continue pursuing a cooperative approach or embrace a more confrontational stance.
A return to the ‘live and let live’ approach would require a significant shift in both countries’ attitudes and policies. It would demand a willingness to compromise, acknowledge each other’s interests, and refrain from provocative actions.
However, the path forward is fraught with challenges. The deeply entrenched ideological differences, economic rivalry, and geopolitical competition make it difficult to envision a return to the status quo.
The ‘live and let live’ approach between China and the US has served as a crucial stabilizing force in international relations. However, recent developments suggest that this approach is facing an existential crisis. Both countries must carefully consider the consequences of their actions and make a concerted effort to avert a downward spiral that could have devastating global consequences. Embracing a more cooperative approach, while acknowledging and addressing underlying differences, remains the only viable path forward for ensuring a stable and prosperous future for both nations.
The Challenges to “Two State and Combined State Solution” of Gaza Crisis: A Comprehensive Analysis
The Gaza Crisis has been ongoing for decades and has been a major source of conflict in the Middle East. The crisis has been characterized by violence, poverty, and political instability. The Two-State Solution has been proposed as a possible solution to the crisis. This solution involves the creation of two separate states, one for Israelis and one for Palestinians, living side by side in peace and security.
The historical background of the Gaza Crisis is complex and multifaceted. The conflict is rooted in the displacement of Palestinians during the creation of Israel in 1948, and the subsequent occupation and annexation of Palestinian land by Israel. The crisis has been characterized by violence, poverty, and political instability. The Two-State Solution has been proposed as a possible solution to the crisis. This solution involves the creation of two separate states, one for Israelis and one for Palestinians, living side by side in peace and security.
Table of Contents
- The Two-State Solution has been proposed as a possible solution to the Gaza Crisis.
- The crisis has been ongoing for decades and is characterized by violence, poverty, and political instability.
- The historical background of the crisis is complex and multifaceted, rooted in the displacement of Palestinians during the creation of Israel in 1948.
Historical Background of Gaza Crisis
The Gaza Strip has been at the center of conflict between Israel and Palestine for decades. Understanding the historical background of the Gaza crisis is crucial in comprehending the current situation and potential solutions.
The Birth of Israel
The Gaza Strip was originally part of the British Mandate of Palestine, which was established after World War I. In 1947, the United Nations proposed a partition of the land into two states, one for Jews and one for Arabs. The plan was accepted by the Jews, but rejected by the Arabs, who believed that the land belonged to them. In 1948, Israel declared its independence, and neighboring Arab countries invaded, starting the first Arab-Israeli War. The war resulted in Israel’s victory and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, including many who fled to the Gaza Strip.
Six Day War
In 1967, tensions between Israel and its Arab neighbors escalated, leading to the Six Day War. Israel emerged victorious, occupying the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The occupation of the Gaza Strip led to the establishment of Israeli settlements and the displacement of more Palestinians.
First and Second Intifada
In 1987, the First Intifada began, a Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation. The uprising lasted six years and led to the establishment of the Palestinian Authority. In 2000, the Second Intifada began, after peace talks failed to reach a resolution. The violence resulted in the deaths of thousands of Palestinians and Israelis and the destruction of infrastructure in the Gaza Strip.
The historical background of the Gaza crisis is complex and multifaceted. The conflict has resulted in the displacement of thousands of Palestinians and has led to the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip. Understanding this history is crucial in finding a lasting solution to the crisis.
Understanding the Two State Solution
Concept and Origin
The Two State Solution is a proposed solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that aims to establish two separate states for the two nations. The concept of a two-state solution emerged in the 1930s and 1940s, when the British Mandate for Palestine was coming to an end. The idea was to divide the land between Jews and Arabs, with each group having their own independent state. The United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution in 1947 that called for the partition of Palestine into two states, one for Jews and the other for Arabs. While the Jewish community accepted the resolution, the Arab states rejected it, and the ensuing conflict resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.
Proposed Geographic Division
The proposed geographic division of the two-state solution would involve the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital. Israel would retain control over the remaining territories, including the settlements in the West Bank. The borders between the two states would be based on the pre-1967 borders, with some territorial swaps to account for Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
The idea of a two-state solution has been the basis of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians for decades. However, the negotiations have been fraught with difficulties, and a final agreement has yet to be reached. The ongoing conflict between the two sides, including the Gaza crisis, has made it increasingly difficult to achieve a two-state solution. Nevertheless, many still believe that a two-state solution is the best way to achieve a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine.
In summary, the Two State Solution is a proposed solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that aims to establish two separate states for the two nations. The proposed geographic division would involve the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital. While the negotiations have been difficult, many believe that a two-state solution is the best way to achieve a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine.
