[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DECADES OF TERROR: EXPLORING HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES IN KASHMIR AND THE
DISPUTED TERRITORIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND WELLNESS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 12, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-212
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2004
96-410 PDF
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DOUG OSE, California DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
RON LEWIS, Kentucky DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
CHRIS CANNON, Utah DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan Maryland
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Columbia
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas JIM COOPER, Tennessee
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee ------ ------
PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio ------
KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
(Independent)
Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director
David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnet, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
CHRIS CANNON, Utah DIANE E. WATSON, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida (Independent)
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Mark Walker, Chief of Staff
Mindi Walker, Professional Staff Member
Danielle Perraut, Clerk
Richard Butcher, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 12, 2004..................................... 1
Statement of:
Inayatullah, Attiya, aid worker; Gurmit Singh Aulakh,
president, Council of Khalistan; Ghulam-Nabi Fai, executive
director, Kashmiri American Council; Selig Harrison,
director of the Asia Program, Center for International
Policy; and Bob Giuda, chairman, Americans for Resolution
of Kashmir................................................. 52
Kozak, Michael, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau
of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, U.S. State
Department; and Don Camp, Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Bureau of South Asian Affairs, U.S. State Department....... 9
Kumar, T., advocacy director for Asia, Amnesty International-
USA........................................................ 37
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Ackerman, Hon. Gary L., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York, prepared statement of................... 22
Aulakh, Gurmit Singh, president, Council of Khalistan,
prepared statement of...................................... 65
Burton, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Indiana, prepared statement of.......................... 4
Crowley, Hon. Joseph, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York, article dated May 12, 2004.............. 28
Fai, Ghulam-Nabi, executive director, Kashmiri American
Council, prepared statement of............................. 90
Giuda, Bob, chairman, Americans for Resolution of Kashmir,
prepared statement of...................................... 101
Harrison, Selig, director of the Asia Program, Center for
International Policy, prepared statement of................ 77
Inayatullah, Attiya, aid worker, prepared statement of....... 54
Kozak, Michael, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau
of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, U.S. State
Department, prepared statement of.......................... 13
Kumar, T., advocacy director for Asia, Amnesty International-
USA, prepared statement of................................. 40
Pallone, Hon. Frank, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, prepared statement of................. 108
Ros-Lehtinen, Hon. Ileana, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Florida, prepared statement of................ 105
Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State
of South Carolina, prepared statement of................... 112
DECADES OF TERROR: EXPLORING HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES IN KASHMIR AND THE
DISPUTED TERRITORIES
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 2004
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Burton
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Burton, Cummings, and Watson.
Also present: Representatives Ackerman, Crowley, Pitts,
Wilson, Pallone, Pence, Rohrabacher, and Faleomavaega.
Staff present: Mark Walker, chief of staff; Mindi Walker,
Brian Fauls, and Dan Getz, professional staff members; Nick
Mutton, press secretary; Danielle Perraut, clerk; Richard
Butcher, minority professional staff member; and Cecelia
Morton, minority office manager.
Mr. Burton. Good morning. A quorum being present, the
Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness will come to order.
Given the large number of witnesses we have today, for the
purposes of today's hearing, I ask unanimous consent that oral
opening statements by the committee be limited to the chairman
and ranking minority member. And without objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that all Members' and witnesses'
written and opening statements be included in the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that all articles, exhibits, and
extraneous or tabular material referred to by Members or
witnesses be included in the record. Without objection, so
ordered.
We have had a great deal of interest from other Members of
Congress about participating in this hearing. So I ask
unanimous consent that the following Members and any other
Member who may attend today's hearing be considered as a member
of the subcommittee for the purposes of receiving testimony and
questioning witnesses. Representatives Ackerman, Crowley,
Pitts, Wilson, Pallone, Pence, Rohrabacher, and Mr.
Faleomavaega, we will allow you to sit in and question the
witnesses. Without objection, so ordered.
We have had numerous amendments and discussions on the
floor of the House over the years, and Mr. Ackerman, Mr.
Faleomavaega, and I and others have been involved in those,
regarding the problems that have arisen in the area known as
Kashmir and in Punjab, which is in that general region as well.
There have been, as everybody knows, paramilitary forces up
there fighting the Indian military because of disagreements
over the status of Kashmir and Punjab for a long, long time. In
the late 1940's, 1948, there were resolutions passed by the
United Nations General Assembly stating that there should be a
plebiscite on the determination of the future of Kashmir and
that entire region. Unfortunately, those have never been
honored. There have been subsequent discussions and resolutions
and everything else that has taken place, and as a result,
there has been tremendous problems and heartache for tens and
hundreds of thousands of people who live in that area.
The paramilitary forces up there that have been involved in
the fight for independence and for a plebiscite have gone
beyond the pale as well. This is something that we have not
discussed a great deal in the past, but there have been some
terrible things that have been happening at the hands of the
paramilitary forces that have been fighting the military of the
Indian government. Nevertheless, the atrocities that have been
taking place at the hands of the Indian government, as far as
we have been able to tell, have been extraordinarily brutal.
And that is what we are here to find out about today, the
latest update on that, and to find out what can be done by the
United States to influence the Indian government and the
paramilitary forces over there to solve this problem.
We had a hearing scheduled earlier this year and we
postponed it because there were going to be elections taking
place in India, and also because there were pending talks
between the Pakistani government and the Indian government on
the issue of Kashmir. There have been two wars fought in that
area over this very contentious issue, and we did not want to
impede the process of negotiations between India and Pakistan
on this issue, and so we postponed our hearing. We were
requested to postpone it again but we have people who have come
from half-way around the world to testify here today, and so we
talked to the State Department and they agreed. We appreciate
very much you being here to testify and to bring us up to date
because we did not want to try to send people half-way back
around the world who had come this far to testify for a second
time.
The figures that we have are that there have been 87,678
people killed by Indian troops, there have been 104,380 houses
or shops burned by Indian troops, there have been 105,210
children orphaned, 9,297 women raped or molested, and 21,826
women widowed. Now those are the figures we get from the people
who are in positions to know regarding the atrocities
perpetrated by the Indian military. We also have information
that there have been some atrocities perpetrated by the
military, and we condemn them as well. But the preponderance of
the problem, in the opinion of the Chair, has been because of
the Indian military up there. Now this is not just the Chair's
opinion. I would like to read to my colleagues a statement that
was made by the government of the United States regarding the
human rights situation in Kashmir. This is a quote from the
Statement Department's own ``2003 Country Reports on Human
Rights Practices'' for India:
The Government generally respected the human rights of its
citizens; however, numerous serious problems remained.
Significant human rights abuses included: Extrajudicial
killings, including faked encounter killings, custodial deaths
throughout the country, and excessive use of force by security
forces combating active insurgencies in Jammu and Kashmir and
several northeastern states; torture and rape by police and
other agents of the government; poor prison conditions;
arbitrary arrest and incommunicado detention in Jammu and
Kashmir and the northeast; continued detention throughout the
country of thousands arrested under special security
legislation; lengthy pretrial detention without charge;
prolonged detention while undergoing trial; occasional limits
on freedom of the press and freedom of movement; harassment and
arrest of human rights monitors; extensive societal violence
against women; legal and societal discrimination against women;
forced prostitution; child prostitution and female infanticide;
discrimination against persons with disabilities; serious
discrimination and violence against indigenous people and
scheduled castes and tribes; widespread intercaste and communal
violence; religiously motivated violence against Muslims and
Christians; widespread exploitation of indentured, bonded, and
child labor; and trafficking in women and children.
Accountability remained a serious problem in Jammu and
Kashmir. Security forces committed thousands of serious human
rights violations over the course of the 14-year conflict,
including extra judicial killings, disappearances, and torture.
Despite this record of abuse, only a few hundred members of the
security forces have been prosecuted and punished since 1990
for human rights violations or other crimes. Punishments ranged
from reduction in rank to imprisonment for up to 10 years.
Country-wide, there were allegations that military and
paramilitary forces engaged in abduction, torture, rape,
arbitrary detention, and the extrajudicial killing of militants
and noncombatant civilians, particularly in areas of
insurgencies. Human rights groups alleged that police often
faked encounters to cover up the torture and subsequent killing
of both militants and noncombatants.
We appreciate your being here today. We will allow our
colleagues to question you and make comments during the
question and answer period. And if you could give us an update,
we would really appreciate it.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Dan Burton follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Burton. Right now, I would like to have you stand and
be sworn.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Burton. We will start with you, Secretary Kozak. Thank
you very much for being here, and I hope you will thank the
Secretary of State for sending you over. We appreciate it very
much.
STATEMENTS OF MICHAEL KOZAK, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND LABOR, U.S.
STATE DEPARTMENT; AND DON CAMP, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
BUREAU OF SOUTH ASIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Kozak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify on the human rights situation in Kashmir. There is no
doubt that the Kashmir issue is potentially one of the world's
most dangerous. Kashmir is the focus of the rift between India
and Pakistan and has been the flash point for several India-
Pakistan conflicts. The conflict is at the root of the serious
abuses of human rights that Kashmiri residents have suffered
for years.
We have seen the devastating effects that political
instability and civil strife have had on the lives of innocent
Kashmiri civilians. From President Bush on down, the United
States has consistently called for an easing of the tensions
between India and Pakistan as vital to regional security and
stability and to an improvement of the human rights situation.
As the President has said, dialog is the best way to achieve a
peaceful resolution of the Kashmir issue.
The United States is encouraged by the positive step taken
by India and Pakistan in February to resume their dialog after
a 3-year hiatus. We praise the leaders of India and Pakistan
for their courage and foresight and hope that the reduction of
tensions between these two adversaries will represent the
beginning of an end to the suffering of the Kashmiri people.
President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee met in January
2004 and agreed to initiate a dialog on all issues, including
Kashmir. Talks moved quickly to the Foreign Secretary level,
and Foreign Ministers of both countries are scheduled to meet
in August.
There is still much to be done, however. It is the policy
of the United States to do all we can to ensure the success of
these efforts and to support the confidence building measures.
These measures include the return of High Commissioners,
cricket matches between the two national teams, and resumption
of some transport links. Talks on nuclear-related confidence
building measures are scheduled to begin later this month. Also
important in terms of improving the lives of Kashmiri
civilians, a cease-fire along the Line of Control and the
Siachen Glacier was put in place in November 2003 that still
holds. As engagement grows between the two sides, it is U.S.
policy to encourage all participants in the conflict in Kashmir
to work to eliminate the human rights abuses that have become
all too common there.
Our annual human rights report, which you quoted from, Mr.
Chairman, documents our concern and gives examples of the
abuses that take place all too frequently. Let me summarize the
situation that consists of abuses against innocent civilians
perpetrated by Kashmiri and foreign militant and terrorist
groups and of abuses committed by the Indian security forces.
While the two are interrelated, the actions of one side cannot
justify abuses by the other. It is our policy to hold all
parties accountable for their own abuses. Two wrongs do not
make a right.
Kashmiri and foreign militant and terrorist groups are
responsible for execution style killings of civilians,
including several political leaders and party workers. These
groups are also responsible for kidnappings, rapes, extortion,
and acts of random terror that have killed hundreds of
Kashmiris. Many of the militants are Pakistani and other
foreign nationals. Militants also regularly execute alleged
government informants. The Indian Home Ministry says that
militants killed 808 civilians in 2003, compared with 967 in
2002, either number is an unacceptable loss of innocent life.
Kashmiri militant and terrorist groups also target other
ethnic or religious communities, including numerous execution
style mass killings of Hindu (Pandit), Sikh, and Buddhist
villagers in Jammu and Kashmir. Militants also engage in random
acts of terror, including the use of time-delayed explosives,
land mines, hand grenades, rockets, and snipers.
Extremist militants have also attempted to enforce dress
codes on women. In the Rajouri region of Kashmir, the militant
groups Jamiat-ul-Mujahideen and Shariati Nefazi Islami ordered
Muslim women to wear burqas, and three women were killed for
not obeying these orders in 2003.
Intimidation by military groups has resulted in restraints
on press freedom. The local press continued to face pressure
from militant groups attempting to influence coverage. Kashmiri
militant groups continue to threaten, through attacks or
intimidation, journalists and editors, and even forced the
temporary closing of some publications that were critical of
their activities. Intimidation by militant groups caused
significant self-censorship by journalists.
