Teesta River originates in the Himalayas and flows through the states of Sikkim and West Bengal to merge with Jamuna in Bangladesh (Brahmaputra in Assam). The river drains nearly 95 per cent of the state of Sikkim. It covers 3,225 square kilometres across the districts of Darjeeling and Jalpaiguri in West Bengal before entering into Bangladesh. It is the fourth longest transboundary river of Bangladesh that flows down from India.
In Bangladesh, Teesta River covers 9,667 square kilometres with an estimated population of 9.15 million as in 2011.1 According to the estimates provided by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics 2012, 21 million people are directly or indirectly dependent upon the river water for their livelihoods in Bangladesh. It covers nearly 14 per cent out of the total area under cultivation in Bangladesh.
This river has been a point of contention between India and Bangladesh since 1950s and 1960s when India and former East Pakistan began discussing proposed projects on the river. Immediately after the creation of Bangladesh in 1971, the Indo-Bangladesh Joint River Commission was set up to carry forward the talks over the sharing of river waters in 1972.
The Teesta barrage, hydropower projects and dam constructions over Teesta in India has led to a disturbance in the flow of river water downstream, i.e., in Bangladesh. Though the hydropower projects and dam constructions are also being carried by the Bangladesh government on its side of the river.
Bangladesh, that gets lesser share than that of India of the Teesta River water, claims for an equitable share which is unacceptable to the state of West Bengal. Negotiations over the same have been going on since 1983. The matter is still over the table with an unresolved dispute.
A significant amount of Teesta’s water flows only during wet season i.e., between June and September, leaving scant flow during the dry season i.e., October to April/May which paves way to the issue of equitable sharing during lean season. The 50-50 allocation of the river water could have been agreed to but it was opposed by the Chief Minister of West Bengal, Mamta Banerjee, who claims that it would be unfair to West Bengal since it would adversely impact the water-flow available in the state.
The stakeholders here are not just the Indian state and the Bangladesh government but since water is a state subject, the Indian state of West Bengal is a large party to the matter whereas Sikkim has highly been ignored (which is also a point of highlight for the critics).
Bangladesh claims that an equal water sharing is essential for them since their basin dependence is higher than that of India’s and also, that the downstream nature of Bangladesh makes them vulnerable since any construction by India affects the water flow available to them. Apart from the farmers getting adversely affected, the inadequate flow of water has also created siltation. Thus, these are reasons enough to get India’s attention towards this issue.
However, West Bengal’s concerns can also not be ignored which states that Teesta has dried up due to which an acute drinking water problem has been caused apart from another issue which states less availability of water for irrigation needs.
In 1983, an ad hoc arrangement was made between India and Bangladesh wherein both agreed to share 75 per cent of river water with India using 39 per cent and Bangladesh 36 per cent. The remaining 25 per cent was to be distributed after some further studies. In 1997, a Joint Committee of Experts was formed to examine the matter. It took until 2004 for a Joint Technical Group to be formed which drafted an interim agreement for the sharing of the river water during the lean season. However, in 2005, the JTG admitted its inability to come up with a solution.
In 2005 itself, the Joint River Commission stated that the river will not be able to meet the needs of both the countries during the lean seasons, hence, any agreement that is made will have to be based upon shared sacrifices. In 2010, the two countries agreed to resolve the matter expeditiously and drafted some principles for the sharing of river water during the lean season.
In 2011, the agreement was to be signed during the visit of the then Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan Singh, to Dhaka, Bangladesh. However, it fell through when the Chief Minister of West Bengal, Mamta Banerjee protested against the proposed allocation of 50 per cent of the river’s water to Bangladesh.
Since then there have been bilateral discussions on the dispute between the two countries but they have been unable to reach upon a mutually agreed agreement. Something that has been continued to be a major sore point within the bilateral relations of India and Bangladesh!