United Nations’ Stance
The United Nations has been a vocal advocate for a two-state solution to the Gaza crisis. In 1947, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 181, which called for the partition of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. The UN has continued to support a two-state solution to the conflict, with the Security Council passing numerous resolutions calling for an end to the occupation of Palestinian territories and the establishment of a Palestinian state.
United States’ Approach
The United States has historically been a key player in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and has long supported a two-state solution. In 2002, the US proposed the “Roadmap for Peace,” which outlined a series of steps to be taken by both Israelis and Palestinians to reach a two-state solution. However, the Trump administration in 2017 recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moved the US embassy there, which was seen as a significant blow to the prospects of a two-state solution.
European Union’s Position
The European Union has also been a strong supporter of a two-state solution to the Gaza crisis. The EU has provided significant financial aid to the Palestinian Authority and has been involved in numerous peace talks between Israel and Palestine. In 2016, the EU issued a statement calling for a two-state solution and condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The EU has also been critical of the Trump administration’s decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, which it sees as a violation of international law.
Challenges to the Two State Solution
The Two State Solution has been proposed as a resolution to the Gaza Crisis, but it faces many challenges. These challenges are political, security-related, and economic.
One of the main challenges to the Two State Solution is the political disputes between Israel and Palestine. The two sides have different visions for the future of the region, and they have been unable to come to an agreement on how to move forward. The Palestinian leadership began seriously to consider a Two State Solution after the 1973 October War, but the solution faces insurmountable challenges given the current political climate.
Security concerns are another major challenge to the Two State Solution. Both Israel and Palestine have legitimate security concerns, and they are unwilling to compromise on these issues. The Gaza War of 2014 highlighted the security concerns of both sides, and it has made it even more difficult to find a solution that is acceptable to all parties.
Finally, economic hurdles are also a challenge to the Two State Solution. The Gaza Strip is one of the most impoverished regions in the world, and it is heavily dependent on foreign aid. The economic situation in the region is further complicated by the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine. The lack of economic opportunities and the ongoing conflict have created a vicious cycle of poverty and violence in the region.
In conclusion, the Two State Solution faces many challenges, including political disputes, security concerns, and economic hurdles. These challenges must be addressed if there is to be a peaceful and just resolution to the Gaza Crisis.
Alternatives to the Two State Solution
While the Two State Solution has been the primary focus of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there have been alternative proposals put forward. Here are two potential alternatives:
One State Solution
The One State Solution proposes that Israel and Palestine should be combined into a single state. This state would be democratic and would allow for equal rights for all citizens, regardless of their ethnicity or religion. Supporters of this solution argue that it would lead to a more peaceful and stable region, as it would eliminate the need for borders and would promote cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians.
However, critics argue that this solution is not feasible, as it would require both sides to give up their national identities and would be difficult to implement in practice. Additionally, it is unclear how the rights of minority groups would be protected in a single state solution.
Another alternative to the Two State Solution is a Confederation Model. This model proposes that Israel and Palestine would each have their own separate governments, but would share certain institutions and cooperate on issues such as security and economic development. This solution would allow for greater autonomy for both sides, while still promoting cooperation and peace in the region.
Supporters of this model argue that it would allow for greater self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians, while still maintaining a level of cooperation that would promote stability in the region. However, critics argue that this solution would be difficult to implement in practice, as it would require both sides to give up a certain level of sovereignty and would require a high level of trust between the two governments.
Overall, while the Two State Solution has been the primary focus of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is important to consider alternative proposals that may lead to a more peaceful and stable region.
Impact on the Palestinian-Israeli Relations
The Gaza Crisis has had a significant impact on the Palestinian-Israeli relations. The conflict has been ongoing for decades, and the Gaza Crisis has added another layer of complexity to the issue. The following subsections detail the impact of the crisis on the Palestinian-Israeli relations.
The Gaza Crisis has had a devastating socio-economic impact on the Palestinian people. The conflict has resulted in widespread poverty, unemployment, and a lack of access to basic necessities such as food, water, and healthcare. According to a report by the United Nations, the poverty rate in Gaza is over 50%, and the unemployment rate is over 40%. The crisis has also resulted in the displacement of thousands of Palestinians, further exacerbating the socio-economic issues in the region.
The Gaza Crisis has also had a significant political impact on the Palestinian-Israeli relations. The conflict has led to a breakdown in communication between the two sides, making it difficult to reach a lasting peace agreement. The crisis has also led to an increase in tensions between the two sides, with both sides accusing the other of violating international law and committing human rights abuses.
In conclusion, the Gaza Crisis has had a profound impact on the Palestinian-Israeli relations. The crisis has worsened the socio-economic conditions in Gaza and has led to a breakdown in communication between the two sides. The political impact of the crisis has also been significant, with both sides accusing the other of violating international law and committing human rights abuses.
