U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

96–410 PDF 2004

DECADES OF TERROR: EXPLORING HUMAN

RIGHTS ABUSES IN KASHMIR AND THE DISPUTED TERRITORIES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND

WELLNESS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 12, 2004

Serial No. 108–212

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

DOUG OSE, California

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

——— ———

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Staff Director

DAVID MARIN, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNET, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND WELLNESS

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

DIANE E. WATSON, California

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EX OFFICIO

TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

MARK WALKER, Chief of Staff

MINDI WALKER, Professional Staff Member

DANIELLE PERRAUT, Clerk

RICHARD BUTCHER, Minority Professional Staff Member

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on May 12, 2004 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Inayatullah, Attiya, aid worker; Gurmit Singh Aulakh, president, Council

of Khalistan; Ghulam-Nabi Fai, executive director, Kashmiri American

Council; Selig Harrison, director of the Asia Program, Center for International Policy; and Bob Giuda, chairman, Americans for Resolution

of Kashmir ..................................................................................................... 52

Kozak, Michael, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, U.S. State Department; and Don

Camp, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of South Asian Affairs,

U.S. State Department ................................................................................. 9

Kumar, T., advocacy director for Asia, Amnesty International-USA ........... 37

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Ackerman, Hon. Gary L., a Representative in Congress from the State

of New York, prepared statement of ........................................................... 22

Aulakh, Gurmit Singh, president, Council of Khalistan, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 65

Burton, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana, prepared statement of .......................................................................... 4

Crowley, Hon. Joseph, a Representative in Congress from the State of

New York, article dated May 12, 2004 ........................................................ 28

Fai, Ghulam-Nabi, executive director, Kashmiri American Council, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 90

Giuda, Bob, chairman, Americans for Resolution of Kashmir, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 101

Harrison, Selig, director of the Asia Program, Center for International

Policy, prepared statement of ...................................................................... 77

Inayatullah, Attiya, aid worker, prepared statement of ............................... 54

Kozak, Michael, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, U.S. State Department, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 13

Kumar, T., advocacy director for Asia, Amnesty International-USA, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 40

Pallone, Hon. Frank, a Representative in Congress from the State of

New Jersey, prepared statement of ............................................................. 108

Ros-Lehtinen, Hon. Ileana, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Florida, prepared statement of ................................................................ 105

Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State of South

Carolina, prepared statement of .................................................................. 112

(1)

DECADES OF TERROR: EXPLORING HUMAN

RIGHTS ABUSES IN KASHMIR AND THE DISPUTED TERRITORIES

WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND WELLNESS,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room

2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Burton (chairman

of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Burton, Cummings, and Watson.

Also present: Representatives Ackerman, Crowley, Pitts, Wilson,

Pallone, Pence, Rohrabacher, and Faleomavaega.

Staff present: Mark Walker, chief of staff; Mindi Walker, Brian

Fauls, and Dan Getz, professional staff members; Nick Mutton,

press secretary; Danielle Perraut, clerk; Richard Butcher, minority

professional staff member; and Cecelia Morton, minority office

manager.

Mr. BURTON. Good morning. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness will come to order.

Given the large number of witnesses we have today, for the purposes of today’s hearing, I ask unanimous consent that oral opening statements by the committee be limited to the chairman and

ranking minority member. And without objection, so ordered.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members’ and witnesses’ written and opening statements be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered.

I ask unanimous consent that all articles, exhibits, and extraneous or tabular material referred to by Members or witnesses be

included in the record. Without objection, so ordered.

We have had a great deal of interest from other Members of Congress about participating in this hearing. So I ask unanimous consent that the following Members and any other Member who may

attend today’s hearing be considered as a member of the subcommittee for the purposes of receiving testimony and questioning

witnesses. Representatives Ackerman, Crowley, Pitts, Wilson,

Pallone, Pence, Rohrabacher, and Mr. Faleomavaega, we will allow

you to sit in and question the witnesses. Without objection, so ordered.

We have had numerous amendments and discussions on the floor

of the House over the years, and Mr. Ackerman, Mr.

Faleomavaega, and I and others have been involved in those, reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:05 Nov 08, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\96410.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
2

garding the problems that have arisen in the area known as Kashmir and in Punjab, which is in that general region as well. There

have been, as everybody knows, paramilitary forces up there fighting the Indian military because of disagreements over the status of

Kashmir and Punjab for a long, long time. In the late 1940’s, 1948,

there were resolutions passed by the United Nations General Assembly stating that there should be a plebiscite on the determination of the future of Kashmir and that entire region. Unfortunately,

those have never been honored. There have been subsequent discussions and resolutions and everything else that has taken place,

and as a result, there has been tremendous problems and heartache for tens and hundreds of thousands of people who live in that

area.

