International voices have been pressing such concern about how populations in disputed regions are being treated at the recent session of the UN Human Rights Council. The UN’s high-ranking official of human rights violations was alarmed at the Kashmir development and urged a stepped-up effort to curb violence and displacement. This critique also challenged the notion of pluralism, for it also included the use of restrictive laws and harassment of human rights defenders and independent journalists, and it is a critique of a vibrant pluralistic society. In contrast, the government argues that its policies have strengthened stability with high levels of electoral participation and economic development, but a wider look at the ground realities seems to be more and more at odds with what has occurred.
The killing of a former soldier is reported to have led to the arrest of more than 500 people in the Indian-occupied Kashmir as collective punishment, a step that is considered an attempt to muzzle dissent and as a method of intimidation towards communities. And they among them are family members of Kashmiri freedom fighters that critics say violate the fundamental principles of the Geneva Conventions and the assorted UN human rights charters as well. However, all of these actions, including the imposition of curfews repeatedly, communication blackouts, and numerous military checkpoints, have created a permanent sense of unease to make dissent systematically suppressed.
The state’s emphasis on high voter turnout in the regional elections is seen as indicative of just a superficial indicator of normalcy by their critics. While elections in the presence of heavy military presence may not be a free and vibrant democratic process, it does not mean there are no voices dissenting against what would surely be considered a sham of elections by any other standards. Unfortunately indeed, the abrogation of special provisions resulted in further unrest and resistance, such that political freedom in the region may be in doubt. Meanwhile, others argue that such a focus on electoral participation is more of a smokescreen in order to distract the world’s attention away from systemic human rights abuses and demographic manipulations carrying out international projects that run counter to the aspirations of local communities.
Similar concerns have been raised in Manipur as well. Protracted ethnic conflicts and targeted violence have displaced large numbers of people, and it is in this region. The situation is all the more alarming when reports of internet blackouts and media censorship are mentioned, which prevent independent reporting and hinder information flow. According to critics, the state’s approach to handling dissent and unrest in Kashmir as well as in the strife-torn Manipur is peddled through a selective way of building a narrative that strikingly downplays, or even outright denies, the reality of the repression and violence.
In turn, any state will possess complex challenges that must be met to secure and maintain ‘order and security.’. BUT when security measures turn into wide use of laws like the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act or the Public Safety Act to detain journalists and activists for long periods without trial, such responses become unproportional and unfair. It is not consistent with the principles of a democratic and pluralistic society that dissent is systematically suppressed by arbitrary detention and harassment. Therefore, welcoming international scrutiny is crucial, as it should be treated as a chance to critically review and adjust policies that are expected truly to promote human rights.
In reaction to these international concerns, the government has roundly rejected the criticisms as ‘misplaced’ and ‘unfounded.’ In the course of progress, officials have said that infrastructure, tourism, and economic growth have all improved. However, they do nothing to respond to well-documented abuses of extrajudicial actions, enforced disappearances, and the silencing of voices that have been critical of state policy. The language of development as a response to the violation of human rights may be a convenient narrative, but it does not nullify the experience of daily hardships people who live under heavy militarization have to face.
Dialogue continues to be needed; peacebuilding must take place; and true accountability must materialize. Solid progress towards resolving these problems will only be made if political repression, an obstructionist approach to civic space, and measures aimed at stifling dissent are acknowledged as concerns. It is imperative that the international community, working in relation with local stakeholders, force reforms that do not only encourage economic and infrastructural development but also safeguard human rights and restore the true sense of an organic self-determination to the affected people.
This is the only road to move ahead while being a balanced and honest approach to how governance should be conducted. Only when security imperatives as well as human rights concerns are addressed can a society say that it is democratic and pluralistic.