The Two-State Solution of Gaza Crisis is a complex and controversial issue that has been the subject of much debate and discussion. Despite efforts by various international bodies and governments to resolve the crisis, the situation remains unresolved.
The key challenge to the two-state solution is the ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. The conflict has resulted in significant loss of life and property, and has created deep-seated mistrust between the two sides.
Another significant challenge to the two-state solution is the political and economic instability in the region. The Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated areas in the world, and the lack of economic opportunities has contributed to the ongoing crisis.
Despite these challenges, there are reasons to be optimistic about the prospects for a two-state solution. The international community has been actively involved in promoting peace and stability in the region, and there have been some positive developments in recent years.
The Two-State Solution of Gaza Crisis is a complex issue that requires a multi-faceted approach. While there are significant challenges to overcome, there are also reasons to be optimistic about the prospects for a peaceful resolution. The international community must continue to work towards a sustainable and lasting peace in the region.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the history of the two-state solution for Gaza?
The concept of a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been around for decades. It was first proposed in the 1930s, and the United Nations formally endorsed the idea in 1947. The two-state solution envisions the creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, with the two states living in peace and security.
Is a two-state solution still a viable option for resolving the Gaza crisis?
There is no simple answer to this question. While many people still believe that a two-state solution is the best way to resolve the Gaza crisis, others are skeptical that it can ever be achieved. The situation in Gaza is complex, and there are many factors that make a two-state solution difficult to achieve. Some experts argue that the continued expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank has made a two-state solution less likely, while others point to the ongoing violence and political instability in Gaza as major obstacles to peace.
What are the potential obstacles to achieving a two-state solution for Gaza?
There are many potential obstacles to achieving a two-state solution for Gaza, including political, economic, and security issues. One of the biggest obstacles is the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, which has led to several wars and countless acts of violence. Other obstacles include the continued expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the lack of a unified Palestinian leadership, and the economic and humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
What is Hamas’ stance on a two-state solution for Gaza?
Hamas, which controls Gaza, has historically been opposed to a two-state solution. The group’s charter calls for the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state in all of historic Palestine. However, some members of Hamas have indicated that they may be willing to accept a two-state solution under certain conditions, such as the removal of Israeli settlements from the West Bank and the establishment of a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem.
Are there any alternative solutions to the Gaza crisis besides a two-state solution?
There are several alternative solutions that have been proposed to resolve the Gaza crisis, including a one-state solution, a confederation of two states, and a regional peace agreement involving multiple Arab states. However, each of these solutions has its own set of challenges and obstacles, and none has gained widespread support.
How would a one-state solution differ from a two-state solution for Gaza?
A one-state solution would involve the creation of a single, democratic state in which Israelis and Palestinians would have equal rights and representation. This would be a major departure from the two-state solution, which envisions the creation of two separate states. While a one-state solution has some appeal to those who believe in equal rights for all, it is also seen as a highly controversial and difficult solution to implement, given the deep divisions and historical animosity between Israelis and Palestinians.
Torture is a Universal Sin and a Crime against Humanity
The Committee against Torture opened its seventy-eighth session in Geneva on October 30 and will continue until November 24, 2023. The body of 10 independent experts is headed by Dr. Claude Heller of Mexico. The Committee will examine the implementation of the ‘Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment’ by its States parties.
It is worth mentioning here that the Convention against ‘Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment’ was adopted on December 10, 1984. It entered into force on June 26, 1987. Article 1, of the Convention, reads, “For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”
Dr Alice Jill Edwards (Australia), United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture told the United Nations Third Committee, “There is a persistent accountability gap for torture and ill-treatment worldwide, caused in part by the systemic denial, deliberate obstruction and purposeful evasion of responsibility by public authorities.” She added, “when a State fails to defend truth and justice, it becomes an accomplice in torture. Some States wrongly perceive criminal investigations into torture as a direct attack on their legitimacy. On the contrary, what threatens governmental legitimacy is impunity.”
Human Rights Watch (HRW) talks about torture in these words, “The prohibition against torture is a bedrock principle of international law. Torture, as well as cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, is banned at all times, in all places, including in times of war. No national emergency, however dire, ever justifies its use.”
So, Torture is a universal sin and a crime against humanity. Torture with impunity, nonetheless, is widespread in the disputed territory of Kashmir. The abuses are so extensive as to extend beyond those directly affected, reaching every man, woman, and child in the Valley of Kashmir. The civilians live under the constant threat of abuse. The overwhelming presence of 900,000 Indian military and paramilitary forces serves as a constant reminder to Kashmiris that they are not free people, but a people subjugated and enslaved against their will.
India has authorized a police state reminiscent of the Gestapo in Kashmir. The Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, The Armed Forces Special Powers Act, The Disturbed Areas Act, The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act are illustrative. Generally speaking, these laws empower the Indian military and paramilitary forces in Kashmir to arrest, detain, torture, search, wiretap, tr, and punish without material restraints.”