The paramilitary forces up there that have been involved in the

fight for independence and for a plebiscite have gone beyond the

pale as well. This is something that we have not discussed a great

deal in the past, but there have been some terrible things that

have been happening at the hands of the paramilitary forces that

have been fighting the military of the Indian government. Nevertheless, the atrocities that have been taking place at the hands of

the Indian government, as far as we have been able to tell, have

been extraordinarily brutal. And that is what we are here to find

out about today, the latest update on that, and to find out what

can be done by the United States to influence the Indian government and the paramilitary forces over there to solve this problem.

We had a hearing scheduled earlier this year and we postponed

it because there were going to be elections taking place in India,

and also because there were pending talks between the Pakistani

government and the Indian government on the issue of Kashmir.

There have been two wars fought in that area over this very contentious issue, and we did not want to impede the process of negotiations between India and Pakistan on this issue, and so we postponed our hearing. We were requested to postpone it again but we

have people who have come from half-way around the world to testify here today, and so we talked to the State Department and they

agreed. We appreciate very much you being here to testify and to

bring us up to date because we did not want to try to send people

half-way back around the world who had come this far to testify

for a second time.

The figures that we have are that there have been 87,678 people

killed by Indian troops, there have been 104,380 houses or shops

burned by Indian troops, there have been 105,210 children orphaned, 9,297 women raped or molested, and 21,826 women widowed. Now those are the figures we get from the people who are

in positions to know regarding the atrocities perpetrated by the Indian military. We also have information that there have been some

atrocities perpetrated by the military, and we condemn them as

well. But the preponderance of the problem, in the opinion of the

Chair, has been because of the Indian military up there. Now this

is not just the Chair’s opinion. I would like to read to my colleagues

a statement that was made by the government of the United States

regarding the human rights situation in Kashmir. This is a quote

from the Statement Department’s own ‘‘2003 Country Reports on

Human Rights Practices’’ for India:

3

The Government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however,

numerous serious problems remained. Significant human rights abuses included:

Extrajudicial killings, including faked encounter killings, custodial deaths throughout the country, and excessive use of force by security forces combating active

insurgencies in Jammu and Kashmir and several northeastern states; torture and

rape by police and other agents of the government; poor prison conditions; arbitrary

arrest and incommunicado detention in Jammu and Kashmir and the northeast;

continued detention throughout the country of thousands arrested under special security legislation; lengthy pretrial detention without charge; prolonged detention

while undergoing trial; occasional limits on freedom of the press and freedom of

movement; harassment and arrest of human rights monitors; extensive societal violence against women; legal and societal discrimination against women; forced prostitution; child prostitution and female infanticide; discrimination against persons

with disabilities; serious discrimination and violence against indigenous people and

scheduled castes and tribes; widespread intercaste and communal violence; religiously motivated violence against Muslims and Christians; widespread exploitation

of indentured, bonded, and child labor; and trafficking in women and children.

Accountability remained a serious problem in Jammu and Kashmir. Security

forces committed thousands of serious human rights violations over the course of the

14-year conflict, including extra judicial killings, disappearances, and torture. Despite this record of abuse, only a few hundred members of the security forces have

been prosecuted and punished since 1990 for human rights violations or other

crimes. Punishments ranged from reduction in rank to imprisonment for up to 10

years.

Country-wide, there were allegations that military and paramilitary forces engaged in abduction, torture, rape, arbitrary detention, and the extrajudicial killing

of militants and noncombatant civilians, particularly in areas of insurgencies.

Human rights groups alleged that police often faked encounters to cover up the torture and subsequent killing of both militants and noncombatants.

We appreciate your being here today. We will allow our colleagues to question you and make comments during the question

and answer period. And if you could give us an update, we would

really appreciate it.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Dan Burton follows:]

4

5

6

7

8

9

Mr. BURTON. Right now, I would like to have you stand and be

sworn.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. BURTON. We will start with you, Secretary Kozak. Thank you

very much for being here, and I hope you will thank the Secretary

of State for sending you over. We appreciate it very much.

STATEMENTS OF MICHAEL KOZAK, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN

RIGHTS AND LABOR, U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT; AND DON

CAMP, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF SOUTH

ASIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT

Mr. KOZAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify

on the human rights situation in Kashmir. There is no doubt that

the Kashmir issue is potentially one of the world’s most dangerous.

Kashmir is the focus of the rift between India and Pakistan and

has been the flash point for several India-Pakistan conflicts. The

conflict is at the root of the serious abuses of human rights that

Kashmiri residents have suffered for years.

We have seen the devastating effects that political instability and

civil strife have had on the lives of innocent Kashmiri civilians.

From President Bush on down, the United States has consistently

called for an easing of the tensions between India and Pakistan as

vital to regional security and stability and to an improvement of

the human rights situation. As the President has said, dialog is the

best way to achieve a peaceful resolution of the Kashmir issue.

