April-June 2013 - Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies

More documents

Recommendations

Info

April-June 28 Commentary Kashmir: Protests and the Return of the Fidayeen Zainab Akhter Research Officer, IReS, IPCS Security was beefed up and put on high alert after the 13 March 2013 Fidayeen attack. Disguised as cricket-playing youth, with lethal weapons hidden in their sports kits, at least two Fidayeen unleashed a brazen attack at a CRPF camp in Srinagar's Bemina. In a second strike ten days later, militants attacked a BSF vehicle at Nowgam killing a border guard and injuring two others. Do these attacks signify the return of the Fidayeen and the revival of armed militancy in the Valley? Has the hanging of Afzal Guru given an impetus to violence? The Comeback of the Fidayeen The Bemina attack is the most audacious one in the last three years. A curfew day was chosen to inflict maximum damage on the security forces. The attackers had surveyed the targeted place and chose a different modus operandi - disguised as youth playing cricket and abruptly started firing indiscriminately at the CRPF personals. Five army men and two militants were shot down and two other militants fled the scene. In the Nowgam incident militants travelling on motorcycles fired automatic weapons at a BSF vehicle injuring three army men. In the latest attack, a suspected militant shot a civilian and injured a CRPF personnel in Sopore town on Sunday. The Fear Factor The attacks have revived fears that militancy may return to the Valley. The youth of the Valley took to armed rebellion for the first time when Maqbool Bhatt (founder of JKLF) was hanged in Tihar Jail in 1984. In between, normalcy returned to the Valley. If the protests of this time are studied, be it in 2008 due to the Amaranath Land row or in 2010 due to killing of youths in the valley, it may be seen that protesters resorted to only stones and sticks while clashing with the army. Kashmir considers Afzal Guru as their leader of a stature close to Maqbool Bhatt and his hanging has once again brought back anger within the valley towards the Government of India especially among the youth. A hospital in GMC, Srinagar and the area near the Allama Iqbal library in Kashmir University are named after him as Afzal Guru Hospital and Afzal Guru Chowk respectively. He has been bestowed the title of Shaheed-e-Watan (martyr of the nation) and at Eidgah's Mazar-e-Shahuda (martyrs' graveyard) a grave yard for him with gravestone inscribed with a demand for the return of Guru's mortal remains has been put up just beside the other empty grave of Maqbool Bhatt. The separatist fractions of the valley have come together under the same banner to form an association called MMM (Mutahida Majlise Mashawrat) and their main demand from the Government of India is the return of the mortal remains of Mohmmad Afzal Guru and Maqbool, both buried in Tihar jail. The MMM has been instrumental in charting out protest calendars. There are days when separate protest calendars are being sorted out for men and women. Militant Strikes: Why Now? The valley of Kashmir has been on the boil since the hanging of Afzal Guru. Protests continue in the state demanding the return of Guru's body which is buried in the premises of Tihar jail. The hanging of Guru has given the militants a reason to make a comeback in the valley. Srinagar gives the militants publicity and they are able to draw the attention of the whole world. According to the Director General Police Ashok Prasad, the militants were desperate to strike in Srinagar. “Militants want to strike in Srinagar to gain publicity. Nobody comes to know about them when they strike in a far flung area. They want to strike in Srinagar to give an impression to people that militancy is alive,” he said. (CNS). Security has been beefed up in Srinagar in order to thwart any such attacks but whether this measure can actually thwart the said attacks is the question which lingers. While handling the protesters on the streets, security forces are ordered not to fire and are advised to use teargas and other less harmful methods to disperse the crowd. In the Bemina case, too, the army was caught unarmed and the attack took them by surprise. These attacks have reignited the debate of revocation of the AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act). Looking at the fast deteriorating security situation in Kashmir, one can say that AFSPA is here to stay for the time being or it may even be strengthened to meet up the security demands. Amid the protest calendars, life in Kashmir has come to a halt and the public has to face its brunt. It would be tragic if, in their frustration with the failures of the government, the youth were again to pick up arms. All that can be hoped for is that good sense will prevail and violent methods will be abandoned. If not it is predicted that this time the armed rebellion will be deadly.
