The J&K Human Rights Commission has demonstrated a blatant bias by ignoring to consider incidents of militants’ attack as violation of human rights of the victims, and by going overboard to compensate Farooq Dar, who was made a shield by an Army officer
Sant Kumar Sharma
The State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) of Jammu & Kashmir ordered on July 10 last that a compensation of Rs 10 lakh should be paid to Farooq Ahmed Dar for being tied by an Army officer on April 9 to the bonnet of an army jeep.
“I have no doubt in my mind that Farooq Ahmad was subjected to torture and humiliation, besides (being)
wrongly confined,” the judgement issued by SHRC chairperson Justice (retired) Bilal Nazki said.
The compensation awarded to Dar was for the “humiliation, physical and psychiatric torture, stress, wrongful restraint and confinement” that he underwent when he was tied to the bonnet of an army vehicle to ward off stone-pelters, SHRC observed in its judgement.
Justice (retd) Nazki observed that the action led to trauma, resulting in psychiatric stress “which may remain with him for the rest of his life”. “For the humiliation, physical and psychiatric torture, stress, wrongful restraint and confinement, the commission thinks it appropriate to direct the state government to pay a compensation of Rs 10 lakh to the victim,” the SHRC said.
The SHRC issued a press statement informing all the media regarding the decision it had taken in the case of Dar. Incidentally, it was reported to have taken suo motu cognisance of the incident. The same day, in the evening, terrorists attacked a bus registered in Gujarat (GJ09 9976) in Anantnag district carrying passengers from Gujarat and Maharashtra states who were returning after visiting the holy cave shrine of Shri Amarnath. By late evening, seven pilgrims had died and another 21 were reported injured, at least two of them seriously. Those who were killed in the attack included five women.
This time, however, there was a deafening silence from the SHRC headed by Justice (retd) Nazki as it issued no statement. Justice (retired) Nazki did not take any suo motu cognisance of the killings or grave injuries sustained by the pilgrims. The “humiliation, physical and psychiatric torture, stress, wrongful restraint and confinement” of a common Kashmiri moved Justice (retd) Nazki to use his powers to award a compensation of Rs 10 lakh. Dar had not suffered any grievous injuries despite being with the Army for a considerable time, according to later reports.
This apparently demonstrates the insensitivity of Justice (retd) Nazki towards “human rights’’ and his coming down heavily against any alleged violations. After all, he is the officially designated custodian of “human rights’’ in the state of Jammu & Kashmir.
As part of their planned journey, the passangers in the ill-fated bus were headed for Katra, base camp of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi, another revered cave shrine of the Hindus and the attack was carried out on them on the first Monday of Shravan, the holiest of holy months for Shiva worshippers.
Reports suggest the bus had got stranded ,though it was in the protected convoys of the Amarnath yatris. A punctured tyre had led it to halting at a place and changing the tyre took considerable time. What would have been a small inconvenience of a punctured tyre thus proved fatal for at least seven pilgrims. The SHRC of Jammu & Kashmir needs to be asked some questions here.
Do Hindu pilgrims visiting Amarnath cave shrine have any human rights which SHRC recognises? At least its silence so far suggests that the pilgrims have no human rights, not such which SHRC finds worth taking cognisance of. In its order of Rs 10 lakh compensation for Dar, Justice (retd) Nazki recognised “physical and psychiatric torture’’ as reasons for awarding the compensation.Do pilgrims being shot with bullet or bullets constitute “physical and psychiatric torture’’ for the SHRC? What are the human rights of Hindu pilgrims undertaking the pilgrimage?
Does getting killed, which happened in the case of at six pilgrims initially, amount to any human rights violations? Does getting injured, or getting seriously injured, amount to violations of human rights of the pilgrims?
How are human rights defined in Jammu & Kashmir and who gives their definition?
If one goes by the reasons enumerated by the SHRC for awarding a Rs 10 lakh compensation to Dar, mental trauma suffered by him tipped the scales in his favour. The SHRC considered the whole situation/s which Dar had to go through and then decided the quantum of compensation.
According to Justice (retd) Nazki, Dar had to go through trauma, resulting in psychiatric stress “which may remain with him for the rest of his life”. One of the major factors for the SHRC in deciding the compensation was the possible life-long effect on Dar.
Well, the effect of being shot with bullets can be safely assumed to be no less than what Dar apparently went through, according to SHRC. One can hardly believe that SHRC will argue that life being extinguished is a lesser trauma than being tied to a jeep. Or even that survivors of the shooting spree of the terrorists in Anantnag went through a less traumatic experience than that suffered by Dar.
What is the quantum of compensation the government of Jammu & Kashmir should then pay to the next of kin (NOK) of those killed? Or those injured? According to the SHRC, what should be the quantum of compensation to be paid by the state government?
Some reports though suggest that the state government has recommended a compensation of Rs 6 lakh to the next of kin of those killed in the attack. It has also recommended payment of Rs 2 lakh each to those pilgrims who have been injured.
Despite the attack on the pilgrims at Bentangoo in Anantnag, the pilgrimage to Shri Amarnath continued uninterrupted over the next days. From its base camp Bhagwati Nagar in Jammu, yatra continued to start as usual on subsequent days as it had started a day earlier on Monday. Enthusiastic pilgrims shouted Bam Bam Bhole and other religious slogans at dawn as the yatra was flagged off in a convoy every day.
Pilgrims escorted by contingents of security forces personnel started their day-long journey for both Baltal in Ganderbal district, and for Nunwan base camp at Pahalgam in Anantag district. The attack failed to deter those who were yet to undertake the yatra and they carried on regardless. Most of the pilgrims said the attack on Monday was not a deterrent.
If those who carried out the gruesome attack snuffing out lives of seven pilgrims, wanted to intimidate others, they have failed miserably. There was no report of any pilgrim cancelling his or her plans to undertake the yatra. In fact, some yatris stressed that they will
undertake the yatra again, undeterred by the terrorist attack.
The SHRC had not uttered a word either when DySP Mohd Ayub Pandit was lynched, outside a mosque in Srinagar some days ago. It had not said anything when a police party, led by about an SHO, was annihilated in Anantnag. It had not said anything when a young Army officer, on leave and unarmed, was killed in cold blood by terrorists. In fact, one does not remember a word being spoken by it when five policemen escorting a bank cash van were waylaid and seven persons were shot dead.
Is there deeper politics behind the proactive approach and award of a Rs 10 lakh compensation in one case? And the SHRC remaining totally silent in all other cases. What message does the SHRC want to send? To people in Kashmir. To those outside.
(The writer is a Jammu-based
senior journalist )
