STATE OF HR VIOLATIONS BY INDIAN SECURITY

FORCES IN IHK:
BACKGROUND AND CURRENT SITUATION

Dr. Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

Abstract

Confronted with an indigenous freedom movement, the

Indian government has pursued a carefully crafted policy of
brutal suppression. In this connection, not only many black
laws were enacted and introduced in the Indian Held
Kashmir (IHK) to enable its large security forces take all
measures to crush the freedom struggle. The paper discusses
the nature of Kashmir dispute between Pakistan and India
followed by a detailed discussion of the draconian laws that
have been introduced in IHK. Disregarding periodically
issued reports on human rights violations in IHK by
internationally acknowledged human rights watch
organizations such as Amnesty International, India
continues with its policies of human right violations without
any remorse. The ability of India to disregard reports of
internationally reputed organizations indeed compels the
neighbouring states find out the underlying causes of Indian
arrogance. The final section of the paper analyses the main
factors that enables India to disregard world public opinion
and continue with its policy of continuous human rights
violations in IHK.

Keywords: Indian Government, Indian Held Kashmir,

Freedom Movement.

Introduction

Not only the ongoing Kashmir issue is the oldest

unresolved international dispute that continues to defy all
meaningful efforts towards its resolution but it has also taken
an unprecedented toll of South Asian peace. Despite the
passage of 68 years and concerted efforts of individuals and
organizations including the UN, the centrality of the dispute
has not been diminished. It still occupies a paramount

NDU Journal 2016 1

 State of HR Violations by Indian Security Forces in IHK:
Background and Current Situation

position in South Asian politics and prevents all meaningful

moves towards the desired normalization of the India-
Pakistan relations. The dispute originated because of
departing British Indian government’s inability to complete
the integration process of states into India or Pakistan before
14th August 1947. Since then both India and Pakistan have
been locked into a bitter struggle to secure the desired
resolution. Not only the two involved countries went to war
twice but also experienced countless violations of what was
initially called UN ceasefire line and later Line of Control
(LOC). Roughly, India occupied two third of state’s territory
whereas Pakistan maintains its control over one third of
Kashmir. Compared to Pakistan’s limited number of forces,
India maintains over 700,000 security personnels in Kashmir.
The presence of large number of Indian security forces is
deemed necessary to suppress Kashmiri’s aspirations for a
promised plebiscite vis-à-vis keep a tight lid over Kashmir
situation. In this connection, the Indian security forces have
not only been regularly indulging in massive human rights
violations of the Kashmiri people but the Indian government
has also facilitated the suppressive regime by imposing many
black laws and consequently transformed what was known as
paradise on earth into a most beautiful prison. To
comprehend the massive human rights violations, this paper
initially discusses the nature of conflict along with Indian and
Pakistani interpretations of the dispute which is followed by
the description of operative black laws and a history of human
rights violations. Finally, it focuses on why the human rights
violations have not been reduced or even effectively checked.

Nature of Dispute

Prior to partition of the Indian subcontinent, the last

Viceroy of British India addressed the Chamber of Princes and
asked them to declare their accession either to India or
Pakistan. In his address, the last Viceroy advised the rulers to
take into considerations before finalizing accession of their
states the aspirations of people and physical proximity of the
state. While most of the Indian states joined India and
Pakistan but the rulers of same states did not decide whether

2 NDU Journal 2016

 Dr. Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

to join India or Pakistan before the partition date. Among

these states, the most prominent were Junagarh, Hyderabad
and Kashmir. While these states were forcibly occupied by
Indian forces soon after the partition, the dispute over
Kashmir not only survived the ups and downs of the last sixty
eight years but also managed to prevent India-Pakistan
normalization rather effectively.