Commentary Sri Lanka and the UNHRC Resolution: A Paper Tiger? J Jeganaathan Research Fellow, IPCS The 22nd regular session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has successfully adopted a US-sponsored Resolution on “Promoting Reconciliation and Accountability in Sri Lanka” by a vote of 25 in favour, 13 against and 8 abstentions. India voted in favour of the resolution for the second consecutive time. However, India's vote either in favour or against will hardly make any difference to the plight of Sri Lankan Tamils as the resolution will neither bind nor bite the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) on accountability to war crimes allegedly committed during the final phase of the war. Nevertheless, it had a ripple effect in Indian domestic politics when the DMK finally pulled out its support to the ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA). This article will critically appraise the spirit and letter of the resolution and the impact of India's vote in favour of the resolution on Indo-Sri Lankan relations as well as its domestic constituency. The UNHRC Resolution By the Resolution A/HRC/22/L.1/Rev1 on promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka, the Human Rights Council calls upon the GoSL to “conduct an independent and credible investigation into allegations of violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, as applicable; and requests the High Commissioner to present an oral update to the Council at its twenty-fourth session, and a comprehensive report followed by a discussion at the twenty-fifth session, on the implementation of the present resolution”. This resolution has nothing new, except a provision which urges the GoSL to formally respond to outstanding requests to provide “unfettered access” to special procedures mandate holders and rapporteurs on independence of judges and lawyers; international human rights defenders such as Amnesty International and international media to have an free and fair understanding of the ground reality in the wartorn regions. The remaining part of this two page resolution contains the same content of the previous resolution. Despite the political momentum built after the release of the new photograph that reveals the chilling details of the killing of the youngest son of the slain LTTE leader by the Sri Lankan armed forces, the resolution remains weak in letter and spirit. In sum, the resolution expresses its strong belief that the accountability and reconciliation in Sri Lanka can be promoted only by urging the GoSL to implement the constructive recommendations contained in the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) report without questioning the credibility and independency of the commission itself. Would it not be irony to request the perpetrators of the crime to provide justice to the victim? Is it not absurd to expect the felon to be accountable for the blatant violation of international law and human rights abuses? This resolution answers no. Instead of pushing forward the same agenda against the GoSL, why wouldn't the sponsors of the resolution put forward the observations and recommendations of the UN Secretary General's Panel of Experts Report – which is more credible and impartial? These are the questions which no one would want to contemplate because of the narrow political interest and game played over the plight and rights of Sri Lankan Tamils. Unless there is a concrete resolution based on the UN framework, reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka will remain a distant dream, the political drama at UNHRC on Sri Lanka will remain an annual fair and the resolution itself will remain merely a paper tiger. India's Vote 'Unfounded' India has voted against the GoSL for the second time at the UNHRC annual session. It has registered its discontent over the GoSL's progress towards a political solution to Tamils as enshrined in the 13th amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution, which clearly outlines the devolution of power. India has been urging the GoSL to work for a meaningful political solution to Tamils within the constitutional framework. But, the GoSL has been indifferent to India's official demand for this home-grown solution. Despite this deadlock, India-Sri Lanka relationship is thriving since the end of the war in 2009. Although it is widely believed that the Congress-led UPA government's decision to vote against Sri Lanka was to appease its domestic Tamil constituency especially its prodigal ally, DMK, it does not help to dispel India's dubious image among the Tamils or the Sinhalese. In fact, India earned wrath from both Tamils and Sinhalese, which is evident from the recent anti-government protests in Tamil Nadu and the anti-India sentiments expressed in Sri Lanka. India could have abstained from voting citing its limited scope of implementation of the resolution, thereby saving its own face. It seems that India's vote against Sri Lanka is a well-calculated strategy to protect the latter from the direct interference of western powers including the US, which claims stakes in the Indian Ocean region. By doing so, India has proved to the world that it stands by the international community, shares its human rights concern and supports the accountability of Sri Lanka. Therefore, India has emerged as an intermediary between the international community and Sri Lanka. This could be the logical rationale behind India's choice to vote for the feeble resolution. South Asia Plus 29
Page 1 and 2: South Asia Plus April-June 2013 Vol
Page 3 and 4: South Asia Plus April-June 2013 Lad
Page 5 and 6: Commentary Af-Pak Diary: Decoding H
Page 7 and 8: Commentary Pakistan: Combating the
Page 9 and 10: Commentary Water Conflicts in South
Page 11 and 12: Commentary India and Pakistan: Poli
Page 13 and 14: Commentary India and Pakistan: The
Page 15 and 16: Commentary J&K after Afzal Guru: Im
Page 17 and 18: Commentary Teesta Water Accord: Exp
Page 19 and 20: Commentary Review: India-Sri Lanka
Page 21 and 22: Commentary India and Pakistan: Is I
Page 23 and 24: Commentary Bangladesh: An Analysis
Page 25 and 26: Commentary Naxal Violence: Is the M
Page 27: Commentary Kargil: Echoes of Attack
Page 31 and 32: Commentary Sri Lanka: Tamil Nadu an
Page 33 and 34: Commentary India, China & the Brahm
Page 35 and 36: A close look at the election patter
Page 37 and 38: international border villages. Most
Page 39 and 40: the growing realisation among defen

April-June 2013 - Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?