Teesta barrage, whose construction started in the late 1970s, is the largest irrigation project of the entire eastern region. It aims at utilizing the potential of Teesta River in hydropower generation, irrigation, navigation, and flood moderation. India, being the upper riparian country, controls the flow of the river water into Bangladesh from the Teesta barrage. Even Bangladesh has constructed a barrage downstream that provides water for agriculture and irrigation to the drought prone areas of northern Bangladesh.
Bangladesh argues that the construction of Teesta barrage has drastically reduced the availability of water downstream, especially, in the dry season. On the other hand, it’s not just Bangladesh that is facing such issues, India is facing such issues as well. A reduced availability of groundwater due to underground tunnelling has been witnessed which has impacted agricultural productions and livelihoods in the region. The drying up of natural springs and local water resources, the matter which also needs to be addressed, has resulted in growing scarcity of drinking water. An increasing number of landslides have also been witnessed in the mountainous regions of Sikkim.
Development of hydropower projects and the construction of dams are majorly held responsible for all such issues. It has been a growing concern in India and something that the environmentalists, scientist, social activists have all cautioned against. Changes in the river, which have largely been due to the dams being constructed on the Teesta are being witnessed, including frequent changes in the course of the river, delta formation, high rates of siltation, increased erosion, and siltation of agricultural land in the areas surrounded by the river.
Availability of water for irrigation is a key issue, particularly for West Bengal, as highlighted by local communities. It is estimated that the availability of water for irrigation be reduced due to the series of proposed dams since every hydropower project is estimated to absorb at least 5 per cent of the river’s running water.
Similar is the situation with Bangladesh as well where farmers are being forced to rely on tube wells to pump underground water which has resulted in increased cost of production and also, reduced areas under cultivation. In many areas, increased siltation of riverbed has caused widening of the river which has resulted in bank erosion and flooding.
The Perspective Of Institutional Economics
The dispute is still hanging somewhere unable to find itself a reasonable solution. It is not just about the point of contention regarding the sharing of water, that how much water should India consume or how much of it should Bangladesh take away from the river, but it is also about the environmental concerns and the way it is impacting the humans. Maybe, if India takes up the discussions regarding sharing of some of the benefits that it would gain from its hydropower projects, it could happen that the dispute might be solved, but that would not solve the environmental concerns altogether.
Environmental economics, a strand of economics, offers one such solution which talks about using a price signal in waiving off a particular dispute. But in order to do that, you need to own that particular resource which is not possible in the case of a river. The market, thus, cannot allocate the resource using a price signal since there are no specified property rights, therefore, none of the state can boast of ownership. The lack of property rights disables either of the state to be able to sell it or rather, in this matter, be able to negotiate a settlement using a ‘price’ signal on the basis of cost-benefit analysis. Similarly, one state cannot also exclude the other state from using the river water since it’s a common environmental resource for both the states.
This indicates towards the presence of externalities that happens when there are lack of property rights and people utilize their utility not considering what additional/negative utility others may get from it. In such a problem, institutional economics, another branch of economics, has some solution to offer. Elinor Ostrom, an American political economist talks about common pool resources that people have managed successfully for generations. She says that these resources should be managed in communities where people can collectively come and decide and set up some rules that should match the local conditions since different regions have different ecosystems.
Here, in the context of the Teesta River dispute, the major thing that is missing is the ‘people’ and their participation in forming a consensus over the usage of river water. The local communities are the major stakeholders of the river water and it is them who are being majorly effected but they have been kept away and everything has just boiled down to politics and the bilateral equations between the two states. This leads us to understand the issue from the lenses of political ecology.
Political Ecology And Its Links With The Dispute
Political ecology is that branch of geography that emerges from ‘critical geography’ and makes this basic point that physical environment in which we live in is not just natural but is characterized by a constant human intervention making it a ‘built’ environment. And since we live in such environment which is partly and very deeply influenced by human beings themselves, social and human processes should be right at the centre of our analysis.
Political ecology fundamentally connects questions of environment with questions of political processes and political power, something that is clearly visible in the dispute in discussion. It also draws insights from political economy, particularly, Marxian political economy to draw this connection between environmental issues, political power, and political and social processes.