India lodged a complaint with the UN Security Council on

1st January 1948 under chapter VI of the UN Charter that
deals with Pacific Settlement of the Disputes accusing
Pakistan of encouraging tribesmen to invade and violate its
sovereignty1. What is the most intriguing aspect of Indian
accusation is that it did not file the complaint under chapter
VII of the UN Charter that covers threats to peace, breaches of
peace and acts of aggression2. The UN Security Council, after
having heard the two sides passed a resolution on 17th January
1948 asking both the countries to desist from aggravating the
situation and later passed another resolution on 20th January,
establishing a mediatory commission which was later known
as UNCIP (United Commission on India and Pakistan). The
UNCIP visited the area and consulted both the parties and
later passed two resolutions (13th August 1948 and 5th January
1949). These resolutions were accepted by both India and
Pakistan and endorsed by the UN Security Council3. These
resolutions asked for ceasefire, demilitarization of the state
and holding of a free and impartial plebiscite by the UN. These
resolutions not only recognized the principle of self-
determination as the governing principle for dispute
settlement but also gave a firm commitment of the UN to the
people of Kashmir4. Soon after the passage of these
resolutions ceasefire was quickly secured but the issue of
demilitarization continued to remain unresolved though UN
Security Council made concerted efforts through its
periodically appointed special representatives such as Sir
Owen Dixon, Dr. Frank Graham and Gunner Jarring. Since
the desired demilitarization of the state never took place,
plebiscite was never held.

NDU Journal 2016 3

 State of HR Violations by Indian Security Forces in IHK:
Background and Current Situation

For Pakistan, the Kashmir issue is reflective of unfinished

agenda of partition and has, over the years, become a symbol
of Indian obduracy and broken pledges. To the Pakistanis, the
process of Kashmir’s accession to India appeared contrived
and fraudulent. Pakistan wants the implementation of right of
self determination that was promised to the people of Kashmir
by the UN as well as India. As it was included in the UN
resolutions of 13th August 1948 and 5th January 1949 that a
plebiscite, would be held to ascertain the wishes of the people
of Kashmir through a UN supervised plebiscite, Pakistan
insists that the Kashmiris must be allowed to exercise their
promised right of self determination. Indian government
projects the Kashmir issue as a territorial dispute and
Pakistan’s quest for holding of a plebiscite as means to secure
Kashmiri territory. India completely bypasses its own
commitments to hold plebiscite under auspices of the UN.

Indian argument for forcible takeover of Kashmir is based

on ruler’s accession to India and later Indian parliament’s
resolution recognizing Kashmir as an integral part of India5.
Since the right to decide whether to accede to Pakistan or
India was given to the ruler, the ruler had decided in favour of
India. India completely ignores the conditions stipulated by
the last Viceroy that before making a decision whether to join
Pakistan or India the ruler must take into considerations the
physical location of the state and the aspirations of the people
of that particular state. It is interesting to note that when
Junagadh’s ruler decided to accede to Pakistan and the ruler
of Hyderabad opted to stay independent, India forcibly took
over the state justifying the invasion of both the states on the
basis of people’s aspiration. Undoubtedly, vast majority of the
people of Junagadh and Hyderabad were non-Muslims. But
India did not apply the same principle when it forcibly took
over Kashmir and employed the legal argument of ruler’s
prerogative.

Pakistan does not accept Indian arguments and maintains

that it is part of the unfinished agenda of partition and that it
should be resolved through an impartial plebiscite. Not only
the UN had promised to hold the desired plebiscite but also

4 NDU Journal 2016

 Dr. Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

the Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru had repeatedly

and emphatically stressed that the holding of plebiscite was
not only a promise to the people of Kashmir but also to the
world6. Indian Kashmir policy has not only been carefully
crafted but adjusted to suit the changing environment.
Initially, the major pillar of Indian Kashmir policy was ruler’s
right to accede to either of the dominions. During this phase,
India also stressed that the both the Kashmir and Indian
assemblies have already accepted the accession though their
respective resolutions. Later, it changed and began to project
its secular ideology and highlighted the damage that the
departure of the only Muslim majority state could do to the
Union. After signing of Simla Agreement of 1972, India began
to delink the Kashmir dispute from UN and began to assert
the bilateral nature of the dispute which could only be
resolved through a dialogue.

