India debunks Pak claims on Kashmir at UN rights session

New Delhi: India responded strongly and effectively to Pakistan’s “false allegations, concocted charges and fabricated narrative” at the ongoing UN Human Rights Council session in Geneva Tuesday, with the MEA’s secretary (east), Ms Vijay Thakur Singh, defending India’s recent move to bifurcate J&K state and revoke Article 370 of the Constitution on grounds which included gender equality and an end to discrimination, and noted that the decision was “sovereign and internal to India”. Asserting it was “an ancient civilisation with immense and rich diversity” and  the world’s “largest democracy” that promoted human rights, New Delhi made it clear it would “certainly not” accept any interference in its internal affairs. She said “these decisions were taken by our Parliament after a full debate that was televised and enjoyed widespread support”.

The senior diplomat encapsulated the main points of her speech in her short and crisp opening remarks that lasted just over two minutes, in which she described Pakistan (without naming it directly) as the “epicentre of terrorism” that “conducts cross-border terrorism as a form of alternate diplomacy” , adding it “tramples” on minorities “at will” but “cries victim when it actually is the perpetrator”. The MEA secretary (east) said “despite challenging circumstances, Jammu and Kashmir’s civil administration is ensuring basic services, essential supplies, normal functioning of institutions, mobility and nearly full connectivity”. She told the global body that “democratic processes have been initiated, restrictions are being eased continuously, (and that) temporary preventive and precautionary measures were necessitated to ensure the safety and security of our citizens in the face of credible threats of cross-border terrorism”.

Lashing out at Pakistan, Ms Singh — a 1985 batch Indian Foreign Service officer and former envoy to Ireland and Singapore — said that “one delegation (Pakistan) has given a running commentary with offensive rhetoric of false allegations and concocted charges against my country”, and that “the world is aware that this fabricated narrative comes from the epicentre of global terrorism, where ring leaders were sheltered for years”. She added: “This nation
conducts cross-border terrorism as a form of ‘alternate diplomacy’.”

Lambasting Pakistan, New Delhi added that those “who are misusing this platform for malicious political agendas under the garb of human rights” are “attempting this speak on the human rights of minorities in other countries whilst trampling upon them at will in their own country”. India said: “They (Pakistan) cry victim when they actually are the perpetrators.”

Meanwhile, shortly after his vitriolic speech targeting India at the UNHRC session in Geneva, Pakistan foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi, in a slip of the tongue that caused grave embarrassment to his country and much delight to India, described J&K as an “Indian state”. The Pakistan foreign minister had earlier in his speech described J&K as the “largest prison on this planet”, and had demanded that the UNHRC constitute a commission of inquiry to probe the situation in J&K.

But addressing reporters shortly after his speech, Mr Qureshi said: “India is trying to give an impression to the world that life has returned to normalcy. If life has returned to normalcy, then I say: Why don’t they allow you, the international media, why don’t they allow international organisations, the NGOs, civil society organisations, to go into the Indian state of J&K and see for themselves what the reality is. They are lying through their teeth and once the curfew is lifted, the reality comes out. The world will wake up to the catastrophe that is underway right now.”

Earlier in his speech, the Pakistan foreign minister accused India of jailing and “gagging” Kashmiri leaders, trying to turn the Muslim-majority state into a minority there, and of planning an attack on Pakistan. He also indulged in scare-mongering by alleging a “grave threat to peace in a nuclearised South Asia”.

Mr Qureshi conveniently forgot to mention the vicious stone-pelting in the past by violent mobs in the Kashmir Valley as he asked India to stop the use of pellet guns, “lift the curfew and reverse the communications blackout” while calling for the UNHRC to implement the recommendations of its previous reports on Kashmir and also demanding constitution of a commission of enquiry by UNHRC.

According to some reports, a desperate Pakistan also presented a 115-page dossier at the session which reportedly included the alleged remarks of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and National Conference leader Omar Abdullah on the J&K situation that were critical of the Indian government.

Meanwhile, while both informing the world about the actual position in J&K and hitting back at Pakistan, Ms Singh said: “The recent legislative measures taken by India within the framework of its Constitution will ensure that these progressive measures will  ... (bring) an end to gender discrimination, including on property rights and local bodies representation”, and added: “There will be better protection of juvenile rights and laws against domestic violence. The rights to education, information and work will now be applicable. Long-standing discrimination against refugees and under privileged sections will end.”

On the menace of terrorism, she said: “The world, in particular India, has suffered greatly on account of the activities by practitioners of state-sponsored terrorism and it is time to collectively take decisive and firm action against terror groups and their abettors who threaten the fundamental human right to life. We must speak out. Silence only emboldens terrorists. It also encourages their intimidatory tactics. India appeals to the international community to work together in the fight against terrorism and their sponsors.”

New Delhi also described the “National Register for Citizens” (in Assam) as “a statutory, transparent, non- discriminatory legal process mandated and monitored by the Supreme Court of India”, adding that “any decision that is taken during the process of its implementation will comply with Indian law and will be consistent with India’s democratic traditions.”