The United States is encouraged by the positive step taken by

India and Pakistan in February to resume their dialog after a 3-

year hiatus. We praise the leaders of India and Pakistan for their

courage and foresight and hope that the reduction of tensions between these two adversaries will represent the beginning of an end

to the suffering of the Kashmiri people. President Musharraf and

Prime Minister Vajpayee met in January 2004 and agreed to initiate a dialog on all issues, including Kashmir. Talks moved quickly

to the Foreign Secretary level, and Foreign Ministers of both countries are scheduled to meet in August.

There is still much to be done, however. It is the policy of the

United States to do all we can to ensure the success of these efforts

and to support the confidence building measures. These measures

include the return of High Commissioners, cricket matches between the two national teams, and resumption of some transport

links. Talks on nuclear-related confidence building measures are

scheduled to begin later this month. Also important in terms of improving the lives of Kashmiri civilians, a cease-fire along the Line

of Control and the Siachen Glacier was put in place in November

2003 that still holds. As engagement grows between the two sides,

it is U.S. policy to encourage all participants in the conflict in

Kashmir to work to eliminate the human rights abuses that have

become all too common there.

Our annual human rights report, which you quoted from, Mr.

Chairman, documents our concern and gives examples of the

abuses that take place all too frequently. Let me summarize the

situation that consists of abuses against innocent civilians perVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:05 Nov 08, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\96410.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
10

petrated by Kashmiri and foreign militant and terrorist groups and

of abuses committed by the Indian security forces. While the two

are interrelated, the actions of one side cannot justify abuses by

the other. It is our policy to hold all parties accountable for their

own abuses. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Kashmiri and foreign militant and terrorist groups are responsible for execution style killings of civilians, including several political leaders and party workers. These groups are also responsible

for kidnappings, rapes, extortion, and acts of random terror that

have killed hundreds of Kashmiris. Many of the militants are Pakistani and other foreign nationals. Militants also regularly execute

alleged government informants. The Indian Home Ministry says

that militants killed 808 civilians in 2003, compared with 967 in

2002, either number is an unacceptable loss of innocent life.

Kashmiri militant and terrorist groups also target other ethnic

or religious communities, including numerous execution style mass

killings of Hindu (Pandit), Sikh, and Buddhist villagers in Jammu

and Kashmir. Militants also engage in random acts of terror, including the use of time-delayed explosives, land mines, hand grenades, rockets, and snipers.

Extremist militants have also attempted to enforce dress codes

on women. In the Rajouri region of Kashmir, the militant groups

Jamiat-ul-Mujahideen and Shariati Nefazi Islami ordered Muslim

women to wear burqas, and three women were killed for not obeying these orders in 2003.

Intimidation by military groups has resulted in restraints on

press freedom. The local press continued to face pressure from militant groups attempting to influence coverage. Kashmiri militant

groups continue to threaten, through attacks or intimidation, journalists and editors, and even forced the temporary closing of some

publications that were critical of their activities. Intimidation by

militant groups caused significant self-censorship by journalists.

Members of the Indian Government security forces continued to

be responsible for extrajudicial killings, custodial deaths, excessive

use of force, torture, rape, arbitrary arrest, and other serious

abuses of human rights, despite the fact that the Indian Constitution strictly protects human rights.

According to published accounts and other sources, persons detained by security forces were later alleged to have been killed in

armed encounters, and their bodies, often bearing multiple bullet

wounds and marks of torture, were returned to relatives or otherwise were discovered shortly afterwards.

It is often difficult to obtain reliable information about the condition of people being detained in Jammu and Kashmir because

many are in detention pursuant to special security legislation. This

legislation includes the Armed Forces Jammu and Kashmir Special

Powers Act of 1990, the Public Safety Act, and the Armed Forces

Special Powers Act of 1958.

A number of persons ‘‘disappear’’ each year in Kashmir. Reporting on the number of disappeared varies and underscores the difficulty in determining whether persons who have disappeared did

so while in security force custody or after capture by insurgent

groups or for reasons unrelated to the armed conflict. In 2003,

while the Jammu and Kashmir state government announced that

11

3,931 persons remained missing in the state since 1990, a nongovernmental agency called the Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons placed the number at more than 8,000.

The U.S. Government abhors violence and human rights abuses,

wherever they take place. We deplore the human rights abuses

committed by Kashmiri and foreign terrorists as well as militant

groups and we deplore human rights abuses perpetrated by Indian

security forces. We have urged the government of Pakistan to take

steps to end support from its territory to both foreign and Kashmiri

terrorists and militants. We have also urged the government of

India to take steps to end abuses by its security forces, including

prosecution of those responsible.