David Harvey, one of the renowned scholars of political ecology, talks about the phenomenon of ‘Accumulation by Dispossession.’ This phenomenon talks about the existing social relations between the capitalist class and the farmers/working class. This talks about how the farmers are being left with no other option than to lose their lands and become a victim at the hands of the industrial development.
Here, in the context of Teesta River dispute, something similar is happening. On one hand, while the government and a section of civil society is happy with the expected benefits of the hydropower project like employment, energy sufficiency, new revenues, on the other hand, local communities, environmentalists, scientists, and activists are concerned about social, cultural, and environmental aspects of these projects. More such projects are proposed, more the economic and industrial development but only at the cost of environmental development and also, at the cost of the livelihoods of the local communities!
The politics of the two countries, their asymmetric relations, and their urge to economic and industrial development has costed the local communities their livelihoods. For the authorities concerned, it’s about their political ego, their incapability of meeting the local needs through the existing water share, but holistically, this matter is not just about that. Undoubtedly, it continues to be dominated by political procedures but what matters the most are the local communities who are suffering on both the sides of the borders. It is these people who are losing their livelihoods, lands, and the allied opportunities but have been kept away from the major procedure of decision making. The sufferers are none but the environment itself whose course is being decided by the humans and also, the humans – but only the ones that are dependent upon the same environment for their livelihood opportunities. Rest that remains is the politics!
Status of Minorities in Pakistan
As Sri Lanka struggles with Chinese debt-trap, Maldives moves closer to the Quad
Asra Siddiqui is a member of the writing community called 'The Inquisitive Circle.' A student of Master's in Development Studies from TISS, she completed her Bachelor's in Political Science from Hindu College, University of Delhi.
Kashmir as a Humanitarian Issue
“Defence is the New Offence”: A Taiwanese Perspective for Cyberspace & Takeaways for India
Factors behind the global water crisis: Facts, consequences, and solutions
Ensuring Bangladesh’s ‘fertilizer security’
Legal and Political Aspects of EU’s Possible Visa Sanctions Against Russian Nationals
The U.S. Regime Tries to Whip-Up War Between China & India
Authors: Harsh Mahaseth and Niharika Goel*
When the MV X-Press Pearl cargo ship owned by a Singapore-based company caught fire near the Colombo harbour of Sri Lanka, it caused the worst catastrophe of the decade. While the coordination amongst the involved countries stood disturbed, it posed a conundrum regarding who shall be held liable for the damages involved.
The Singaporean ship set sail from Malaysia, entering service in February of 2021. However, while returning from its third journey from Qatar to Malaysia, it sunk off the coast of Sri Lanka, near the Colombo harbor, after it caught fire. The crew was attempting to tow the vessel into deeper waters when the mishappening took place. Navy Media spokesman Captain Indika de Silva said,
“The towing the ship to the deeper seas was abandoned as the stern of the ship sank to the sea bed while it was being towed 500 to 600 m westward.”
This vessel was ablaze at the Sri-Lanka’s shoreline for thirteen days. By late June, only four months after it had first headed out, the desolated transport was sitting 70 feet underneath the Indian Ocean. The spread of pellets and nurdles, surprisingly found in the gills and paunches of dead fishes, is predicted to reach the Indian coastline, Maldives, Madagascar, Thailand and Indonesia owing to the currents caused by the cyclone Yaas. Other controversial elements, including synthetic compounds like nitric corrosive, sodium dioxide, copper, and lead would also not take long to enter the human circulatory systems because of the wide utilization of fish in the concerned area.
Being a vessel registered to the flag of Singapore, manufactured by a company in China, insured by a company in the United Kingdom, enroute via India to Malaysia from Saudi Arabia, creating a catastrophe at Sri Lanka builds a jurisdictional conundrum. The crew was aware of the corrosive, toxic and flammable liquid, nitric acid when it was loaded in Dubai. Adding to the complexity, they were also denied permission by Qatar and India to dock the ship which resulted in a longer than usual route. Despite such lack of cooperation between the concerned nations, along with limited offshore capacities, the vessel progressed into Sri Lankan waters with its controversial cargo onboard.