Members of the Indian Government security forces continued
to be responsible for extrajudicial killings, custodial deaths,
excessive use of force, torture, rape, arbitrary arrest, and
other serious abuses of human rights, despite the fact that the
Indian Constitution strictly protects human rights.
According to published accounts and other sources, persons
detained by security forces were later alleged to have been
killed in armed encounters, and their bodies, often bearing
multiple bullet wounds and marks of torture, were returned to
relatives or otherwise were discovered shortly afterwards.
It is often difficult to obtain reliable information about
the condition of people being detained in Jammu and Kashmir
because many are in detention pursuant to special security
legislation. This legislation includes the Armed Forces Jammu
and Kashmir Special Powers Act of 1990, the Public Safety Act,
and the Armed Forces Special Powers Act of 1958.
A number of persons ``disappear'' each year in Kashmir.
Reporting on the number of disappeared varies and underscores
the difficulty in determining whether persons who have
disappeared did so while in security force custody or after
capture by insurgent groups or for reasons unrelated to the
armed conflict. In 2003, while the Jammu and Kashmir state
government announced that 3,931 persons remained missing in the
state since 1990, a nongovernmental agency called the
Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons placed the number
at more than 8,000.
The U.S. Government abhors violence and human rights
abuses, wherever they take place. We deplore the human rights
abuses committed by Kashmiri and foreign terrorists as well as
militant groups and we deplore human rights abuses perpetrated
by Indian security forces. We have urged the government of
Pakistan to take steps to end support from its territory to
both foreign and Kashmiri terrorists and militants. We have
also urged the government of India to take steps to end abuses
by its security forces, including prosecution of those
responsible.
We are gratified that the Jammu and Kashmir state
government has taken some steps to hold accountable those in
the security forces found to be responsible for human rights
abuses. In June 2003, the government announced that 118 members
of the security forces had been punished for having committed
human rights violations. A senior superintendent of police was
suspended by the Jammu and Kashmir government for allegedly
falsifying the DNA samples of five civilians killed in fake
armed encounters in March 2000. A ministerial subcommittee
headed by the Deputy Chief Minister recommended severe
punishment for three police officers and two doctors for
tampering with evidence.
We are also encouraged by the prominent role that human
rights issues are playing in the dialog initiated by Deputy
Prime Minister Advani and the Kashmiri separatist All-Parties
Hurriyat Conference. The two sides have met twice, in January
22 and March 27, in the first dialog the government of India
has initiated with the Hurriyat since the insurgency began in
Jammu and Kashmir in 1989. The Deputy Prime Minister has
responded to some concerns raised by leaders of the separatist
All Parties Hurriyat Conference and other Kashmiri politicians
and civic leaders on continuing human rights abuses in the
state. For example, he issued instructions to security forces
not to commit human rights violations of any kind. At a recent
press conference, the Deputy Prime Minister noted that, ``The
security forces must have a human face, with ordinary civilians
not falling victim to their bullets.''
We understand that these are only initial steps and that
many obstacles remain. Today's reality, unfortunately, is that
numerous human rights abuses persist, as we have documented
thoroughly in our annual Country Reports. By the way, the
report can be found on the State Department Web site at
www.state.gov. Nonetheless, we are confident that continued
dialog between India and Pakistan, between New Delhi and the
Kashmiris has the potential to improve human rights in Jammu
and Kashmir.
In the meantime, the U.S. Government would welcome greater
transparency by the Indian government to allow independent
monitoring of alleged human rights abuses by the security
forces in Jammu and Kashmir.
The government of Pakistan has a responsibility as well. We
continue to urge the government of Pakistan to end any support
for cross-border infiltration and to terminate support within
Pakistan for militant groups. Pakistan has pledged that no
territory under its control will be used to support terrorism
in any manner. President Musharraf has attempted to influence
domestic opinion toward developing a ``moderate, stable
Pakistan at peace with its neighbors.'' He also gave a Kashmir
Day speech that was more moderate in tone than in past years,
stating that Pakistan support for Kashmir should be political,
not military. Infiltration levels appear to be down and we hope
they will stay down as the snows melt. Pakistan continues its
efforts to designate terrorist groups and freeze terrorist
assets. We are working with Pakistan to end infiltration of
terrorists across the Line of Control, by strengthening
counter-terrorism capability, and by developing positive
education and employment opportunities. We continue to urge the
government of Pakistan to disband militant training camps in
its territory.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me stress again that the
United States remains deeply concerned about the human rights
situation in Kashmir. We are cautiously encouraged by recent
positive developments in the relationship between Pakistan and
India while hold promise for real improvement in the human
rights situation in Kashmir. As our human rights report and our
policymake clear, the people of Kashmir deserve an opportunity
to live their lives peacefully and without fear. We call on
both government security forces and militants to cease
activities that deny the Kashmiri people this opportunity,
including an end to the abuse of human rights by all sides in
the conflict. At the same time, we are encouraging efforts by
India and Pakistan to defuse tensions and to reach a peaceful
and lasting resolution of the Kashmir problem, which should
improve the prospects for reducing and ultimately eliminating
the continuing human rights abuses there. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kozak follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Kozak.
Before we go on, the ranking member is here. Do you have a
comment you would like to make?
Ms. Watson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The events of the past
have cast a shadow over the efforts to bring about a Kashmir
settlement between India and Pakistan. But recent events have
changed the fundamental dynamic that now exists in favor of
peace in the Kashmir region. While diplomats and leaders will
continue to attempt to make a peace agreement, peace itself can
only be made by the Indian and the Pakistani people. And if
there is any optimism to be found on the issue of Kashmir, it
is in the talks that are moving forward at the current time.
The implementation of peace also relies on the willingness of
the United States and the rest of the world to encourage
negotiations and mediations without violence.
So I want to thank Secretary Kozak and the Honorable Don
Camp of the State Department for their attendance today, and I
am eager to hear others' testimony as well. Mr. Chairman, I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Burton. Thank you. I guess you are here, Mr. Camp, in
place of Mr. Goode; is that correct?
Mr. Camp. That is correct.
Mr. Burton. You are welcome to make a statement if you
would like.
Mr. Camp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no additional
statement to make. I am prepared to answer questions.
Mr. Burton. Very good. I think what I will do, since I have
so many of my colleagues here, is let them start the
questioning and then I will conclude the questioning of this
panel. So we will start with my good buddy, Mr. Ackerman.
Incidently, because we have got three panels, Gary, if we could
try to keep our questioning to around 5 minutes.
Mr. Ackerman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me say
on behalf of all of us who are not members of the committee, to
both you and the ranking member, we appreciate your generosity
in allowing us to participate in this important hearing. And I
want to thank you especially for your ongoing interest in this
part of the world.
Is it possible that in a democracy, even a great democracy,
if it has fighting men and women in uniform in an area where
they are trying to control terrorism and terrorists, and that
great army of that great democracy has members amongst them,
even a minority amongst them, commit atrocities, mayhem, and
things condemnable by all civil people, is it possible that
those people are acting alone or is it a government policy to
which you would attribute that activity?
Mr. Kozak. You are asking the question in a sort of general
status?
Mr. Ackerman. We could start out that way.
Mr. Kozak. OK. Obviously, both can be true. In many cases
you have people acting on their own, and in other cases you
have deliberate policy. I guess my experience has been that
democracies do not tend to, because they tend to be more open
societies, do not tend to have ordered government policies to
commit terrible abuses.
Mr. Ackerman. The atrocities that have taken place at the
hands of a few American soldiers in Iraq, is that official U.S.
policy?
Mr. Kozak. Of course not.
Mr. Ackerman. And the atrocities that have taken place in
the state of Jammu and Kashmir, is that official Indian
government policy?
Mr. Kozak. It certainly does not track with the stated
policy of the Indian government.
Mr. Camp. And if I may add. The statement that my colleague
just made referred to members of the security forces are
responsible for as opposed to a larger pie that India is
responsible for.
Mr. Ackerman. That was duly noted. I think it is fair to
say that a great deal of the violence in Kashmir over the last
15 years has been perpetuated by militants infiltrating from or
through Pakistan across the Line of Control. Given repeated
requests by the U.S. Government and India as well that Pakistan
halt that type of infiltration, do you think that Pakistan
bears some of the responsibility for the deaths of so many
people?
Mr. Camp. I think it is our view that the people committing
the acts are responsible, sir. I think our position on
Pakistan's role is very clear, that we have been very insistent
with Pakistan that support for any infiltration be ended,
because there are people in Kashmir who are committing these
acts who are not from the inside of Kashmir.
Mr. Ackerman. Where are they from?
Mr. Camp. They are from many places, but some of them
certainly are from Pakistan.
Mr. Ackerman. Is there a particular area that they come
through? What is their last point of embarkation before they
arrive in Kashmir?
Mr. Camp. The Line of Control is a lengthy demarcation
between the Indian side and the Pakistani side of Kashmir and
they have certainly come across from the Pakistani side.
Mr. Ackerman. Is Kashmir doing all that it can to prevent
that from happening?
Mr. Camp. I think that we have been pleased that there has
been a cease-fire along the Line of Control by India and
Pakistan.
Mr. Ackerman. I am pleased too, but that was not my
question. Are the Pakistanis doing everything they can do to
prevent that from happening?
Mr. Camp. We think that they are making substantial efforts
and that those efforts have been borne out by a decrease in
infiltrations.
Mr. Ackerman. Has the infiltration continued this spring as
it has in the past?
Mr. Camp. I would say the infiltration that we are aware
of, and this is difficult to verify, is lower than in the past.
I think some Indian officials as well have been quoted to that
effect.
Mr. Ackerman. What is the state of play between us and
Pakistan? When was the last time that we might have insisted
that they improve on their record?
Mr. Camp. I would say that Assistant Secretary Rocca is in
Pakistan today, is planning to meet or has already met with
President Musharraf, and I know that this is one of her points
to make to President Musharraf.
Mr. Ackerman. We have seen several press reports that
indicate that the voter turnout in Jammu and Kashmir during the
recent elections was depressed because of threats from
militants against the voters. Is that assessment by the press
shared by the State Department?
Mr. Camp. Yes, I think that is fair to say. Turnout in the
elections in 2002 in Kashmir and the most recent one in the
past month have been lower than in other areas, and we
attribute that in part to threats by militants, yes.
Mr. Ackerman. I see the red light on, Mr. Chairman, and I
do not want to abuse it.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Gary L. Ackerman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Burton. OK. Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, would
like to express my appreciation to you for your leadership in
initiating and also calling this hearing in looking into this
very serious situation in Jammu and Kashmir province. Of
course, we both share membership in the International Relations
Committee, so I think we do have a common interest in wanting
to know and to see how we can best offer some suggestions or
resolutions to this issue. I think the overall issue here is
not just with Jammu-Kashmir, obviously, because of the
historical context during the colonial period in terms of what
has happened. And the irony of it all is that these people are
the same people, separated politically but mostly because of
religious differences.
I think the basic position of our country is that
atrocities committed by any group, whether it be by Indian
security forces or by Kashmirian militants, we oppose that. I
think the chairman has certainly given some specific numbers in
terms of those who were affected or tortured, the atrocities
allegedly committed by Indian forces. But I think whether it be
100,000 or 200,000 or whatever, I think we certainly do not
support these kinds of activities. But adding to the complexity
of the situation, Jammu-Kashmir, as I think most Members
realize, 65 percent of the population is Muslim. And there the
situation becomes a little more complex given the fact that
this portion of the line of separation, and given the fact that
65 percent of the people living in the Jammu-Kashmir portion,
which is India, are Muslims. This is what makes it very, very
difficult to see what kind of solution can be offered for this
and then with the militants. But added to the more serious
problem, and I think the concerns that we have in our country
because of the seriousness of the nuclear dangers posed by
these two nations; Pakistan and China comes out with a treaty
relationship, India expresses concern. So there is such a
mixture which makes this issue not very simple as people may
think it is.
I would like to ask Mr. Kozak a question. You mentioned in
your statement that there are atrocities that have been
committed by both sides. Was there a State Department report on
human rights violations not only by the Indian security forces
but also by Kashmir militants?