India also argues that she was all the time ready to hold the
plebiscite but the process was obstructed by Pakistan’s refusal
to withdraw troops from the areas of its control. Since
Pakistan was not willing to withdraw troops and in
consequence it was impossible to hold plebiscite, India had no
option but to seek confirmation of accession through the
elected Constituent Assembly which met on 17th November
1956 and confirmed the accession to India. Following
confirmation, the people of Kashmir have been regularly
participating and expressing their views through periodically
held elections. Not only Pakistan does not accept this
argument as other members of the UN share Pakistan’s
interpretation. Pakistan maintains that the dispute should
only be resolved through an impartial plebiscite under the
auspices of the UN as was agreed upon in the resolutions of
13th August 1948 and 5th January 1949.

Black Laws

Last 68 years have witnessed carefully crafted Indian

policy aimed at the avoidance of holding of plebiscite and
gradually introducing more and more what the Kashmiri
people call as the ‘Black laws’ with a view to suppressing the

NDU Journal 2016 5

 State of HR Violations by Indian Security Forces in IHK:
Background and Current Situation

freedom struggle forcibly. These draconian laws have enabled

the Indian security forces to violate human rights without any
fear of criticism or legal entanglement either at home or the
international level. It is somewhat alarming that the Indian
government has not only persecuted innocent Kashmiris but
also focused more on the legal protection of human rights
violators. Even the international community was unable to
effectively influence and restrain the Indian government from
introducing black laws. A series of black laws were enacted
and introduced in IHK that facilitated the Indian security
forces to perpetuate their oppressive regime. The Indian
security forces in IHK include Indian Army, Border Security
Force, Central Reserve Police Force, Special Operations Group
etc. Among a long list of black laws, following are the most
prominent;

 Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (1978 but

amended 1987 1nd 1990). This enables the government
‘to detain a person without trial for two years under the
pretext of maintenance of public order’7. The detainees
are not often informed of the reasons of their arrest and
invariably kept in custody for a much longer time than
what was allowed.
 Jammu and Kashmir Disturbed Areas Act
enables security forces to use ‘force or shoot and have
powers to arrest under the pretext of maintaining the
public order’8.
 Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA)
which was enforced in 1985 and amended in 1987. The
Act ‘gives security forces special powers in the use of
force, arrest and detention. Under the Act, association
with, or preparation for, disruptive activities can lead to
severe punishment up to life imprisonment’9. This Act
was extensively employed in IHK and even after its
lapse it was used. The defense counsel is not allowed to
see witnesses for the prosecution.
 The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA)
was imposed in 1990. This act allowed ‘the Armed
Forces to carry out acts of torture, extra judicial
execution, arbitrary arrests and other human rights

6 NDU Journal 2016

 Dr. Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

abuses’10. Under this act, officers as well as non-

commissioned officers can search any place, stop and
seize any vehicle, fire at any person, arrest him on the
basis of mere suspicion.
 The Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTA)
was passed in 2002 enabling the force to detain
Kashmiri people ‘for three months without framing
charges against them’11. It needs to be mentioned here
that it has been withdrawn because of massive
denunciation by the individuals and organizations at
the international level12. POTA enabled security forces
to enjoy extraordinary powers
 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment
Ordinance 2004 ‘provides extraordinary powers to
security agencies similar to those previously provided
by the POTA’13.
 National Security Act (NSA) enables forces to
detain someone without any charge or trial for almost a
year on the basis of preventing him ‘acting in a manner
prejudicial to state security or relations with foreign
powers’. Similarly, Official Secrets Act (OSA)
enables the government to restrict or even stop
publication critical of government14.
 The Newspapers Incitement to Offences Act
1971 and the Criminal Procedure Code give ‘special
powers to authorities ‘to search and arrest without a
warrant’15.
 In addition to the above mentioned black laws, Enemy
Agent Ordinance 1948, the Egress and Internal
Movement (control) Ordinance 1948,
prevention of Unlawful Activities 1963 and
Subversion and Sabotage Act 1965, Official
Secret Act (OSA) have also been employed in
Kashmir to deal with periodically emerging situations16.