Tens of thousands of Indian officials are guilty of war crimes in Kashmir. These crimes include willful killing, torture, rape, wanton destruction of civilian properties and maiming of innocent civilians. These brutalities are commonplace in Kashmir and have been verified by numerous impartial human rights NGOs.
Ms. Arundhati Roy, an internationally acclaimed novelist of India wrote, “The documentation of instances of torture, disappearances, custodial deaths, rape and gang-rape (by security forces in Kashmir) is enough to make your blood run cold. The fact that despite all this India retains its reputation as a legitimate democracy in the international community and amongst its own middle class is a triumph.”
Dr. Juan E. Mendez, Former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and Professor of Human rights Law in Residence at American University, Washington, Dc wrote about the ‘Torture Report on Kashmir’, “Hopefully, a serious debate among the Indian public about this report will prompt the national authorities to take the matter of torture seriously and establish effective control and to act as a more responsible global citizen and cooperate with the human rights machinery at the United Nations.”
Aljazeera reported that “Human Rights bodies say India uses torture as ‘instrument of control’ to quash rebellion in Indian-administered Kashmir.”
Amnesty International reported, “The Indian government must take urgent steps for the protection of the people of Kashmir…Indian government’s historical failure to protect the people of Kashmir will keep feeding into this never-ending cycle of abuses and impunity.”
The United States, Department of States, 2022 Country Report on Human Rights Practices in India says, “According to human rights NGOs, police used torture, other mistreatment, and arbitrary detention to obtain forced or false confessions.”
Edmund Burke wrote that all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men and women to do nothing. Bishop Desmond Tutu lectured that “Apathy in the face of systematic human rights violations is immoral. One neither supports justice and freedom or one supports injustice and bondage.”
Let me also tell you that even in today’s violent world, the behaviour of the Indian occupation regime in Kashmir is singular in so far as it has enjoyed total impunity from the restraint imposed through international action or persuasions. No word of disapproval, much less condemnation, has been uttered by the international community. There has not been a call on India to cease and desist from the murderous course it has chosen for itself in Kashmir. Such passivity, such unfeeling and indifference, let no one blame the Kashmiris for concluding, amounts to encouragement of tyranny.
Does anyone seriously believe that if the ICC statue were ratified by India, a single Indian soldier or civilian official would ever be prosecuted before the ICC? Of course, NOT. India has sneered at international law for decades, and the international community has yawned, whether the violations were in Kashmir or with minorities within India. Although not contrary to international law, India showed itself utterly contemptuous of international moral sentiments. It stands proudly outside the mainstream of international conventions.
And the Biden Administration would do nothing to call India to account. The United Nations Security Council has sat on its hands for over 76 years over Kashmir. President Biden stood mute when he met Prime Minister Modi at the White House on June 22, 2023, and then at G20 meeting on September 9, 2023, in New Delhi, India.
He never paid any attention to the warning of Dr. Gregory Stanton, Chairman, Genocide watch who said that Kashmir was at the brink of genocide and New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists that the news media in Kashmir was at the brink of extinction. I still believe that President Biden will tell Prime Minister Modi to lead with the power of example and NOT the example of power to resolve the Kashmir conflict for the sake of international peace and security.
Dr Ghulam Nabi Fai is the Chairman World Forum for Peace and Justice
10 Best US Presidents of All Time: A Comprehensive Ranking
COP 28 Dubai 2023: Uniting for a Sustainable Future Amidst Climate Change Challenges
TPNW can prevent nuclear disaster in South Asia
Henry Kissinger’s Death: What You Need to Know About His Legacy
France Bans Smoking on All Beaches: Surprising Move by European Country
✨Shocking Truth: The Dark Secrets Behind Western Leaders’ Moral Collapse on Gaza Crisis
Unveiling the Megacities: A Comprehensive Look at the World’s Urban Giants
The Challenges to “Two State and Combined State Solution” of Gaza Crisis: A Comprehensive Analysis
Australia-China Relations: Can Anthony Albanese Thaw the Frozen Ties?
AI Revolution Begins: U.S. and China Join Forces in Historic AI Agreement
News2 years ago
Prioritizing health & education most effective way to improve socio-economic status: President
China2 years ago
Coronavirus Pandemic and Global Response
Canada2 years ago
Socio-Economic Implications of Canadian Border Closure With U.S
Democracy2 years ago
Missing You! SPSC
Democracy2 years ago
President Dr Arif Alvi Confers Civil Awards on Independence Day
Featured3 years ago
The Right-Wing Politics in United States & The Capitol Hill Mayhem
Digital3 years ago
Pakistan Moves Closer to Train One Million Youth with Digital Skills
Economy3 years ago
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are back on track