Mr. Kozak. Yes, sir. Our State Department Human Rights
Report, while it goes by country, when there is a problem of
insurgency or terrorist activity in the country, it also
describes the effects of that on the human rights.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And this was one of the reasons that
Under Secretary Armitage, a mission I think several months ago,
in a meeting with Mr. Musharraf a promise was given that no
more militants coming from Pakistan will cross that Line of
Control. Because of these camps being along the borderline, it
gives danger to the safety and the security of those people who
live in Jammu-Kashmir. But added to the complexity, I might
ask, who do you consider to be the most active groups among the
people in Kashmir that I think just makes it a little more
complicated? Some want to pursue total independence. I know the
chairman mentioned the issue of a plebiscite. This has gone on
since 1947 as it was promised by then Prime Minister Nehru that
a plebiscite would be held. But this has never happened. Of
course, then conditions were given and because of the overrun
of portions of Kashmir, it makes it a little more complicated
than we think it is.
So I just wanted to ask Mr. Kozak, there has never been any
point on the part of the Indian government to approve, give any
sense of approval if there were atrocities made by the Indian
security forces. This is definitely not the policy of the
Indian government. Am I correct in this?
Mr. Kozak. That is a correct statement of their stated
policy. I think what you will find though, both in my statement
and in the human rights report, is we think they could be doing
more in terms of prosecuting those and holding accountable
those who commit these atrocities.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And no more is it a policy of the
Pakistani government that they would encourage militants from
creating these atrocities in Jammu-Kashmir?
Mr. Kozak. Correct. That is not their stated policy.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up.
Mr. Burton. Thank you. Mr. Crowley.
Mr. Crowley. Thank you. First, let me thank you, Mr.
Chairman, as well ranking member, for, as Mr. Ackerman said
before, allowing us to participate in this hearing today. I,
too, am a member of the International Relations Committee, as I
think all five of us here are, and we really are appreciative
of you being open to our sitting in today. Let me also say that
I want to associate myself with the line of questioning of Mr.
Ackerman as well. He and I did not speak beforehand, but we had
similar thoughts on the recent goings on in Iraq in terms of
how that is certainly not the image of the United States that
we want to portray as a Nation. The pain that we are feeling
here as well as around the world is palpable. And it is much
the same way as acts that take place in other democracies and
around the world, quite frankly, are also not necessarily the
face of that nation.
I just want to for the record, if I could, Mr. Chairman,
submit an Asian foreign press story that came out today,
actually less than 6 hours ago. Three Pakistani infiltrators
were killed by the Indian army in Kashmir while making an
incursion into what is present day Indian-controlled Kashmir.
If I can, I would like to submit that for the record.
Mr. Burton. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Crowley. Incidently, it says that it is the seventh
incursion this year. Certainly, incursions, I would imagine,
are down a good deal, but that does not take away the need for
the Indian government to continue to patrol that border. And
the tremendous amount of resources that are being expended on
both sides continue, whether it is one incursion or hundreds of
incursions.
If I could ask both gentlemen if they could comment. Do we
know of any command structure within the Pakistani government
army service, intelligence service, any connection to those
entities and terrorist organizations that are training within
Pakistan today?
Mr. Camp. Let me answer that. I think we recently issued
our annual report on global terrorism, and there are a couple
of terrorist groups designated by us as foreign terrorist
organizations which are operating in Kashmir, specifically,
Lashkarytaiba and Jamiat-ul-Mujahideen, and those have been
banned in Pakistan. But they have historically been based in
Pakistan. So I would say the connection is certainly there
between groups based in Pakistan and the insurgent activities
in Kashmir.
Mr. Crowley. So let me get a further answer to the
question. That is, is there any connection that you know of
government officials, army officials, and intelligence
officials who are connected to those terrorist organizations?
Mr. Camp. I presume you are talking about Pakistan.
Mr. Crowley. Correct.
Mr. Camp. I would say no, there are no connections, per se.
There have been relationships in the past I think, but those
have been in the past.
Mr. Crowley. None today whatsoever?
Mr. Camp. Not that I am aware of.
Mr. Crowley. In terms of redress on issues--and, by the
way, no country is perfect, I think I made that clear by the
beginning part of my statement, nor is the United States
perfect for that matter, we think we are a lot better than
most, if not all--in India itself, is there an opportunity for
redress of human rights violations within India? Is there a
commission that exists? And is that used by people who have
been wronged or allegedly wronged in the past?
Mr. Camp. There is a National Human Rights Commission that
is very active. There is also a Jammu and Kashmir Human Rights
Commission that has been in existence for at least 10 years and
has taken actions to investigate abuses committed by the
security forces and has instructed the government to make
restitution.
Mr. Crowley. Does a comparable entity exist within
Pakistan?
Mr. Camp. There is definitely a Pakistani Human Rights
Commission. It is located in Lahore. They issue annual reports.
They are well-known and quite independent.
Mr. Crowley. Would you say it is comparable to what is in
India today?
Mr. Camp. They probably come out of similar roots. I would
say they are roughly comparable, yes.
Mr. Crowley. Would you care to comment?
Mr. Kozak. I think maybe I would add one exception to that
though, which is that the authority of the human rights
commissions, especially the national one in India, is limited
as regards the security forces. And so when we say in my
statement that we would like to see greater transparency, that
is the kind of thing we are referring to, is to have more
capacity for human rights commissions, or for that matter
members of the Indian Parliament, others to----
Mr. Crowley. Is the Pakistani commission more transparent
than the Indian?
Mr. Kozak. I do not have a basis----
Mr. Camp. I do not think so. In fact, the Pakistani
commission I am sure is also limited in terms of the
investigations it can conduct with security forces.
Mr. Crowley. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Thank you. Ms. Watson.
Ms. Watson. I was not here when you began your
presentations. But I want to followup on my colleagues here on
the right. We have heard, and you can verify this for us, that
the Kashmiri Hindus and the Sikhs have been all but decimated
in the Kashmir Valley and the survivors are now living in
refugee camps scattered all over India. Is that true? Has that
been verified?
Mr. Camp. It is true that both Hindu and Sikh communities
in areas of Kashmir have in fact left because of persecution.
That is correct.
Ms. Watson. Then will the Human Rights Commission address
these problems at the Federal-state level and investigate these
claims and really seek these people out? And if they are doing
that, can you address the economy in Jammu and Kashmir? And can
you also address the current relationships between Indian
security forces and Jammu and Kashmir residents?
Mr. Camp. Let me try to address each of those. The economy
of Jammu and Kashmir has been severely affected by the
insurgency. There was a thriving tourist industry, for
instance, before 1989. That was devastated in the early years
of the insurgency when there was a great deal of violence in
the urban areas. There is the beginning of a rebirth of the
tourist industry in Kashmir in Srinagar, the capital, as
violence has ebbed. But the economy has been severely affected.
As far as the relationship between the security forces and
the people of Kashmir, I would say that there are still a great
number of security forces in Kashmir, they are not always
viewed as a benign force by the Kashmiris, and therefore there
is a lot of tension and it is very much a heavily militarized
city.
Ms. Watson. What is our role and can you describe, and I am
addressing this to Secretary Kozak, what is the United States'
role in this?
Mr. Kozak. Well, in terms of trying to promote both sides
to get into a dialog and try to find a solution to the
underlying conflict, our effort has been to encourage them. So
we have got two levels of things going; one, as I mentioned, to
try to promote dialog between India and Pakistan, and then also
to promote dialog between the Indian government and the
residents in Kashmir. On the other side, we have also taken the
steps that were mentioned earlier, of working with the
Pakistani government to try to cutoff support for the militants
from Pakistani territory, and then raising with the Indian
government the need to be more transparent, to end the abuses
by its security forces, to prosecute those who are responsible
for those abuses.
So that is our effort. One is directly aimed at human
rights, trying to stop the abuses and see that people are
punished. The other is trying to resolve the underlying
conflict. But at the end of the day, it is the parties
themselves who have to make the peace. We cannot do that for
them.
Ms. Watson. Am I correct in feeling that there is a bit of
softening between the two countries, particularly on the
Pakistani side? How would you describe the current situation?
Mr. Camp. I would say that the dialog that we have seen has
been very encouraging. Really since January, when President
Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee met at the Sark summit in
Islamabad, the rhetoric has been very positive, the dialog
process has been proceeding very well. So, yes, there is a lot
of potential there for an easing of tensions between India and
Pakistan. And if I may, I would add that another important
dialog is that being carried on between the Deputy Prime
Minister of India and the All-Parties Hurriyat Conference of
Kashmir. That is an attempt to basically establish a dialog
between Delhi and separatist Kashmiris, also a positive
gesture.
Ms. Watson. Are we in the United States applying any aid to
Kashmir?
Mr. Camp. We do not have an aid program in Kashmir.
Ms. Watson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Burton. Thank you. Do you have any questions right now,
or would you like to make a brief statement real quick?
Mr. Pitts. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Although I am not
a Member of the committee, I appreciate----
Mr. Burton. No, we have waived the rules here so that all
of our colleagues can participate.
Mr. Pitts. I thank you for the hearing on looking into the
human rights violations in Kashmir. I have travelled to the
region a number of times, met with the leadership in both
Pakistan and Kashmir and India, and was there in January during
the successful Sark summit and very pleased with the leadership
of Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Musharraf in the
bilateral and in the peace talks.
I also had the same question the gentlelady asked about do
we do anything there. And in checking, I found out that,
although there are some 26,000 refugees on the Pakistan side,
they are not considered refugees, they are IDPs, Internally
Displaced People, and the U.N. does not help IDPs. The United
States takes our cue from the U.N. and we do not help IDPs. So
there is not a lot of aid, or hardly any really, going to those
people who are suffering tremendously.
The cease-fire that occurred on November 26th was very
welcomed. I met with a number of the refugees, what we would
call refugees, in their camps there and have tried to work with
humanitarian efforts with some of the groups. But for the first
time there seemed to be a little bit of hope because of the
peace dialog. And then the residents were very grateful for the
shelling to stop. They wanted the troops on both sides to
withdraw from the Line of Control a little bit further,
continue the confidence-building like the peace exchanges,
opening the bus route, opening the air line, which occurred
about a week before, and then the cricket matches and other
exchanges.
I think one of the things that I looked into with human
rights abuse was using rape as a method of terror. Everybody it
seems could agree that those types of abuses on both sides
should stop. And we can also focus on things like educating
children. The schools that I saw there in Kashmir, they had
absolutely nothing. There ought to be some mechanism of getting
some aid to these poor, suffering people in Kashmir.
I thank the chairman for having the hearing on the
violations of human rights in Kashmir today. Thank you.
Mr. Burton. Let me start my comments and questions by
saying that the definition of atrocities I guess is in the eye
of the beholder. From my perspective, what I saw in the prisons
in Iraq was horrible but it was not an atrocity. An atrocity to
me is cutting somebody's head off in public, or flying an
airplane into the World Trade Center and killing 3,000 people,
or bombing an embassy and killing people, deliberately going
after torture and killing people. Taking pictures of naked
prisoners is a horrible thing and those people should be held
accountable, and they will be held accountable. But that does
not compare to what I consider to be an atrocity. The people
who commit an atrocity like what we saw this last couple of
days, by beheading an innocent American citizen who just
happened to be trying to make a few dollars over there, those
people should be held accountable, and I mean held accountable
to the full extent of the law and that includes the death
penalty.
Now let me talk about what is going on in India from my
perspective. There have been, no question, horrible acts by the
militants. And I understand the State Department tries to keep
a balance here. You guys want to make sure that we do not upset
the apple cart as far as the peace talks are concerned, and I
think that is great because they now have a roadmap to peace
and they have a 6-month program. I think it would be great if
India and Pakistan, who are both nuclear powers, would move
toward peace over Kashmir where we have had two wars and reach
an agreement that would be acceptable to them and to the people
of Kashmir, and just stop all this stuff. But they have in
Punjab and Kashmir over a million troops, about a million and a
half troops up there imposing marshal law. There are gang
rapes, and there are all kinds of atrocities taking place by
the Indian troops, and, as I said, some from the militants as
well, nobody knows how many.
But the thing is India is a ``democracy'' like ours. That
is what it is supposed to be. It is supposed to be the biggest
democracy in the world. And of all these figures that I quoted,
there has been almost 90,000 people killed by Indian troops,
104,000 shops burned, 105,000 children orphaned, almost 9,300
women raped and molested, and 22,000 women widowed. It seems to
me that in a democracy--I mean, in our democracy right now,
those people in Iraq are going to be prosecuted for pictures,
for pictures. These are atrocities involving killings, rapes,
horrible things, torture, and the Indian security forces have
been punished by the Indian government to the extent from a
slap on the hands to 10 years in prison, that is the maximum
sentence we know of. A slap on the hands to 10 years. And there
have only been 118 people that have been taken to task for
that.