Under United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea, the limit of territorial sea of a State extends to 12 nautical miles from the baseline under Article 3, the Contiguous Zone extends to 24 nautical miles from the baseline under Article 33 and the breadth of Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) extends to 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured under Article 57. Location of the sinking ship or ship wreck has been within the territorial sea lesser than 12 nautical miles from the shore of Sri Lanka. Further, the commonly accepted polluter pays principle states that those who produce the pollution shall bear the cost to reduce, if not eliminate, the environmental damage caused by such catastrophe. The owner of the company and the flagged country is Singapore which thus, will be equally liable.
Article 235 and Article 192 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982 creates general obligations on the state to protect the marine environment, to which Sri Lanka is a signatory. Article 220(6) when read with Article 211(6) of UNCLOS provides states the power to enact laws for damages and institute proceedings, in cases with evidence of a violation by a vessel causing damage or threat of damage to economic zone. While, lacunae present in the legal remedies pertaining to damages caused by hazardous noxious substances is abridged by the Hazardous and Noxious Substance (HNS) Convention and the 2010 protocol by a two-tier compensation regime but the convention is still pending ratification by the required number of states and thus has not come into force yet. To bridge the gap in the provisions regarding matters concerning hazardous substance, the definition of a harmful substance under Section 2(2) of the MARPOL Convention, provides to mean any substance which, if introduced into the sea, is liable to create hazards to human health, to harm living resources and marine life, to damage amenities or to interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea, and includes any substance subject to control by the Convention.
Part VIII (Prevention of Pollution – Criminal Liability) and Part IX (Prevention of Pollution – Civil Liability) of the Sri Lanka’s Marine Pollution Prevention Act, 2008 enumerate civil and criminal liability in the MV X Press Pearl case. Section 26(a) of the Act will impose criminal liability on the owner, master, or agent of the ship charging fine up to Rs. 4 Million (not exceeding Rs. 14 Million) if any oil, harmful substance, or pollutant is discharged into the territorial borders of Sri Lanka, and civil liability under Section 34 provides for unlimited recovery of any damages caused by the pollutant, costs of measures taken for the purpose of reducing/removing such pollutant from the territorial waters of Sri Lanka.
Ship owners register their vessel in a country other than that of the ship owners to avoid stringent taxes under the business practice termed Flag of convenience (FOC). For such flag states, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (UNCLOS) enforces responsibilities ensuring that the vessels comply with the rules and standards of the registered state jurisdiction including periodic inspections of the vessels, and prohibition of vessels from flying their flags in cases of non-compliance. Keeping in consideration the cargo onboard, the Hague Visby Rules obligates a contract of carriage evidenced by the bill of lading which would invariably provide for application of. For an owner to exclude any liability under the Hague Visby Rules, they need to establish and prove that they exercised due diligence in the beginning of the voyage (Article III (1)) and they had taken continuous care of the cargo under their responsibility (Article III (2)).
The flag state, Singapore also stands liable under Article 3 of the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage (Bunker Convention), 2001 which provides for strict liability of the owner under three heads of pollution damage. Damage caused in Singapore by the contamination, entire costs and expenses incurred in establishing reasonable measures to reduce the damage, and any additional damages caused to Singapore due to any such measures will also be recovered. In conclusion, the owner of the ship will not only be liable to pay for the damages caused but also for costs incurred in the restoration of such damages. As Article 3 provides for strict liability of the owner, there are limited defences available for the owner namely act of war or inevitable phenonmenon, a third party not an employee or agent of the owner, negligent act of government in exercising functions of navigations aids were the cause of discharge by the vessel. However, a strict liability arises imposed on the vessel owner and their insurers for the costs of any preventive or recovery measures. While the Convention for Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC), 1976 administers compensation amount to be paid by ship owners in such cases, the subsequently amended LLMC agreed in 1996 (the 1996 Protocol) subsequently increases the cap for compensation in direct proportion to the gross tonnage of the vessel with no prescribed defences available. The matter can also be subjected to an ad hoc arbitration agreement after due consent of the parties involved, which is preferable in claims of contracts of carriage for a more flexible and confidential settlement of the dispute.