For obvious reason, these laws impede the process of

justice and damage the human dignity. These laws deny the
basic rights to the accused on one hand and strengthen the
hands of the security forces on the other. In many ways, these
laws facilitate the government in protecting and shielding the

NDU Journal 2016 7

 State of HR Violations by Indian Security Forces in IHK:
Background and Current Situation

perpetrators of human rights violations from prosecution. It is

not very unusual practice in IHK to deny the basic information
such as under what law or charge an individual is detained for
some times. These laws provide the necessary cover to
atrocities perpetrated by the security forces. Mental torture,
humiliation and third degree methods are frequently
employed. Ever since the freedom struggle intensified
particularly in late 1980s and early 1990s, India has unleashed
state terrorism in IHK.

Human Rights Violations

Not only the preamble of International Covenants on

Human Rights recognizes that in accordance with the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ‘the ideal of free
human beings enjoy freedom from fear and want, can only be
achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may
enjoy his economic, social and cultural rights as well as his
civil and political rights. While the preamble of the UN
Charter reaffirms faith in the fundamental human rights, its
Article 1 specifically states that the purpose of UN is ‘to
achieve international cooperation in solving international
problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian
character and in promoting and encouraging respect for
human rights and for fundamental freedom for all without
distinction as to race, sex, language or religion’17. The
intensification of state terrorism in IHK resulted in increased
acts of brutalities. Among these brutal acts include fake
encounters, illegal detentions, unnecessary crackdowns,
undesired curfews, massacres of innocents, targeted killings,
sieges, arson, torture, disappearances, unmarked graves,
frequent rapes, and molestation of women etc. The enactment
of the black laws enables the security forces to provide a cover
to brutalities practiced in IHK. According to Amnesty
International Report of 1995, AFSPA ‘clearly contravene
international human rights standard laid down in the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’18.

The people of Kashmir have experienced brutal

suppression since the advent of Dogra raj in the state of

8 NDU Journal 2016

 Dr. Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

Jammu and Kashmir in 1846. During the British rule,

complaints against Maharaja’s oppression were frequently
sent. In response to these complaints of oppressive tactics, the
British Indian government appointed Glancy Commission to
investigate Muslim grievances and as a result of Glancy’s
Commission’s report, Maharaja was asked to introduce
reforms19. In accordance with recommendations of Glancy
Commission, not only limited land reforms were introduced
but also a legislative assembly came in to existence 20.
Following the partition of British India, the role of oppressor
devolved upon the successor governments of India. Since the
passage of UN Security Resolutions on Kashmir and the
emergence of Kashmir as a disputed territory which was
recognized by many countries, the people of Kashmir have
experienced innumerable human rights violations. It needs to
be stressed here that since the intensification of freedom
struggle in 1989, Kashmir has been a sight of vicious conflict
between the security forces and the Kashmiri freedom fighters
as the intensity of human rights violations has rapidly and
massively multiplied. Thousands of Kashmiris have been
arbitrarily arrested and still continue to be arrested under the
existing black laws which provide the security forces immunity
from prosecution. In addition, thousands of people have died
in custody and many have been executed through secretly
arranged encounters and buried in unmarked graves. Many
deaths are products of what the forces officially claim to be
victims of cross fire.

Undoubtedly, the continuous violations of human rights in

IHK is reflective of not only the attitude and arrogance of
Indian government towards the people of Kashmir, but also its
disdain demonstrated towards the international human rights
watch organizations. Despite the repeated and persistent
condemnation of human rights violations in IHK by the
international human rights watch groups, India does not seem
to have been moved or even impressed by such
condemnations. It continues to carry on with its policy of
suppression and brutalization of the Kashmiris with impunity.
Despite the fact that the HR organizations have sent repeated
reminders and appeals, not much action has been initiated

NDU Journal 2016 9

 State of HR Violations by Indian Security Forces in IHK:
Background and Current Situation

against the perpetrators. However, in some cases such as the

rape of Canadian tourists, symbolic and cosmetic proceedings
were initiated with a view to dupe and divert the world
opinion21. Periodically, Amnesty International has been
confronting the Indian authorities with numerous cases of
human rights violations ‘in order to get them resolved or to get
some judicial oversight on them but the government response
remains disappointing’22.