And so the Indian government, and the militants, there is
no court of law for them, there ought to be some way to deal
with the ones that are imposing these kinds of tortures on
people on that side as well, but the Indian government, which
is supposed to be the world's largest democracy, like us, ought
to be holding these people accountable. If we can hold people
accountable for taking pictures of naked prisons, we sure as
the dickens can say to the Indian government that for raping,
gang raping, torturing, murdering people that they ought to
hold those people accountable. And I hope the Indian government
is watching. That is something that could go a long way toward
making your reputation in the world be enhanced dramatically,
because people ought to be brought to justice for doing such
things.
Now what are we doing from a public relations standpoint
through the State Department, what are we doing besides trying
to get the two parties to the table to negotiate? What are we
doing to try to get India and Pakistan, what we are doing to
try to get them to move toward what I was just talking about,
is holding people accountable for these atrocities. Because
once you make a soldier accountable for some act of rape or
torture, it sends a message to the entire force. If all you
give is a slap on the hands to somebody for raping a woman or
torturing, if that is all you give them, then what does that
say to the rest of the force? It says, hey, all you are going
to get is a slap on the hands or maybe a year in prison, so do
what you want to do. So what are we doing to encourage or to
insist, if you will, that the Indian government hold these
people accountable?
Mr. Kozak. I think it is on several levels, Mr. Chairman,
and I must say, I cannot agree with you more that this is the
kind of message that needs to be sent to any kind of force,
that these kinds of practices are just not acceptable, and the
way you send that message is by holding people accountable. Of
course, one of the things we do is try to bring this out in the
open with our Annual Human Rights Report. That is on our Web
site, it gets presented, it gets covered in the press in India
and elsewhere. I think that effort on our part and by several
of the human rights NGO's, as you mentioned as well, hopefully
that stirs up some debate within India so that the democratic
process causes people to say we do not want to be seen this
way.
Second, we have, and Don can give you more detail, but when
we have conversations at high levels with Indian officials this
subject does get raised with the same kind of argumentation
that you just gave, that if they want to improve their image,
they need to clean this kind of stuff up.
We have seen some progress in terms of some of the worst
effects that you mentioned there of burning down houses and so
on. There was a lot of that going on in the early 1990's and
the embassy reports that has essentially ceased. But that does
not mean that all of the abuses have ceased. We still have
torture and killing of people in custody and these faked
encounters and all the other stuff going on. So our bottom line
is, yes, they need to be doing more to bring those people who
are doing these things to justice and send a message.
Mr. Burton. Over the years, and we have had debates on the
floor, Mr. Ackerman and I, in particular, and others, about
this problem. But I have seen pictures that have been brought
to me by friends of mine from both Kashmir and Punjab and they
have shown me hooks where people are held up and beaten, held
upside down and tortured with cattle prods and that sort of
thing. And they have shown me pictures of people that have been
taken out of the canals and rivers up in Kashmir who have had
their hands tied behind them and tortured and thrown into the
rivers and streams alive to drown. They have shown me reports
of wedding parties where the bride, before she even got to her
wedding night, the bus was stopped and troops gang raped this
women, thus ruining their lives.
These sorts of things are the things that I hope you will
convey to the Indian government as prosecutable offenses that
should be carried out to the maximum. If they would do that,
their image to me and a lot of my colleagues would change
dramatically. There has been a division in the House between
people who are ``pro India'' and ``anti-India.'' That could
change dramatically if we saw some justice meted out on these
kinds of offenses. So I hope that you and Secretary Powell and
others will convey that sentiment. And if any of the Indian
television is watching here today, I hope that will be conveyed
to the Indian government as well. Because you could go a long
way toward mending any differences that there may be between
the Congress of the United States and the Indian government if
they would just do that.
The other thing I want to talk about real quickly, and then
I will let you folks go and we will move to the next panel, is
the plebiscites that were promised by Nehru and others back in
the 1940's. Those resolutions by the United Nations General
Assembly are still in force, they have never been rescinded.
What has been done or what is being done by the State
Department to urge the Indian government to let the people of
Jammu and Kashmir vote, have a referendum on whether or not
they want to be a part of Pakistan, a part of India, or
independent? What are we doing on that?
Mr. Camp. Mr. Chairman, our position as a government has
been consistent for many years, which is that this issue is one
that needs to be decided between India and Pakistan, taking
into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. We are
encouraging the governments of both countries to look forward
and come up with a solution. That is where we think the dialog
is the best possible----
Mr. Burton. This roadmap to peace you are talking about?
Mr. Camp. The roadmap to peace. I think that there have
been other things that have happened in the past 50 years too,
all of them history, including the Simla Agreement in 1972 in
which the two countries agreed to resolve this bilaterally. So,
there is a lot of history there. We think they should go
forward.
Mr. Burton. My last question is, are we a participant at
the conference table at all? Are we involved at all?
Mr. Kozak. No.
Mr. Burton. Well, when we talk to the parties that are
members of the conference I hope we will extend to them our
concern about allowing Jammu and Kashmir and the people that
live up there to have a strong voice in the outcome, as has
been required by the U.N. resolutions that were passed in the
early 1940's.
I think that is all we have for this panel. Did you have a
few questions that you would like to ask real quickly?
Mr. Pallone. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. OK. We will let my colleague ask a question and
then we will excuse you.
Mr. Pallone. Let me thank the chairman for not only giving
me an opportunity but also doing it at the last minute like
this. I really apologize for just coming in.
I did ask some of my colleagues whether the issue of the
Kashmiri Pandits had been raised, and I understand that the
ranking member here asked about it. But I wanted to ask a
question about it. I think you know that the Pandits have been
living in the Kashmir Valley for 5,000 years and they have
suffered a long history of attacks through the 1990's, leading
to mass migration from the Kashmir Valley. They are really a
very small minority right now. But I wanted to ask, in the
annual State Department Report on Human Rights, it lists the
Kashmiri Pandits as a minority community victimized by gross
human rights abuses who were forced to flee under the most
trying circumstances. And I just wanted to know why the human
rights abuses against this community, the Pandits, have not
been prioritized? And is it not true that the Pandits have been
all but decimated from the Kashmir Valley and the survivors are
now living in refugee camps or scattered all over India? If you
would just comment on that, because I do not know that it has
received any attention here today and it is something that
concerns me a great deal.
Mr. Camp. It certainly is an issue that concerns us as
well, Congressman. I would say that the Indian government has
also been very focused on the persecution of the minority
communities, not just the Pandits but Sikhs and others in
Kashmir. And I think that we have the full support of the
Indian government in making the Pandits' lives as good as
possible in light of what they have suffered. Kashmir has
traditionally been a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society. And
the expulsion of groups like this are is a tragedy.
Mr. Pallone. So what is happening now to allow them to come
back? I mean, is their situation deteriorating further? Is it
likely that there are going to be more leaving the valley? I
just want you to give a little on their status at this point if
you could.
Mr. Camp. I would say the answer to that also lies in an
end to the conflict in a negotiated end and a return to peace
in the valley. That is the best potential to see communities
like the Pandits and the Sikhs returning, in my judgment.
Mr. Pallone. OK. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ackerman. Mr. Chairman, if I may just for a moment
comment on something that you did.
Mr. Burton. Sure.
Mr. Ackerman. You mentioned that if the Indian government
would be doing a better job in helping to control the actions
of some of the soldiers with regard to atrocities that have
taken place that there would be those in this Congress who
would take a renewed look at their view toward India. I want to
say that I appreciate your saying that. I, for one, would like
to say that I would like to see the Indian government do a
better job, as we would like to see all governments do a better
job in cases where soldiers commit these kinds of atrocities.
As far as atrocities, I am not sure that we agree on the
definition of atrocities and the level of the bar. Webster
defines ``atrocity,'' and I just had somebody look it up, among
other things, as ``an extremely cruel deed.'' If I were writing
the dictionary, I would say an atrocity is something terrible
that happens to you or a member of your family or someone you
know or love. I do not think that the crime we are going to be
charging people with in Iraq is going to be that of taking
pictures. And I think that the world is not offended by the
taking of the pictures, but it is the deed that people are
offended by, whether it takes place in Iraq at the hands of
Americans or in Jammu and Kashmir at the hands of soldiers who
are not properly supervised or militants that cross the border
from other places.
Mr. Burton. Well, I do not want to get into a big dialog on
this. But, obviously, the people in Iraq who took those
pictures and did those deeds in the prison will be prosecuted.
There is going to be a court marshal, I think it is going to
take place almost immediately for the first person. It will be
held in a public forum and the media around the world will see
what I consider to be the greatest democracy in the world, the
United States, handling people who do that sort of thing. And
at the same time we see a beheading of an American who was an
innocent over there. As I said at the beginning of my remarks,
atrocity I guess is in the eye of the beholder. But to me, that
is an atrocity. And what we saw in the prison was a terrible
deed that should not have been done, but they should be
prosecuted. And I hope that is an example to countries like
India and around the world that even something like taking
pictures and beating a prisoner in jail, which is bad and
should be prosecuted, that we consider that something that
should be dealt with severely, and we hope they will take that
to heart when they are dealing with troops who have done
something that we consider to be immeasurably worse.
Mr. Ackerman. You have a unanimous verdict on that.
Mr. Burton. Yes. Thank you.
With that, thank you gentlemen. And extend my thanks to
Secretary Powell and to Mr. Armitage for having you folks come
over.
Mr. Kozak. We will, indeed. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Burton. Our next panel is Mr. Kumar, who is the
Advocacy Director for Asia for Amnesty International.
OK, Mr. Kumar. Thank you very much for being here. Do you
have an opening statement, sir?
Mr. Kumar. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burton. I always swear in our witnesses. Would you
please stand and be sworn.
[Witness sworn.]
STATEMENT OF T. KUMAR, ADVOCACY DIRECTOR FOR ASIA, AMNESTY
INTERNATIONAL-USA
Mr. Kumar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting Amnesty
International to testify at this important hearing. Why we say
this is important is this: The plight of Kashmiri people for
the last 50 years has been marred by violence and abuse. We
have documented numerous abuses by all parties to the
conflict--all parties namely, Indian government, armed
opposition groups, and Pakistani government. So I go one by one
about what type of abuses we have documented by these three
groups.
Before I go into detail, I would like to say that Amnesty
International as an organization does not take a position about
the status of Kashmir, whether it is part of India, part of
Pakistan, or whether it is an independent territory. So our
facility is based purely on human rights. We have no political
angle to it; that is not our job. Also, we want to be very
critical and we want to give some comments about what can be
done to improve the situation there.
First of all, because of the conflict, the only losers are
the people of Kashmir. No matter what background they are. They
could be young, they could be old, they could be women, they
could be Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, you name it, they
are the ones who lost out because of the abuses that are
happening there. So there is no discrimination in that sense
from our point of view.
First going to the Indian side. In Indian side, there are
two main players that are involved in abusing the people of
Kashmir. The first is the government of India. The government
of India's armed forces as well as the police are involved in
massive human rights abuses. I want to emphasize the term
``massive.'' Thousands disappeared. The families did not know
what happened to them, still looking for their loved ones.
Thousands were imprisoned and are still imprisoned. Quite a few
people are executed, and thousands were tortured and raped. So
we have documented all these things, including rape, which is
very unique of certain issues there. But also we have
documented Indian shelling across the border to Pakistan, the
civilians on the other side who are not military targets yet
get affected.
India also is using their special laws to Kashmir that
basically gives a green light to the military and to the police
to do whatever they want and get away with the abuses. That is
the sad reality. I noticed you mentioned about impunity. They
should be brought to justice. The issue there is the laws. The
laws give them basic protection. And the other side of the law
is the Indian National Human Rights Commission does not have
any authority to investigate abuses that are happening in
Kashmir which are committed by the armed forces. That may be a
first step whereby Congress, the U.S. administration can
pressure the Indian government to expand the mandate of the
National Human Rights Commission to investigate abuses in
Kashmir. The Indian National Human Rights Commission is having
a pretty reasonable record, pretty independent, pretty critical
of the government, especially on the Gudjurat issue. So that we
consider a test under the first steps.