The Centre for Environmental Justice has filed charges against the Sri Lankan Government, as well as the shipping company involved with the situation alleged that the ship-owners already knew about the concerned acid leak, and asked for both civil and criminal action with the crew being taken into custody. The vessel’s operator, X-Press Feeders paid an initial payment of $3.6 million against the $300 million USD sought to the Sri Lankan Government.
*Niharika Goel is a final-year law student who is also working as a research assistant to Assistant Professor Harsh Mahaseth.
An increasingly restless earth is producing climate anomalies in distant regions. Europe has just emerged from a severe drought only to be flooded by heavy rains. Pakistan, too, has been inundated, and as the poor possess fewer resources their suffering is worse. Its province of Balochistan is one example.
According to Pakistan’s environment minister, Sherry Rehman, the monsoon season affects the region usually in three or four waves bringing in much needed rain. This year they have already had eight waves and severe flooding is the result. Bridges have been washed out leaving many people stranded away from their homes. These, which are often constructed of mud, have not been spared.
Aid is difficult to provide quickly when many roads and bridges have become unusable. As often happens, the army has been called in and also the navy as the area has become a virtual inland sea. Also in a relatively sparsely populated region the problem of reaching everyone in need quickly is understandable.
Ths catastrophe is being called the country’s worst natural disaster on record. The National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) estimates that 287,412 homes have been completely destroyed and another 662,446 partially destroyed. The death toll has surpassed 1000, and the NDMA estimates that 1 in 7 of the population or 33 million people have been affected.
In addition, the floods have covered millions of acres of farmland inundating the crop fields and adding to the losses of flood victims — the tragedy is the crops were ready for harvest. The inevitable consequence is soaring prices across the country.
Cumulative infrastructure data since mid-June shows 3451km (2000 miles approximately) of roads damaged or washed away and 149 collapsed bridges leaving a colossal task of repair and restoration.
The UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, a former prime minister of Portugal, is familiar with power plays and counterplays but is no doubt shocked at Pakistan’s neighbor India — right next door and so far immune to Pakistan’s calls for international help when a third of the country is under water.
Guterres has called it “a monsoon on steroids” and launched a $160 million appeal in aid of those affected by the disaster. He has also drawn attention to global warming: “Let’s stop sleepwalking towards the destruction of our planet by climate change. Today, it’s Pakistan; tomorrow it could be your country.” His UN appeal would supply 5.2 million people with food, water, sanitation, and continuing emergency education and health support.
Meanwhile the monsoon is set to continue according to the latest weather reports. If ‘hell or high water’ is an expression intended to express extreme difficulties, a poor South Asian country is suffering both and needs our help.
Kashmir is suffering through brutal fight of terror since 1990, but India has failed to crush the right of self-determination of Kashmir. Kashmir valley is filled with thousands of Indian forces that are trying to control the mounting sentiments of public against India by the use of force. India has imposed many inhuman laws to legitimize the use of force and repress Kashmir’s.
Without any doubt, everyone knows that the cruelty and brutality of Indian forces in Indian occupied Kashmir is to create fear and to suppress the Kashmiris. India has failed to suppress Kashmiris by Indian laws, which only resulted in massive violation of human rights. A lot of work has been done on the issue of Kashmir, but most work is on historical and ideological perspectives of Kashmir issue, violence caused by accession to India. There is not much work specifically on the international human right violation, which is caused by different Indian laws. To understand the specific laws, which are meant to create peace in Kashmir but unfortunately cause more destruction, and violence, which has resulted in more important step, which should be taken by the World, not for the Kashmiris struggle but for their fundamental rights to life and liberty as well.
