To not do so will be to renege on a government’s compact with the people to safeguard their security.
The government must follow a policy of zero tolerance toward terrorism, and this is enjoined upon all democratically elected sovereign governments. To not do so will be to renege on a government’s compact with the people to safeguard their security.
In Kashmir, the policy of the Modi government has been to take up the challenge posed by Pakistan-inspired terrorism with vigour by bringing military means into full play.
What it has failed to do, however, is to have a better appreciation of the use of non-military instruments with which to win the sympathies of the local population, small sections of which have been taken in by the ideological overtures of the purveyors of terrorism.
But this cannot give the UN body on human rights any justification to propagate “self-determination” for Kashmir. India is right to forcefully reject the motivated Update of the Office of the UN Commissioner for Human Rights, as it did on Monday.
In its earlier report in June 2018 too this arm of the UN had made blatantly political demands that are indistinguishable from the demands of extremist elements — self-determination of Kashmir and the rollback of AFSPA. This boosted terrorism in the valley.
It bears underlining that the 2018 report of the OHCHR was released on the same day as the targeted assassination of an eminent Kashmir editor, Shujat Bukhari, in Srinagar, who was respected for being pro-democracy, pro-dialogue, pro-human rights. On the same day, a Muslim soldier who was visiting his home in the valley for Eid was killed by terrorists.
Overlooking this narrative underlines the absurdity and motivated nature of the stance adopted by OHCHR.