The other one is the political will from the
administration. There are two administrations that we are
talking about when it comes to Kashmir: One is the state
administration, the other is the Federal administration. The
state administration, they have a new minister. About 2 years
ago there was new chief minister who came to power and he
promised that he will prosecute and disband certain notorious
police and military forces. But nothing happened. It may be due
to different pressures that person is receiving. So the reality
is that we are talking about two different entities. One is the
Federal Government dealing with Jammu and Kashmir from a
different lens, and the state government which is looking from
a local perspective.
Also as I mentioned, thousands of political persons are
still in prison. And even peaceful dissent is being curtailed
by the Indian government. For example, about 2 months ago there
was a demonstration by the families of the disappeared. The
Organization of the Disappeared just was demonstrating asking
that the issue be brought to the U.N. attention of all their
disappearances. But unfortunately, the demonstrators were
beaten up, some were arrested, and some were abused. So even
the peaceful dissent is not being allowed at this present time
in Kashmir. That is something that can be pressurized by the
State Department and by the Congress, to allow the peaceful
aspect to it. Leave the armed struggle alone. Let the people
come out and express their feelings.
Coming quickly to the armed opposition groups. There are
numerous armed opposition groups in Kashmir. Some want total
independence, some want to be part of Pakistan, and there may
be other reasons they are there. They are also committing
massive human rights abuses. Torture, killing, extra judicially
executing people, and rape. That is something that has to be
brought up publicly to basically humiliate these armed groups,
that you are involved in abuses which you are supposed to be
fighting against for which are champions. If you claim that,
that is a reality. The other issue is that they also go and
harass the families. When they demand food and they are
refused, the families get harassed, they get abused, and
sometimes they get killed. They need protection when they are
running away from the Indian intelligence and the security
forces. When the civilians are reluctant, again, they get
abused by these armed opposition groups.
The other issue that armed opposition groups are involved
in is attacking the minorities; in this case, Hindu minorities.
They are called Pandits, which was brought up earlier. About 10
years ago there were massive anti-Pandit activities by some
groups, not Kashmiri people, we are talking about some armed
groups. About 150,000 Pandits fled Kashmir really, and most of
them are living in Jammu and in refugee camps. They are the
internally displaced. But it is sad, their plight is basically
not in the forefront when you discuss Kashmir at this moment.
The other issue is kidnapping and torture by the armed
opposition groups. The last one that I would mention about
armed opposition groups is about attacking people, groups,
isolated individuals who are advocating a political solution to
the Kashmiri conflict. They assassinated them, tortured them,
and threatened them. The latest development was the election.
You mentioned that you postponed the hearing because of
elections. During elections in Jammu and Kashmir, especially in
Kashmir, the armed opposition groups basically challenged and
threatened anyone who participated in the elections and they
informed them they face dire consequences. They attacked
rallies and they killed people. Scores of people have been
abused and killed because they were participating in the
democratic process there.
Quickly coming over to Pakistan. We purposely wanted to
look at Pakistan because you asked us to testify about Kashmir.
So there is one part, at least one-third or whatever the
percent is under the control of Pakistan. There, even though
you do not see the abuses that are mentioned, there are four
main issues that are of concern to us.
First, is the oath that the Pakistani government basically
forced the state legislators of the Kashmiri part of Pakistan
to take. Basically, committing them that Jammu and Kashmir will
be part of Pakistan. That is may be a political question, but
from the human rights point of view, this has been used to
intimidate the legislators there.
The other issue is peaceful dissent. Basically, peaceful
dissent is being curtailed when it hurts the Jammu and Kashmir
status debate; for example, independence of Kashmir or part of
India debate.
And the third one, obviously, is the shelling. Pakistani
troops are also involved in shelling across the border, despite
the fact it may hit the civilians on the other side.
So in closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell you that
the losers in the whole battle between these three groups are
the people of Kashmir. So we are extremely pleased that you are
holding this hearing, even after a small delay, that at least
the suffering of the Kashmiri people is being brought to the
attention of the Congress and the world at large. We hope that
this momentum will bring some settlement to the suffering of
Kashmiris. We also believe that before you take a political
solution, human rights abuses should reduce. You cannot have a
political solution when massive human rights abuses, women get
raped, people get killed, are happening. Thank you very much
for inviting me.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kumar follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Kumar, for coming to testify.
First of all, when they had the election and we deferred the
hearing, we did it because we were told that this might lead
ultimately to a peaceful solution, which we have all waited for
for so long. You said that people were intimidated when they
tried to go to the polls there in Jammu and Kashmir. Do you
have any idea on what the percentage was of people that were
turned away or afraid to vote?
Mr. Kumar. It is not only the election day events that we
are talking about, we are talking about pre-election rallies
and activities. They have attacked rallies, they have stopped
people from going to polls on the polling day. But we are
talking about the pre-election, people were killed.
Mr. Burton. And people were killed.
Mr. Kumar. We do not know the exact--it just ended about 2
days ago.
Mr. Burton. Do you know what the percentage was that
ultimately did vote?
Mr. Kumar. Not for sure. Maybe 50 percent. I do not want to
comment.
Mr. Burton. That would just be a guess?
Mr. Kumar. Yes, it is a guess.
Mr. Burton. But it was way below what they would
anticipate?
Mr. Kumar. No. Overall, Indian rate is around 55 or 60
percent.
Mr. Burton. How about up in the Jammu and Kashmir area?
Mr. Kumar. That I do not know.
Mr. Burton. But there was a lot of intimidation?
Mr. Kumar. Yes. In Kashmir, in particular, that is the only
place, with the exception of northeast of India and certain
pockets in other parts of India. There was a call by a group of
armed men who are pretty strong basically informing the
candidates and the people at large that they will face the
consequences if you go to the polls.
Mr. Burton. Tell us real quickly, and I am familiar with
this, but for the edification of the people in the room and my
colleagues, tell us about the laws that protect soldiers,
military personnel who commit torture and rape and that sort of
thing.
Mr. Kumar. Basically, they have a special powers act in
Kashmir which basically gives blanket immunity to the armed
soldiers, the military from being brought to justice, with the
exception of Home Ministry, that is Interior Ministry, giving
green light to them to be brought then to justice, which is not
forthcoming; that is a given. It is not forthcoming because the
Home Ministry is very reluctant to give permission to bring any
military person there to justice. Their argument may be that it
is national security. So our objective is at least allow the
National Human Rights Commission, they are so nationalist they
do not allow outsiders, why do you not allow your own
institution to investigate. So these are the laws. There are
three separate laws.
Mr. Burton. Yes. Now if a group of soldiers gang rape a
woman, or if soldiers hang a man up on one of these hooks and
torture him, or tie his hands behind him and use cattle prods
and then throw him in a river and drown him, what are the
chances of prosecution with these current laws?
Mr. Kumar. It is case by case we have to analyze. If it
brings lot of public outcry, not only in Kashmir but also
outside, then there may be people who--people have been brought
to justice. But that is far below what the real percentage of
abuses that have taken place. We are talking about from 1980
onwards. The whole human rights abuses intensified after the
armed struggle started. I mean, you can argue whether the
chicken or egg which one is responsible for the abuses. But the
armed struggle started in 1979-80, then retaliation. And for
the last, say, 14 or 15 years, there were hundreds, if not
thousands, of abuses that have been committed.
Mr. Burton. Since 1987.
Mr. Kumar. Only very few were brought to justice. Very few.
Mr. Burton. So a member of the armed forces pretty much has
carte blanche as far as being involved in torture, rape, or
anything else? I mean, they have a pretty good idea that the
chances of them being brought to justice for something like
that is almost zero?
Mr. Kumar. I will not go to that extent of zero. But I will
say they will feel that the laws are protecting them. I am sure
there are some people who were brought to justice.
Mr. Burton. So what you would say, as a human rights
advocate from Amnesty International and what you would like the
world to know, is that those laws should be changed so that the
military is held accountable when they do these atrocities
which would send a signal that they better stop it.
Mr. Kumar. Yes. And as a first step we would urge the
National Human Rights Commission be given the authority to
investigate and recommend and come publicly. The laws should be
changed, which their State government, when it came to power 2
years ago, basically gave that promise to the people of Kashmir
that when they come to power they will make all these changes.
But nothing happened. They are backtracking.
Mr. Burton. So your message to the government of India and
the newly elected government 2 years ago of Kashmir is let us
get on with changing the laws and make them more just so that
we can make sure that the military personnel who are in that
area are held accountable for these atrocities?
Mr. Kumar. To recommend also the straight political message
should go as well as people should be--we have documents, we
can give them documents.
Mr. Burton. We will try to make sure that message is sent
out worldwide.
Mr. Kumar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
Mr. Kumar for his very eloquent statement and certainly in
citing the facts and trying to be neutral in the process. I
have always had a very high respect for Amnesty International
in its efforts worldwide in reporting on human rights issues
throughout the world.
You indicated that these activities conducted by the Indian
security forces is documented. Has it also been part of the
International Human Rights Commission efforts in documenting
the same activities from the years past?
Mr. Kumar. The National Human Rights Commission.
Mr. Faleomavaega. The National.
Mr. Kumar. No. That is the main issue we are facing, the
National Human Rights Commission's mandate being limited to
non-armed forces. So when the armed forces are involved in
abuses, they cannot get involved. So two areas in India that
are being excluded from their mandate are Kashmir and northeast
India.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And just to kind of get a little better
sense again, in your reporting efforts for all these past years
about the abuses by the Indian security forces, of course you
brought this to the attention of our State Department, our
government, and we have made official notifications also to the
Indian government about these atrocities or these tortures?
Mr. Kumar. Yes. We approach the Indian government through
different channels.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And what has been the response?
Mr. Kumar. Luke warm. It depends which ministry. If it is
the Foreign Ministry will say we will do everything we can, and
nothing happens from the Interior Home Ministry perspective.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And what is your understanding as to why
there seems to be a passive response on the part of the Indian
government in really doing a comprehensive review of these
atrocities that have been mentioned?
Mr. Kumar. It is very difficult to judge their mindset
whichever government that is in power, be it Congress, be it
JPB, be it any other government, they consider this, I presume,
this is my personal statement, not as Amnesty, it is a national
security issue. So anything goes. Everything is fine when it
comes to national security. The sad reality is that if people
of India come to know what is happening in Kashmir, they will
be a sea change because it is immediate that you have brought
attention to what is happening there to the people of India.
Mr. Faleomavaega. We also know, of course, that there have
been times in different periods of the time of Prime Minister
Nehru, Prime Minister Indira Ghandi, different policies, a more
centralized form of government versus decentralization of the
government, and even also in the time of Prime Minister Rajiv
Ghandi's administration. So there has been, not to say
consistency, but because of the differences of the leadership
that have been elected accordingly for all these years, you get
a different bearing in terms of what has happened. You
indicated that we are looking at Pakistan for its human rights
abuses of the residents living in Jammu-Kashmir.
Mr. Kumar. In the Kashmir, yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I wanted to ask you, has this been just
as strongly advocated by Amnesty International about its
atrocities and the militant troops?
Mr. Kumar. Yes. We have been very critical of Pakistan as
well. It is not to give a balance or anything. That is a
reality.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And I am not trying to do that.
Mr. Kumar. No, no. I know. It is a reality on the ground.
If Pakistan is a champion, then they better treat people under
their control also fairly, give them equal chance of expressing
their political will. So, no, we have been very critical. But
there are other issues in Pakistan we always are concerned with
as well.
Mr. Faleomavaega. You made a comment about a political
solution versus human rights--and I am fleshing this thing out
in terms of your views on this--and the fact that if there is
no political solution, then human rights as part of the
problems is going to continue. And as my good friend the
chairman has been saying here, I cannot agree with him more on
tortures or rapes from anybody, whether it be from the Indian
security forces or from the militant groups. But the fact of
the matter is, because there is no political solution, we are
going to continue having these very serious human rights
problems. Recently, there seems to be a sway among the
leadership by both Pakistan and India that it is a lot better
not only communicating but finding a solution to their
problems. And it seems to me that the human rights issue will I
think just find its way in being resolved, I would think.
But as the chairman had indicated earlier about the fact
that, if this is giving notice publicly to the Indian
government, that if they have known for all these years that
the Indian security forces have committed these atrocities, why
there has been such a passive attitude toward it, no more than
the fact that we have given just as much notice to the
Pakistani government for the same problems that we are faced
with--atrocities on both sides. And so I appreciate your
reporting of the issues at least trying to establish a sense of
balance here.