Iffat Malik’s book “Kashmir ethnic conflict International Dispute” analyzed that Kashmir issue as an ethnic conflict and as an international dispute is closely interlinked. To resolve the Kashmir issue, it is important to understand the importance of ethnic conflict between two main groups, i.e. Muslims and Pundits. Pandits are more conscious of being Hindu whereas Kashmiri Muslims of being Muslims, both ethnic groups are strong rooted with their religion. Differences also lie in the attitudes of both these groups to India, Muslims have drawn further away from India, and Pandits have drawn closer to it. The Kashmir conflict forced Pandit to increase their fear as a minority within Kashmir, which resulted in Hindus more conscious and closer to India. An increasing number of Kashmiri Muslims want Independence. The ethnic conflict in the valley thus remains distinct from the international dispute between India and Pakistan. Pakistan is backing the Kashmiri Muslims with the intention that the state accede to it; Pakistan and the Kashmiri Muslims have a common goal of ending Indian rule in Kashmir. In Kashmir, people have real grievances against New Delhi but Indian government blame for the ethnic conflict on 11 Pakistan. Kashmir issue has been dragged so much that now both countries need strong government to handle this border dispute. Now there are three parties, Pakistan, India and Kashmir involved in this international dispute as internal politics of Kashmir has harden the situation too.
It’s very unfortunate that India who is framed to be World’s Largest Democracy not respect the freedom of expression in media. Democratic Nations should stay committed to the values of human rights moreover they should show tolerance even in the toughest and challenging times. However “Right to freedom of expression” is an inseparable element of “Democracy” and it is essential to guarantee and respect the fundamental rights of every individual which are even protected in the constitution and international instruments for the survival of democracy.
Since World War II, international political system has been dominated by the super powers and there has been great influence of United States of America and Soviet Union on South Asia, which has been a major barrier in reaching on a decision of Kashmir issue. Another reason behind the failure of United Nation has been Indian government, the non-corporative attitude, the way Indian government avoided plebiscite, because they knew that Kashmir, which is highly populated by Muslim majority, would vote in favor of Pakistan. Indian representatives never took interest in Security Council debates, as it was quite clear that India wanted to buy more time. Nehru backed out of his words of plebiscite since 1955 and reportedly offered for status quo settlement subject only to minor boundary adjustments. Actually Indian government wanted a conclusion from United Nations against Pakistan, but United Nations refused, on which Nehru refused to hold plebiscite.
Realist and Liberalist Perspective on Human Right Violation in Kashmir
Realism talks about power, main aim of state is to maximize their power. Keeping in mind state seeks power; India has the same objective in Kashmir. There are many reasons that India wants to maintain its dominance in Kashmir through its security forces. Realism is about national interest for survival, and as in anarchic environment state is the only one who has to compete for its survival. “Concept of Security” defines expertly the relation between national security and human security, as they both are interlinked, with time connection of national and human security.
Perspectives have been observed which can be understood by an example of outwardly aggressive and inwardly repressive regimes can be a major source of human insecurity. Major reason stated for promoting a human security perspective is that of an “enlightened self-interest”. A state for survival has to respect the security of its citizens, and the security of citizens of other states. This demonstrates one possible connection between human security especially aspects of livelihood security and how these interact with national security issues. Kashmir is fighting for the right of self-determination, which India is not ready to give. India for its national interest and power, is keeping dominance in Kashmir through its security force and terror of its laws to maintain its power in South Asia region. India can only keep its control on the resources of Jammu & Kashmir by power, otherwise once Kashmir freedom movement succeeds, Indian economy and agriculture will be influenced. Kashmir has a great strategic, political and economic significance, which are imperative for India and Pakistan. Water is the central and an important need of any country’s survival. It is water that India is determined or won’t be wrong to say obdurate to keep Kashmir in its territory, without the willingness of the people of Kashmir. There are six rivers under Indus Basin Rivers in which the Indus itself, Chenab, Jhelum, Beas, Sutlej and Ravi, which originate in the Jammu & Kashmir. India is very much dependent on these rivers, as well Pakistan. There is common dependency of these two countries, which is agriculture, which relies on waters of Indus Basin Rivers. Pakistan is more dependent on river waters than India. India has some other sources of water too. Indian agricultural reliance on Indus Basin River is similar and equal to Pakistan.