Indian brutalities in IHK represent a worst example of

state terrorism in the modern history of mankind. While India
regularly projects the mantra of being the largest democracy,
it has also become the most prominent human rights violator
in the world. A long list of illegal arrests, unlawful killings,
rapes, burning of properties have been compiled and
projected by the local as well as international human rights
organizations, but no change in Indian attitude and policy has
been witnessed. The Indian authorities continue to regularly
employ suppressive and brutal tactics with complete
immunity. Both rapes and torture have indeed become regular
elements of security forces policy to intimidate the local
population.

Various sources have periodically published figures of

human rights violations in IHK. The striking feature of these
HR violations figures is continuously upwards movement of
the curve. Perhaps that’s why some Kashmiri leaders have
termed it as a ‘systematic genocide’. The latest available
figures covering a period from January 1989 to January 2016
are listed below:

 Total Killings 94,305

 Custodial Killings 7,042
 Civilian arrested 132,734
 Structures arsoned/destroyed 106,055
 Women widowed 22,808
 Children orphaned 107,550
 Women gang-raped/molested 10,16923

10 NDU Journal 2016

 Dr. Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

Undoubtedly, the Indian security forces have

systematically violated human rights and humanitarian law.
While some human rights watch organizations have risen the
issues periodically with the government of India, the response
has been cleverly devised policy of evasion, delays, no
response and denial. Even some groups have not been able to
gain access to Kashmir (OIC Contact Group) as the Indian
government refused to allow them to visit Kashmir and
hounded those who somehow or the other have already gained
access to the disputed area. Allowing independent monitoring
could expose the excesses committed by Indian security
forces. Instead, the main objective of the draconian laws is to
cover the excesses committed by the Indian security forces
and facilitate them suppress the freedom struggle.

Negligible Progress

The conflict situation in Kashmir continues to be extremely

dangerous and massive human rights violations are regularly
documented by various organizations that are constantly
watching HR violations in IHK, not much improvement has
been registered so far. Indian tendency to put the blame on
outsiders continues to be the hallmark of their policy pursuits.
Many factors account for negligible progress in this regard.
Undoubtedly, the main factor is Indian governments’
obduracy and unwillingness to undertake corrective path in
accordance with the advice, appeals and measures suggested
by the human rights groups and organizations. According to a
report prepared by Srinagar based International People’s
Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Indian –
Administered Kashmir (IPTK) and the Association of Parents
of Disappeared Persons (APDP), it is the policy ‘not to
genuinely investigate or prosecute the armed forces for human
rights violations’.24 On the contrary, the reward money for
killing Kashmiri youth fighting against India rule in the
occupied territory has been increased25. In addition, the
Indian government does not allow any independent
monitoring of the situation in Kashmir26.

NDU Journal 2016 11

 State of HR Violations by Indian Security Forces in IHK:
Background and Current Situation

Second factor revolves around lack of interest on the part

of great powers, which in turn, encouraged the Indian
authorities to continue their adopted policy pursuit without
any remorse or compulsions. However, it needs to stress that
all the major human rights groups/organizations have been
regularly highlighting brutal violations of human rights in
Kashmir and vociferously condemning India. In some cases,
India has been projected as the greatest violator of human
rights. The efforts of Amnesty International, Asia Watch, and
International Committee for Red Cross along with many other
human right watchers are not only commendable but
managed to invoke short term interest in many countries. It is
rather unfortunate that big powers continue to demonstrate
double standards. Their policies amply reflect preferences to
trading interests and relationship with India than human
rights in IHK. However, it needs to mention here that if rights
of a European or an American or any other individual or
organization of the developed world are violated, they quickly
not only condemn it but also undertake some kind of punitive
measures. In case of HR violations in Kashmir, the option that
has been so far demonstrated, is either an evasive statement
or ambiguous silence.