I recall an African proverb, Mr. Chairman, about two
elephants fighting each other and the grass gets trodden. I
recall that this was stated, and my cousin, who is a former
prime minister of Western Samoa, made this remark to President
Acrumba, who made this proverbial expression, and he said,
``Well, Mr. President, if the two elephants make love, the
grass still gets trodden.'' Well, we do not have elephants in
my home, Mr. Chairman, but I just wanted to give that sense of
proverbial expression. And you are absolutely correct, Mr.
Kumar, it is the poor victims and the people who are caught in
the middle simply because the two countries cannot find a
political solution to their problems. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Thank you. Do you have any comment you would
like to make?
Mr. Kumar. Basically, as a final statement----
Mr. Burton. No, no. Mr. Pitts I guess will question. I just
thought maybe you had a response.
Mr. Kumar. No.
Mr. Pitts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been to Azad
Kashmir four times. I have not been permitted by the Indian
government to go to Indian Kashmir, although I have been to
India a couple of times and requested that. I would like to
see, for instance, a congressional delegation go and visit both
Pakistan and India, go to Azad Kashmir and go to India Kashmir
and talk to all the parties involved. When I was in Azad
Kashmir, the journalists were there, the human rights groups
were there. Are you permitted to go to India Kashmir as Amnesty
International? Can you as a human rights organization go there?
Mr. Kumar. No. We do not have access to Indian Kashmir. Not
only Kashmir, but other parts of India as well. There are
certain parts that we have problems. And also on the Pakistani
side, we did not ask, but we did not get the indication from
the Pakistanis that we will be blocked from going there. But
the Indian side, yes, we were not allowed to go there.
Mr. Pitts. Every time I have been to Azad Kashmir, I hold a
town meeting with the men and boys. I see the men and boys
whose arms and legs are hacked off by the Indians and talk to
them. Unfortunately, our government does not give aid, but I
have reached out to NGO's who have gotten 2,000 wheelchairs and
crutches and walkers and some little humanitarian aid to those
IDPs there. If the United States were to provide assistance to
the Kashmiris, what type of assistance would you suggest that
the U.S. Government provide, No. 1.
No. 2, if the U.S. Government were to be involved in any
way, what role do you see them playing in helping encourage the
peaceful dialog?
And then third, you mentioned the use of rape as a weapon
of terror. We heard the same report when I met with the
Kashmiris there. What is the best way to pressure all sides to
stop using rape as a weapon of terror, in your opinion?
Mr. Kumar. First, coming back to your last question of
using rape during the operations, using the rape as a weapon of
terror may be part of it. I mentioned in my opening remarks
that it is being used by the Indian armed forces as well as the
armed opposition groups on the Indian side. The best way, at
least from the Indian side, Indian government, they can bring
people to justice, they can prosecute them, they can charge
them, they can punish them. And give a very strong signal, not
only to Kashmiri women but women at large in India, that Indian
government will not tolerate this type of abuses against women.
That is important for Indian government for their own self-
interest, not because of anything, just purely for their own
self-interest they should have a special body to look into
that. Now for militant groups, it is everybody's guess how to
control them. But at least Indians can control themselves.
The second question of a political solution, what can be
done. We are not a political organization. But I can only
comment that without having human rights addressed first, even
though you can argue with the chicken and egg issue, we
strongly believe that human rights can be addressed before a
political solution. The reason being, India can punish their
soldiers before a political settlement happens. It is under
their control. They can do it today. They can initiate a
campaign basically sending a political message and arresting
people and punishing them. And Pakistani government also. It is
very easy for the Pakistani government because they can just
repeal all those laws and allow Kashmiris under their control
to express their views and not to force them to take oaths that
Jammu and Kashmir will be part of Pakistan. So these two
governments can start the process without even sitting at a
table to talk about peace or how to solve the problem. The
armed groups are the third entity which, as I mentioned
earlier, it is anyone's guess.
Coming back to the aid, it is obviously the Pakistani side
as well as Indian side you have to address separately. On the
Pakistani side, I will say the administration can give aid to
those IDPs or refugees, whichever term you can use because it
is all political terms, and also that falls under these victims
of human rights abuses. On the Indian side, it is going to be
very tricky. We do not know how you are going to channel the
funds to the victims there. Obviously, you can do it for
Pandits. But I doubt even Pandits who are in refugee camps,
even that I doubt Indian government will allow because their
standard policy about getting into India is very strict. I
mean, that is their policy. We are not commenting on that. They
are taking care of thousands, if not thousands, millions of
refugees. So they may have a reason not to allow U.N. fix here.
But I will say when it comes to Kashmir proper, then you can
always say that any aid to empower accountability and
documentation of human rights can be a first step.
I also forgot to mention about Buddhist. I mentioned about
Sikhs, Hindus, and Muslims, they are all Kashmiris. There is
also the Ladar population who are Buddhists. They are not
facing the brunt of the abuses, but they are also in the
middle, they are also getting beaten up. So by the end of the
day, everyone, it is equal opportunity abuse that is going on
in Kashmir by the government of India, by the militants, and by
the Pakistanis.
Mr. Pitts. Thank you. My time is up. I would just like to
say, having seen the beauty and the potential of Kashmir, there
is great potential for economic prosperity there. But until the
issue of Kashmir is settled, the people of Kashmir will never
realize the stability, the peace, the economic prosperity that
they deserve. Thank you.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Pitts.
Let me just ask one more question. Next to Jammu and
Kashmir is Punjab. Do you have any kind of report on how the
Indian troops are treating the people in the Punjab? We have
had reports in the past over the last several years of
comparable abuses to the Sikhs there.
Mr. Kumar. I was not prepared to brief you on that. But
just knowing the region, working in the region, I can tell you
that in Punjab there is no military operations going on. It is
over. It was over about 10 years ago. So there is no military
operation there. There is elections. There is local police.
Mr. Burton. But there are no military personnel in Punjab
right now?
Mr. Kumar. No. The only issue that we are looking at at
this moment are past abuses that happened about 10 years ago
with the disappearance and the accountability of the abuses
that took place during the violent uprisings there.
Mr. Burton. Do they have any human rights abuses that are
taking place at the hands of law enforcement there?
Mr. Kumar. That is common not only to Punjab, everywhere.
And also that is common in Pakistan. So when you come to
Pakistan and India, there are custodial deaths, that is people
being taken into police custody, torture, rape in custody, fair
trial issues. These are common to both India and Pakistan. So
it is not unique to Punjab. What I mentioned earlier was unique
to Kashmir that is happening there.
Mr. Burton. Well we have some people here from Punjab as
well who are going to be testifying. I just wanted to get your
perspective on that.
Thank you very much, Mr. Kumar. We appreciate it very much.
Mr. Kumar. Thank you, sir. Thank you for inviting.
Mr. Burton. The next panel is Mrs. Inayatullah testifying,
we have Dr. Gurmit Aulakh, Mr. Selig Harrison, Dr. Fai, and Mr.
Bob Giuda, who is the chairman of the Americans for Resolution
of Kashmir.
Mrs. Inayatullah is an aid worker. I would just like to say
that she came half way around the world from Kashmir. Her
mother passed away last Sunday. And she thought this was so
important she actually missed her mother's funeral to be here.
And we want to tell you how much we sympathize and appreciate
your being here. If you could come forward and have a seat. Dr.
Fai is the executive director of the Kashmiri American Council.
I have known Dr. Fai for a long time. Mr. Harrison is the
director of the Asia Program for the Center for International
Policy. And Dr. Aulakh is the president of the Council of
Khalistan.
Would you all please stand so I can have you sworn in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Burton. I think because Mrs. Inayatullah came in spite
of the personal loss that she suffered, I think I will show her
a little bit more respect than my other witnesses and ask her
to go ahead and testify first. And I am very sorry to hear
about your mother.
STATEMENTS OF ATTIYA INAYATULLAH, AID WORKER; GURMIT SINGH
AULAKH, PRESIDENT, COUNCIL OF KHALISTAN; GHULAM-NABI FAI,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KASHMIRI AMERICAN COUNCIL; SELIG HARRISON,
DIRECTOR OF THE ASIA PROGRAM, CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL POLICY;
AND BOB GIUDA, CHAIRMAN, AMERICANS FOR RESOLUTION OF KASHMIR
Mrs. Inayatullah. Thank you, sir. Honorable House of
Representatives, I testify before you because I have confidence
in the legislative government of USA. It listens intently and,
more importantly, it responds justly.
I, a daughter of Kashmir, who is fortunate to be yet able
to breath the air of freedom, call out to you on behalf of the
trapped 3.5 million heroic Kashmiri mothers, daughters, and
sisters for protection--protection from the most gruesome and
blatant violation of human rights in contemporary history by
700,000 Indian security forces. Since 1989 and as of January
2004, the orphaned count, which you have mentioned, is 105,210;
women, from the small age of 7 to 70, have been abused,
molested, raped, and the count is 9,297; and another 21,826 are
reported widows; and, regrettably, the huge number viewed to
have been sexually incapacitated through torture and disabled
for life, there is no count.
As for violation of women, as has already been mentioned,
rape in Indian held Kashmir is used as a type of tool of war.
The NGO Committee for Initiative on Kashmir, New Delhi,
reports: ``Of all the atrocities committed by the security
forces, the treatment of Kashmiri women has embittered the
people of the valley the most.'' The alienation, sir, if I may
say so, is complete due to this.
In my first person testimonies with women who wish to
remain anonymous, the narrated atrocities are grotesque--hung
naked from trees, breasts lacerated with knives, whilst gang
rape in front of the family was reported to be common practice.
A young woman, Zerifa, in a refugee camp in Muzzafarabad, no
longer speaks, her aunt recounts how she was mercilessly gang
raped in paddy fields. Another young woman said to me, ``Give
me training so I can kill the men who raped me.'' A pregnant
women who during a cordon and search was kicked in the stomach
by security forces, resulting in a miscarriage and death.
Yes, Honorable House of Representatives, protectors have
become predators. This inhuman impulse of army personnel in
India's militarized Kashmir must stop because we know a
military solution is not the solution. We must heed to the
findings of the Human Rights Watch World Report which says,
``Respect for human rights must be at the center of any effort
to resolve the conflict,'' which we have been talking about.
Indeed, the only way to stop human rights violations is a just
and durable solution of Kashmir based on U.N. resolutions and
the wishes and aspirations of Kashmiri people.
You, Honorable Members, know more so than any how important
it is to have peace in the geo-political situation. The agony
of my people has been summed up in eight words by Asia Watch:
``There is a human rights disaster in Kashmir.'' Women in
Indian occupation reach out to you, the House of
Representatives, to facilitate a mechanism through which legal,
social, and physical relief is provided to widows and to
mothers, relatives of political prisoners, of the disappeared,
and the assassinated. I ask, in this land of Jefferson and
Lincoln, why has freedom been denied to the Kashmiris? Freedom
has been illusive, and I say this as an answer for Kashmiris:
Because it has been treated too long as a territorial dispute
between India and Pakistan.
Today, as the two countries talk peace and engage in CBMs,
you, Honorable Members, can help them do it right. If ever a
CBM was needed, it is needed in the disputed territory of
Kashmir. I suggest that together the governments of India and
Pakistan, through the United Nations, must effectively engage
in protection of orphans, widows, women in distress, and the
incapacitated youth. Because, Honorable Members, the key to
India and Pakistan making progress toward a political solution
lies in the joint provision of humanitarian assistance to the
victims of the many atrocities.
Sir, the world must know that whilst Kashmir is awash with
every form of human abuse and brutalities of state terrorism
coupled with coercive diplomacy, the Indian government
unabashedly is exploiting the phenomena of global war against
terrorism. The use of buzz words like ``cross-border
terrorism'' must not, cannot hide India's guilt for over 80,000
graves in Indian held Kashmir.
Honorable Members, there is a humanitarian emergency in
Indian held Kashmir. We need action and we need it today. I
leave the devastated hearts, the tortured minds, the innocent
souls of the valley in your care knowing that you who represent
the American people do not turn and walk away. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Inayatullah follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Burton. Thank you. We will certainly take to heart what
you said and do everything we can to bring about a resolution.
My heart goes out to all the people who have suffered over
there.
My good friend, Dr. Aulakh.
Mr. Aulakh. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss the lack of human rights India for Sikhs and other
minorities today. The written report that I have submitted and
the supporting documentation will give you additional
information on the matters I am discussing today.