Production of agriculture from Kashmir, contributes large portion to the India economy, which include apple, timber and saffron. Due to India’s occupation of Kashmir, it is geography of the rivers, which gives strategic dominance to India in the issue of water. India is dependent for agriculture, generation of hydropower and irrigation on the river waters in Kashmir. In 1957, Mr. Patel, Indian irrigation minister said, that India would not wait for more than 5 years before withdrawing waters from the three eastern rivers irrespective of the resolution of the water dispute. Another on December 2001, on the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament, India increased the possibility of withdrawing the 1960 Treaty, as part of a strategy of coercive diplomacy with Pakistan. Morgenthau believed that environment plays an important role in shaping the interests to determine political action. Keeping in mind realist perspective, India has same intentions on Kashmir, which is national interest for survival, because of Indus Basin Rivers, which is very important for India’s agriculture, as it supports the Indian economy. However, Liberalism talks about human rights, freedom from authority, equal rights and opportunities, and same laws for everyone. India is one of the largest democratic countries in the world. One of the important characteristics of a democratic country is to protect the basic human rights like give freedom of speech and religion to individual, equal opportunities for everyone under law and an equal chance to everyone to participate politically and economically in a society. Considering the liberalist, India, as a democratic country should provide equal opportunities to everyone, even in Jammu & Kashmir. India claims to have given democratic rights to the people of Kashmir, but by keeping their own national interests. People of Kashmir have been given right to elect the government, but since too long India has been governing in Kashmir through its security forces and have forced people to elect the pro-Indian representatives. In the same way, India has been violating human rights under the umbrella of special laws, these special laws that are implemented by the state. Under these special laws and democracy thousands of innocent people get killed and tortured. India is using Kashmir for its national interest of survival to utilize resources of Kashmir and to boost Indian economy, by claiming democracy and by giving equality under special laws.
Kashmir issue has always been in the highlight of the World, because of its freedom struggle which they are fighting since the ages, but now there is more important issue which not only needs World attention, but it desperately need immediate action by the international community. Democratic Countries are always recognized for their morals and principles, from which India has been contradicting since the partition till now by oppressing Kashmiris in every inhuman way. Unfortunately the role of international community has been seen just in speeches and only in visits. No prominent action has been taken by United Nation against India on violation of International humanitarian law. The poorer condition of human rights in Jammu & Kashmir has resulted disappointment and frustration in Kashmiri youth, but they are still honest with their cause without any fear and terror of Indian security forces and special laws. They believe in peaceful fight and know how to make their voice loud and clear for the World. India must have realized by now, that Kashmiris will never give up from their right of self-determination. Its better if India accept the reality that India will never going to get the vote of confidence from Kashmiris not even by making this chaos with the lives of Kashmiris.
United Nations Economic Commission for Africa has designated Mozambican geologist Antonio Pedro to the post of Executive Secretary of the...
North Korea became a nuclear-weapons state in 2006 after successfully performing a nuclear test. It is estimated that it has...
The bell is ringing for the start of a new school year in many countries, but inequalities in access to...
By suspending former Catalan government and parliament members from public duties prior to them being convicted, following the independence referendum...
YouTube is an excellent platform for finding a global audience for your videos. After all, it is used in several...
Major health risks are unfolding in Pakistan as unprecedented flooding continues, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported on Wednesday, warning...
When the Cold War came to an end, the finale was dramatic, swift and rather unexpected. The collapse of communism...
Does Tajikistan Have a Choice Amid Anti-Russian Sanctions?
How can Americans tolerate U.S. Government’s crucifixion of Julian Assange?
Emerging Potential of Quantum Computing
Revival of Iran Nuclear Deal – Motives and Objectives
Green aviation takes wing with electric aircraft designs
Cambodia paving the way for cleaner air