Third factor that has effectively impeded the desired

improvement in reducing human rights violations in IHK is
the prevailing conflict situation in South Asia. With a carefully
crafted propaganda policy, India has been able to attribute it
as a by-product of South Asian conflict cobweb to a
considerable extent. While Pakistan has been continuously
striving for Kashmir’s resolution, India has been constantly
engaged in projecting the Kashmir dispute between India and
Pakistan as a territorial dispute and scrupulously avoided
projecting the true nature of the dispute. It avoids mentioning
its commitment to UN Security Council’s resolutions
regarding the holding of a plebiscite with a view to ascertain
the wishes of the people of Kashmir. After the passage of
Simla Agreement of 1972 and the consequent transformation
of UN Cease-fire Line into Line of Control (LOC), its entire
focus has been to delink Kashmir from UN commitments.
Initially, it began to project Kashmir as a bilateral dispute

12 NDU Journal 2016

 Dr. Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

between India and Pakistan and later as an integral part of

India. The recent two judgments by Srinagar High Court
clearly stressed that Kashmir is not an integral part of India27.

Fourth factor that has not helped in improving human

rights situation in IHK is the lack of low level or no interest
shown by the United Nations despite the facts that has
established a human rights council. Until the advent of 1960s,
the UN was actively pursuing efforts to resolve the Kashmir
issue but then it began to demonstrate an indifferent approach
coupled with cleverly devised side tracking efforts of the
Indian governments. Recently, the current Secretary General
of UN Ban Ki-moon has offered his services in order to resolve
the Kashmir dispute provided both the countries make a
request to him. He also stressed that the peace in Kashmir
‘can only be achieved through dialogue’. He also confessed
that UN’s role has been very limited but also asserted that it
can play the role of a truly neutral mediator28. Indeed even the
Americans also sought to play similar type of role provided
both parties accept the mediation of the US. Equally
responsible are the big powers, deemed to be the guardians of
world peace, for not focusing on Kashmir dispute.

To reduce human rights violations and improve the

situation of IHK, the international community as well as UN
has to play active and concerted role in this regard. It is often
said that the UN has become a maid servant of major powers
whose trading interests override any other considerations.
Therefore, it is up to the great powers to play their role
judiciously and actively. The international community can
impress upon the Indian government to improve its record of
human rights violations. An impartial inquiry commission or a
UN commission can be established to look into all reported
cases of human rights violations. For obvious reasons that the
Indian government would try to block this kind of move or
refuse to accept such a course of action, the UN must seriously
think ways and means how to influence Indian government
and secure the desired compliance. In addition, the UN in
consultation with great powers should seriously consider
strengthening UN’s mediation and conflict prevention

NDU Journal 2016 13

 State of HR Violations by Indian Security Forces in IHK:
Background and Current Situation

capabilities29. Time has come that collective approach is once

again adopted in order to effectively maintain international
peace. It needs to be highlighted here that the UN or other
countries desiring to reduce the human rights violations in
IHK, should be mindful of the fact that India has
demonstrated in the past its ability to block, delay and side
track such moves. Credit goes to the Indian authorities who
always have bagful of tricks. When the hollowness of one
excuse becomes visible, it immediately diverts the attention of
international community by projecting its replacement by
another.