Human rights violations are wide spread in India. Amnesty
International has not been allowed to visit Punjab since 1978.
Even the repressive Cuban regime has allowed Amnesty
International into the country more recently.
The reality is that India is a Hindu theocracy, not the
democracy it claims to be. The leaders are militant Hindu
nationalists associated with Rashtriya Swayamesewak Sangh, RSS,
a pro-Fascist organization. The government maintains a policy
called Hindutva, a total Hinduization and Hindu control of
every aspect of political, religious, social, and civil life in
India. A senior leader of the ruling party was quoted as saying
that everyone who lives in India must either be a Hindu or
subservient to Hindus. A cabinet minister was quoted as saying
that Pakistan should be absorbed into India.
The Indian government policy of Hindutva is a policy of
elimination of minorities such as the Sikhs. An army commander
in Amritsar district threatened that he would murder the Sikh
men, bring the women to the army barracks, and produce a new
generation of Sikhs. Mr. Chairman, this is disgraceful and
extremely insulting to the proud Sikhs. It is unbecoming of an
army commander of a nation which claims to be the world's
largest democracy.
According to the figures compiled by the Punjab State
Magistracy, which represents the judiciary of Punjab, and human
rights groups, over a quarter of a million, over 250,000 Sikhs
have been murdered by the Indian government since 1984. They
join over 300,000 Christians in Nagaland who have been killed
by the Indian regime since 1947, as well as more than 85,000
Kashmiri Muslims who have been killed since 1988, and tens of
thousands of other minorities.
Amnesty International reported in February that at least
100 individuals, including social activists, human rights
defenders, and lawyers, were currently being tortured in
Punjab. The report by the Movement Against State Repression
shows that India admitted to holding 52,268 Sikhs as political
prisoners. They are held without charge or trial, some of them
since 1984. Why does a democratic state hold tens of thousands
of political prisoners, Mr. Chairman? Why does a democracy pay
bounties to police officers to kill minorities? Why does a
democracy need a Movement Against State Repression?
According to the February 17 issue of the Tribune of
Chandigarh, a Sikh named Gurnihal Singh Pirzada, who was a high
official of the Indian Administrative Service, was released
from jail claiming that his fundamental right to liberty was
violated. He was arrested after allegedly being seen at a
meeting of gathering of Punjab dissidents. Pirzada denies
attending such a meeting, but points out that it would not be
illegal if he did.
In June 1984, the Indian government brutally invaded the
Golden Temple and 150 other Gurdwaras around Punjab. Over
20,000 people were killed in these attacks, including the Sikh
leader Sant Jarnail Singh Bhrindranwale, who was the strongest
spokesman for Sikh rights and Sikh freedom. More than 100 young
boys, ages 8 to 12, were taken outside into the courtyard of
the Golden Temple and asked whether they supported Khalistan,
the independent Sikh homeland. When they answered with the Sikh
religious incantation ``Bole So Nihal,'' they were summarily
shot to death. The Guru Granth Sahib, the Sikh holy scripture,
handwritten in the times of Sikh Gurus, was shot full of bullet
holes by the Indian military.
In 1995, the Human Rights Wing, under the leadership of
Sadar Jaswant Singh Khalra, found that the Indian government
has a policy of arresting Sikhs, often innocent ones, then
torturing them, murdering them, declaring their bodies
``unidentified'' and secretly cremating them without even
notifying the families. Mr. Khalra concluded that at least
15,000 Sikhs have been made to disappear this way. The followup
to his effort places the number around 50,000. Mr. Khalra was
arrested by Punjab police on September 6, 1995, and killed in
police custody about 6 weeks later. His body was never given to
his family. No one has ever been brought to justice for the
Khalra murder.
Sadar Gurdev Singh Kaunke, who was Jathedar of the Akal
Takht, the highest Sikh religious position, was murdered by
senior superintendent of police Swaran Singh Ghotna. He has
never been punished for this crime.
Unfortunately, Sikhs are not the only victim of India's
brutal tyranny. Australian missionary Graham Staines and his
two sons were brutally murdered by being burned to death while
they slept in their jeep by a mob of Hindu militants affiliated
with the militant, pro-Fascist Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh,
RSS, who chanted, ``Victory to Hannuman,'' a Hindu god. An
American missionary from Pennsylvania, Joseph Cooper, was
expelled from the country after being so severely beaten by RSS
goons that he had to spend a week in the hospital. In January
2003, an American missionary and seven other individuals were
attacked by RSS-affiliated Hindu militants. RSS-affiliated
gangs have raped nuns, murdered priests, burned churches.
Christian schools and prayer halls have been attacked and
destroyed. A Christian religious festival was broken up by
police gunfire. Church staff have been harassed. Church events
have been disrupted. And yet India continues to claim it is
secular and democratic.
Both Prime Minister Vajpayee and Deputy Prime Minister L.K.
Advani are members of RSS and neither has ever repudiated the
Hindu fundamentalist ideology.
In March 2002, between 2,000 and 5,000 Muslims were
brutally murdered by RSS-affiliated mobs in Gujarat. According
to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom,
``Hundred of mosques and Muslim-owned businesses and other
kinds of infrastructure were looted or destroyed.'' The
Commission reports that ``Many Muslims were burned to death,
others were stabbed or shot. India's National Human Rights
Commission, and official body, found evidence in the killings
of premeditation by members of Hindu extremist groups;
complicity by Gujarat state officials; and police inaction in
the midst of attacks on Muslims.'' A police officer confirmed
to an Indian newspaper that the massacre was pre-planned by the
government.
Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, and Orissa have all passed bills
barring religious conversions. These bills are targeted against
the conversions of Hindus to Christianity and other religions.
Yet Hindu mobs have forcibly converted lower-caste individuals
to Hinduism and no action is taken.
India has never been one country. It has 18 official
languages. There was no such entity as India until the British
conquered the subcontinent and threw it together for their own
administrative convenience. History tells us that such
multinational states are doomed to fall apart.
Sikhs ruled an independent Punjab from 1710 to 1716 and
again from 1765 until the British conquest of the subcontinent
in 1849. The Sikhs have never accepted the Indian constitution.
When the Indian constitution was adopted in 1950, no Sikh
representative signed it, and no Sikh representative has signed
it to this day.
On October 7, 1987, Sikhs declared independence from India,
naming their new country Khalistan. Yet India insists that
Punjab Khalistan is an integral part of India. Only a free
Khalistan will stop India's repression of Sikhs. Only
independence for all nations and peoples of South Asia will
bring freedom, dignity, stability, prosperity, and peace to the
region. The cornerstone of democracy is self-determination.
Mr. Chairman, there are measures that America can take to
help end the repression of Sikhs, Christians, Muslims, and
other minorities in India and to support the cause of freedom
in the subcontinent. Cutting off U.S. aid to India would be a
good start. Why should American tax dollars go to support the
brutal, repressive, theocratic regime I have described,
especially when a British documentary called ``Nuclear India''
show that India spends 25 percent of its development budget on
its nuclear program and only 2 percent, just 2 percent each on
health and education? All that U.S. aid does is provide
additional resources with which to carry out the repression of
minorities. In addition, America should support democracy in
South Asia in the form of a free and fair plebiscite under
international monitoring on the question of independence in
Punjab, Khalistan, in Kashmir, in Christian Nagaland, and
wherever the people are seeking freedom.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you, the members of the
subcommittee, and other Members of the Congress who are
attending for this opportunity. I respectfully urge you to
support freedom for all the minority nations of South Asia as
the only way to end the repression and secure full human rights
for everyone in that troubled region. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Aulakh follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Dr. Aulakh.
Mr. Harrison.
Mr. Harrison. Chairman Burton, members of the subcommittee,
I greatly appreciate your invitation to testify here today. I
have studied Kashmir for 53 years as a journalist and as a
scholar, and never before in that half century has there been a
more promising opportunity for peace in South Asia and for the
reduction of tensions in Kashmir.
The people of Kashmir are trapped in the cross-fire between
India and Pakistan. War inevitably breeds human rights abuses,
as we ourselves learned in Vietnam and as we are now re-
learning in Iraq. The only way to end the human rights abuses
that have been committed by both India and Pakistan in Kashmir
is to move the peace process forward.
I am going to begin by underlining the hard reality that
both India and Pakistan have been guilty of human rights abuses
in Kashmir. We will not help the people of Kashmir if all we do
today is engage in India-bashing or Pakistan-bashing.
The insurgency in Kashmir began in 1987 after the ruling
party in India at that time interfered in the state elections.
Pakistan, under General Zia Ul Haq, saw a golden opportunity to
destabilize Kashmir and began to support both the Kashmir
insurgency and the Khalistan movement, to which we have just
heard reference.
Pakistan was at that time awash with American weapons and
money that we provided for the Afghan struggle against the
Russians in Afghanistan. The Interservices Intelligence [ISI]
in Pakistan began to use those weapons and that money as well
as U.S.-trained Islamic fundamentalist Afghan resistance
fighters to escalate the insurgency in Kashmir. Elements allied
with Al Qaeda were among the foreign fighters who poured into
Kashmir to help the Kashmiri insurgents. India reacted to this
challenge by building up an inflated military and paramilitary
forces in Kashmir that have pursued repressive tactics and have
committed many well-documented atrocities.
Gradually the Kashmiri fighters have lost the leadership of
the fighting in Kashmir to Pakistan, Afghan, and other foreign
Islamic extremist fighters sponsored by the Pakistani ISI.
Among the worst human rights abuses committed by Pakistani-
sponsored Islamic militant groups in Kashmir has been the
ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus, to which reference has
been made several times this morning. Ninety-five percent of
the Hindus in the Kashmir Valley have been driven to seek
refuge in Jammu and New Delhi, as the 2001 State Department
Human Rights Report confirms.
Pakistan has systematically attempted to undermine or
assassinate moderate Kashmiri leaders who have favored a cease-
fire with India and participation in state elections. The
principal insurgent group consisting mainly of Kashmiris is the
Hizbul Mujahidin. Like all of the insurgent groups, it has
relied on Pakistani aid. In July 2000, Hizbul Mujahidin offered
to conclude a cease-fire but within days the ISI pulled the
reins and Hizbul was forced to renege on its offer. In 2002,
when preparations for state elections were underway, a
prominent Kashmiri moderate who advocated participation in the
elections, Abdul Ghani Lone, was assassinated by groups linked
closely with the ISI. During the elections and as recently as 1
month ago, Mahbooba Mufti, a leading moderate, has been the
target of ISI-sponsored assassination attempts.
Despite the atmosphere of fear promoted by Pakistan as a
deliberate policy in Kashmir, 22 of the 27 leaders of the
Hurriyat, a grouping of insurgent Kashmiri leaders, has engaged
in talks with Indian Deputy Prime Minister Advani on January 20
and March 27. Another round, a very important occasion, will be
held in June.
The principal grievances raised by the Kashmiris raised in
those talks relate to the political prisoners, the lack of
accountability concerning the identity of Indian held Kashmiri
prisoners, their indefinite detention, and allegedly in some
cases their execution and unaccounted deaths while in custody.
There is clearly a need for a review of Kashmiri political
prisoners. India has promised action on these grievances but
has yet to deliver. Prompt action is an essential precondition
for the June talks to make progress. In the case of Pakistan,
prompt action is needed to get its surrogate groups to
negotiate a cease-fire in Kashmir. This is essential to defuse
the climate that leads to human rights abuses.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Harrison, just 1 second please. We have
five votes on the floor, which means that we will be gone for
about an hour. So what I would like to do is have you sum up so
we could hear from Dr. Fai and Mr. Giuda before we leave. So if
you could sum up, we would really appreciate it.
Mr. Harrison. Pakistan must terminate ISI sponsorship of
the insurgency and dismantle its infrastructure for the support
of cross-border infiltration by Islamic extremist groups. If it
refuses to do so, I am afraid the peace process is likely to
break down.
Pakistan's intentions to honor the peace process in Kashmir
have not been tested because the snows in the Himalayas prevent
significant cross-border infiltration. The test will be what
happens when the snows melt.