Notes
1Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International
Court of Justice, (New York: United Nations, August 1971) pp.19-21.
2 Ibid, pp.22-28.
3 For details see G.W. Chaudhury, Pakistan’s Relations with India
1947-1966 (London: Pall Mall Press, 1966) pp.68-75. Also see S.M. Burke,
Pakistan Foreign Policy: An Historical Analysis, (Karachi: Oxford
University Press, 1973).
4 See Kashmir-The History
http:www.pakun.org//Kashmir/history.php retrieved on 28th Jan.2016
5 Many scholars have frequently questioned the India argument based on
legality of Kashmir’s accession. For details see Alastair Lamb Birth of a
Tragedy: Kashmir 1947 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994) pp.81-
103.
6See Indian prime minister’s broadcast to the nation(All India Radio, 2 nd
November, 1947), pp.72-75. For further details about the repeated
assertion of the promise see the documents in The Kashmir Question
edited by K. Sarwar Hassan (Karachi: Pakistan Institute of International
Affairs, 1966), pp.39-177.
7 See ‘Draconian Laws and Human Rights Violation’ by Usman Hassan in
Kashmir : Challenges & Prospects, compiled by Sahibzada Sultan
Ahmad Ali (Islamabad: Muslim Institute, 2014), pp. 69-75. Also see
‘Draconian Laws in Indian Occupied Kashmir’ Compiled by Sultan
Ahmad, (Islamabad: Special Committee of the Parliament on Kashmir),
pp. 3-8.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.

14 NDU Journal 2016

 Dr. Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.
17See ‘A history of Human Rights violationbs in Indian Held Kashmir’ by
Syed Nazir Gilani in Fifty Years of Kashmir Dispute edited by Suroosh
Irfani (Muzaffarabad: University of Jammu and Kashmir, 1997), pp.155-
160.
18 See details listed under Armed Forces Special Powers Act 1958 in
Wikipedia https://en.
Wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_abuses_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir
retrieved on 28th Jan.2016
19 See Josef Korbel, Danger in Kashmir, (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1`954) P. 18. Also see Prithivi Nath Kaul Bamzai,
‘Kashmir and Power Politics: From Lake Success to Tashkent’, (Delhi:
Metropolitan Book Co. (P) Ltd., 1966) pp. 67-69.
20See Azadi: Kashmir Freedom Struggle 1974-1998 edited by
Khalid Hasan (Lahore: Printing Professionals, 1999), pp.5-10.
21 Even after the conviction of two army soldiers who were involved in the
rape of the Canadian tourists were not sent to prison but continue to
remain in the army barracks. See ‘Human rights violations in Kashmir and
the UN’ by Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema in The Frontier Post, Oct. 10, 1993.
22 See Human right violations in IOK,
http://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa20/oo2/1995/en/ and also
see ‘Alleged perpetrators stories of impunity in Jammu and Kashmir’
http://kashmirprocess.org/reports/alleged Perpetrators.pdf
23 For further details see Kashmir Media Service,
http://www.kmsnews.org/news/? Retrieved on 16th Feb.2016
24 See India Ignoring Rights Abuses in Kashmir by Amrutha
Gayathri, http://www.ibtimes.com/india-ignoring-rights-abuses-
kashmir-report-926263
25According to the Secretary General of London based NGO Jammu and
Kashmir Council for Human Rights (JKCHR) which has a special
consultative status with UN that Kashmiri Muslim youth has been
categorized into A++, A+, A, B and C categories. Reward money for killing
A++ category is Rs. 1.25 million, for A+ category ranges from 500,000 to

NDU Journal 2016 15

 State of HR Violations by Indian Security Forces in IHK:
Background and Current Situation

750,000, for A category ranges from 300,000 to 500,000, for B category

ranges from 200,000 t0 300,000 and for C category it ranges from
100,000 to 200,000. See The News, Feb20, 2016.
26See Prof Marco Lomdardi’s speech in ‘Global Discourse on Kashmir
2006’ (Brussels: ICHR Kashmir Centre, 2007) pp.70-71.
For details see ‘Kashmir talks: a legal obligation’ by Ahmer Bilal Soofi in
27

Dawn, December 1, 2016.

28 See ‘How could the UN help resolve the Kashmir dispute’,
http://www.dw.com/en/how-could-the-un-help-resolve-the-kashmir-
dispute/a-18120254
29See Pakistani Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi’s speech in UN, The News,
Feb 19, 2016.

16 NDU Journal 2016