Skipping to the end, sir. What can the United States do? I
am sure you want that. President Bush promised General Pervez
Musharraf $3 billion in economic and military aid at Camp
David. If we are interested in human rights in Kashmir, this
aid should clearly be conditioned on Pakistan's termination of
support for the Kashmiri insurgents. Second, the United States
should encourage World Bank and Asian Development Bank aid for
key economic development programs in Kashmir. Finally, at the
political level, in conclusion, the United States should make
clear that it views the Line of Control as the eventual
international boundary in Kashmir. This is necessary to make
clear to Pakistan that there is no hope for internationalizing
the dispute. As long as that hope remains alive in Pakistan,
the Islamic extremist forces in Pakistan will push General
Musharraf to keep the pot boiling in Kashmir, and that would
mean a never-ending human rights tragedy. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harrison follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Harrison.
Dr. Fai.
Mr. Fai. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am grateful for
the opportunity to share my thoughts about the human rights
situation in the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir.
I do believe in the universality of human rights, the
universality of human aspirations, and I do believe in the
universality of peace and prosperity. That is why, Mr.
Chairman, I would like to express my deep appreciation for the
latest peace initiative between Prime Minister Vajpayee of
India and President Musharraf of Pakistan. Prime Minister
Vajpayee has maintained that the conflict between India and
Pakistan was fundamentally to the controversy over Kashmir. He
is on record to have said that the settlement of Kashmir
conflict does not need to be within the constitution of India
but it could be within the parameters of ``insiniya,'' that is,
humanity. The reciprocity shown by President Musharraf was
equally optimistic when he said: ``The victory would be neither
mine nor Prime Minister Vajpayee's. It would be victory of
negotiations and dialog.''
Mr. Chairman, peace and justice in Kashmir are achievable
if all parties to the conflict--the government of India, the
government of Pakistan, and the people of Kashmir--make some
concessions. Each party will have to modify its position so
that the common ground is found. It is almost impossible to
find a solution of the Kashmir problem that respects all the
duties of India, the values all the sentiments of Pakistan, and
that keeps intact the unity of the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
Yet that does not mean that we cannot find a workable solution
of the Kashmir problem. Yes, we can find it, but it demands
sacrifices, modifications, and the flexibility by all parties
to the dispute.
Mr. Chairman, despite this new peace initiative in South
Asia, unfortunately, the human rights situation in occupied
Kashmir has not changed. It remains alarming and very much
disturbing. A massive campaign of brutal force has been
launched by Indian army against the people of Kashmir since the
beginning of 1990. Various estimates are given of the death
toll of civilians. So far, the figure runs into tens of
thousands. Countless individuals have been maimed, and
thousands of women molested and humiliated. More than 100,000
Kashmiri Hindus who are known as Pandits have been uprooted
under deep conspiracy of Governor Judmujan, who was then the
Governor of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. An international
impartial agency must investigate the tragedy of the Kashmiri
Pandits.
The most baffling phenomenon, Mr. Chairman, regarding the
situation in Kashmir is that it has been allowed to arise and
to persist in a state which, under international law, does not
belong to any member state of the United Nations and whose
status is yet to be decided by the people of that land. It is
interesting to note that when the Kashmir dispute erupted in
1947, the United States upheld the stand that the future of
Kashmir must be decided by the will of the people and that
their wishes be ascertained under the supervision and the
control of the United Nations. The United States was a
principal sponsor of the resolution of the Security Council
which was adopted on April 21, 1948 and which was based on that
unchallenged principle.
Mr. Chairman, let it be known to everybody that Kashmir is
not an integral part of either India or Pakistan. Because under
all international agreements which were agreed upon by both
India and Pakistan, which were negotiated by the United
Nations, they were endorsed by the Security Council, and
accepted by the international community, Kashmir does not
belong to any member state of the United Nations. If that is
true, Mr. Chairman, then the claim that Kashmir is an integral
part of India does not stand. And if Kashmir is not an integral
part of India, then how can Kashmiris secede from a country
like India to which they have never acceded to in the first
place?
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I believe that future negotiations
between India and Pakistan can be meaningful and successful if
all parties concerned--that is the government of India, the
government of Pakistan, and the Kashmiri leadership--take the
very first step, and that very first step is that there has to
be a cease-fire from all sides and that must be followed by
negotiations. The negotiations should be initiated at four
different levels: one, an intro-Kashmir dialog between the
leadership of All Parties Hurriyet Conference, and the
leadership of Buddhists, Sikhs, and the Pandits; two, talks
between the government of India and Pakistan, which has just
started; three talks between the government of India and the
Kashmiri leadership, which has also started but that needs to
be expanded, the government of India needs to understand that
any agreement between the government of India and the Kashmiri
leadership without a Syed Ali Geelani, Mohammad Yasin Malik,
and Shabir Ahmed Shah does not mean anything; and four,
tripartite talks between India, Pakistan, and genuine
leadership of the Kashmiri people.
The reason, Mr. Chairman, the talks must be tripartite is
that the dispute involves three parties--India, Pakistan, and
the people of Kashmir. But the primary party is the people of
Kashmir, because it is ultimately their future, the future of
13 million people of Kashmir that is yet to be decided. If
India and Pakistan will try to settle the issue of Kashmir by
themselves, they will be performing Hamlet without the Prince
of Denmark. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fai follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Dr. Fai.
Victor Giuda.
Mr. Giuda. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, let
me preface my remarks by saying that they are colored by the
repeated refusals of the government of India and its embassies
to respond to my request to visit Azad Kashmir, similar to
Congressman Pitts. For the record, my name is Robert Giuda. I
am a 1975 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, former officer of
Marines, former Special Agent of the FBI, and Deputy Majority
Leader of the New Hampshire House of Representatives. I am also
founder and chairman of Americans for Resolution of Kashmir.
Kashmir is classified by the U.N. as a ``disputed
territory.'' It lies within what is arguably the most dangerous
region in the world, where the confluence of religious, ethnic,
political, military, and economic factors affords every
conceivable basis for violent conflict. Over the past 57 years,
India and Pakistan have fought two major wars, numerous lesser
battles, and engaged in a near-nuclear exchange just 2 years
ago. Kashmir today is home to the largest concentration of
ground forces on Earth since the Second World War; 700,000
troops and para-militaries--half of India's standing army--are
garrisoned among IOK's 8 million people. This equates to 1
armed combatant for every 11 civilians. Pakistan maintains
95,000 troops among its 5 million inhabitants in Azad, Kashmir,
about 1 combatant for every 500 civilians.
Every day, unspeakable atrocities occur at the hands of
India's army of occupation. Even as it proclaims to the world
its desire to reach a political solution to the conflict,
Indian law today immunizes its army and police forces from
prosecution for actions committed under color of ``prevention
of terrorism,'' enabling a hideous government-sanctioned
repertoire of torture, rape, murder, arson, and custodial
killing. Pakistan allows U.N. observers and human rights
organizations unfettered access to Free Kashmir, while India
denies access to substantial portions of IOK. One must ask
oneself, why are no observers allowed? What is India hiding?
India began its occupation of Kashmir by invading it in
1947, that included the airlift of troops from Delhi to
Srinagar, as documented in Alister Land's books. During the
past 15 years, with statutory immunity, the Indian army has
killed 2 percent of Kashmir's mostly Muslim male population,
raped some 9,000 Kashmiri women, orphaned more than 100,000
Kashmiri Muslim children. When considered in the aggregate,
these actions, committed by the Indian military with the full
knowledge of the highest levels of the Indian government,
comprise genocide against Kashmiri Muslims, and are chargeable
both as war crimes and as crimes against humanity.
This murderous paradigm--military brutality, immunity from
prosecution, and denial of access to a free press--is anathema
to the rule of law, and lethal to the advancement of human
rights, regardless of political outcomes.
India cleverly deflects attention from its actions in
Kashmir by claiming that the Kashmiri insurgency is really
Muslim-incited cross border terrorism supported by Pakistan.
There is some element of truth in that, but the element is
overshadowed by the economies of scale in the torture, rape,
arson, and murder committed by the respective parties. My
lengthy personal discussions with President Musharraf indicate
that he is committed to the end of insurgency across the border
in Pakistan into Kashmir. India's success with this charade of
cross-border terrorism depends on public ignorance of the
exemption of indigenous freedom struggles from the U.N.
definition of ``terrorism.'' I submit to you that Kashmiri
resistance to Indian repression is little different than the
resistance of American colonists to British occupation during
our War of Independence. I assure, however, that the British
never committed such atrocities as are part of daily life in
Kashmir.
In July 1999, a U.S. House committee voted to reject the
concept of a plebiscite in Kashmir, this despite the 1948
resolution championed by the United States, signed by India and
Pakistan, and reiterated in four subsequent Security Council
resolutions. That vote, denying the right of the indigenous
people of a former nation-state to determine their own future,
is utterly inconsistent with America's demonstrated commitment
to human rights. Even as United States and coalition forces
fight today to restore freedom in Iraq, I ask the committee to
bring forth a resolution reaffirming the right of self-
determination for the people of Kashmir. I ask you to stand
strong in support of human rights without regard to race,
creed, gender, or national origin.
Enormous economic benefits will flow from such an
affirmation. Leaders of the 350 major U.S. corporations doing
business in India and Pakistan today will attest that the
future of South Asia, with one-quarter of the world's
population, remains inextricably intertwined with the future of
Kashmir. The peace dividend that would accrue from resolving
this blood conflict would enable India and Pakistan to reduce
their burgeoning defense budgets and to invest those funds
instead in desperately needed health and education reforms.
One fundamental principle is essential to resolving the
conflict in Kashmir. That is the principle of self-
determination, upon which our own United States was founded,
and for which the blood of Americans has been shed and
continues to be shed around the globe. Honorable Members of the
committee, Mr. Chairman, we cannot allow subterfuge to
undermine America's commitment to human rights. Yesterday I
walked quietly among the graves of thousands of men and women
in Arlington National Cemetery who gave their lives in defense
of human rights both here and abroad. The silence of their
repose provides unimpeachable testimony to America's unwavering
opposition to tyranny and despotism. Does not the magnitude of
their sacrifice compel us here today to advance the cause of
human rights at every opportunity? And does that not include
the people of Kashmir? I ask you, if not us, who? And if not
now, when?
I thank you and will accept any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Giuda follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Representative Giuda. We appreciate
your being patient with us. I know you wanted us to have this
hearing earlier. But we, as I said, we acceded to the wishes of
the State Department because of the pending elections over
there.
Let me just say to all of you, I appreciate very much, and
I am sure everybody on the committee appreciates as well, your
testimony. One of the things that we will try to work very hard
to accomplish is to get the eyes and the ears of the world into
Kashmir so that everybody can see what is going on, from the
Indian troops as well as the militants that are fighting to try
to get their view held in Kashmir. And the best way to make
sure that the world knows is to get organizations like Amnesty
International in there and the U.N. human rights organizations.
It is unfortunate that the Indian government has not allowed
them to be there.
Mr. Harrison said this should not be a forum for India-
bashing. I agree that we should not be bashing anybody at this
point. However, the atrocities are factual, the rapes are
matters of fact, the tortures are a matter of fact, and the
vast preponderance of those problems have originated with the
military in India--I see Mr. Harrison shaking his head--but we
have been studying this issue for a long, long time, and I know
he has a different point of view. And we know that the
Pakistani government and the militants have been involved in
some major problems as well.
So all I can say is that we will do everything that we can
to see that the peace negotiations between India-Pakistan
include Kashmiris, and that we see the eyes and the ears of the
world focused on this, not only from an external standpoint but
from an internal standpoint. If we could get inside and
actually see what is going on in Kashmir on a daily basis, then
I think you would see the atrocities start to cease because you
cannot stand up to world scrutiny very long.
In addition to that, I would like to see, and I think the
committee would like to see, whether they are for or against
our position on India and Kashmir and Punjab, we would like to
see the laws that protect military personnel from prosecution
for atrocities repealed. Everybody should be held up to the
same standard--and that is, if somebody violates the human
rights of another individual, whether it is here, in Iraq, in
Kashmir, in Punjab, or wherever it happens to be, that they are
held to the same standard and they are brought to justice. That
is the only way you can eliminate these sorts of things from
happening. And so we will continue to push forward to make sure
that happens. It may take a while. But you may rest assured
that your testimony has been a giant step forward. As you can
see, the media of the world has been here to cover it and I am
sure it will be reported around the world.
I want to thank you very much for your patience and for
being here today. Thank you very much.
We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:22 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[The prepared statements of Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Hon.
Frank Pallone, and Hon. Joe Wilson follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]