We are gratified that the Jammu and Kashmir state government

has taken some steps to hold accountable those in the security

forces found to be responsible for human rights abuses. In June

2003, the government announced that 118 members of the security

forces had been punished for having committed human rights violations. A senior superintendent of police was suspended by the

Jammu and Kashmir government for allegedly falsifying the DNA

samples of five civilians killed in fake armed encounters in March

2000. A ministerial subcommittee headed by the Deputy Chief Minister recommended severe punishment for three police officers and

two doctors for tampering with evidence.

We are also encouraged by the prominent role that human rights

issues are playing in the dialog initiated by Deputy Prime Minister

Advani and the Kashmiri separatist All-Parties Hurriyat Conference. The two sides have met twice, in January 22 and March

27, in the first dialog the government of India has initiated with

the Hurriyat since the insurgency began in Jammu and Kashmir

in 1989. The Deputy Prime Minister has responded to some concerns raised by leaders of the separatist All Parties Hurriyat Conference and other Kashmiri politicians and civic leaders on continuing human rights abuses in the state. For example, he issued instructions to security forces not to commit human rights violations

of any kind. At a recent press conference, the Deputy Prime Minister noted that, ‘‘The security forces must have a human face, with

ordinary civilians not falling victim to their bullets.’’

We understand that these are only initial steps and that many

obstacles remain. Today’s reality, unfortunately, is that numerous

human rights abuses persist, as we have documented thoroughly in

our annual Country Reports. By the way, the report can be found

on the State Department Web site at www.state.gov. Nonetheless,

we are confident that continued dialog between India and Pakistan,

between New Delhi and the Kashmiris has the potential to improve

human rights in Jammu and Kashmir.

In the meantime, the U.S. Government would welcome greater

transparency by the Indian government to allow independent monitoring of alleged human rights abuses by the security forces in

Jammu and Kashmir.

The government of Pakistan has a responsibility as well. We continue to urge the government of Pakistan to end any support for

cross-border infiltration and to terminate support within Pakistan

for militant groups. Pakistan has pledged that no territory under

its control will be used to support terrorism in any manner. PresiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:05 Nov 08, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\96410.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
12

dent Musharraf has attempted to influence domestic opinion toward developing a ‘‘moderate, stable Pakistan at peace with its

neighbors.’’ He also gave a Kashmir Day speech that was more

moderate in tone than in past years, stating that Pakistan support

for Kashmir should be political, not military. Infiltration levels appear to be down and we hope they will stay down as the snows

melt. Pakistan continues its efforts to designate terrorist groups

and freeze terrorist assets. We are working with Pakistan to end

infiltration of terrorists across the Line of Control, by strengthening counter-terrorism capability, and by developing positive education and employment opportunities. We continue to urge the government of Pakistan to disband militant training camps in its territory.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me stress again that the United

States remains deeply concerned about the human rights situation

in Kashmir. We are cautiously encouraged by recent positive developments in the relationship between Pakistan and India while hold

promise for real improvement in the human rights situation in

Kashmir. As our human rights report and our policymake clear,

the people of Kashmir deserve an opportunity to live their lives

peacefully and without fear. We call on both government security

forces and militants to cease activities that deny the Kashmiri people this opportunity, including an end to the abuse of human rights

by all sides in the conflict. At the same time, we are encouraging

efforts by India and Pakistan to defuse tensions and to reach a

peaceful and lasting resolution of the Kashmir problem, which

should improve the prospects for reducing and ultimately eliminating the continuing human rights abuses there. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kozak follows:]

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Kozak.

Before we go on, the ranking member is here. Do you have a

comment you would like to make?

Ms. WATSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The events of the past

have cast a shadow over the efforts to bring about a Kashmir settlement between India and Pakistan. But recent events have

changed the fundamental dynamic that now exists in favor of peace

in the Kashmir region. While diplomats and leaders will continue

to attempt to make a peace agreement, peace itself can only be

made by the Indian and the Pakistani people. And if there is any

optimism to be found on the issue of Kashmir, it is in the talks

that are moving forward at the current time. The implementation

of peace also relies on the willingness of the United States and the

rest of the world to encourage negotiations and mediations without

violence.

So I want to thank Secretary Kozak and the Honorable Don

Camp of the State Department for their attendance today, and I

am eager to hear others’ testimony as well. Mr. Chairman, I yield

back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you. I guess you are here, Mr. Camp, in

place of Mr. Goode; is that correct?

Mr. CAMP. That is correct.

Mr. BURTON. You are welcome to make a statement if you would

like.

Mr. CAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no additional statement to make. I am prepared to answer questions.

Mr. BURTON. Very good. I think what I will do, since I have so

many of my colleagues here, is let them start the questioning and

then I will conclude the questioning of this panel. So we will start

with my good buddy, Mr. Ackerman. Incidently, because we have

got three panels, Gary, if we could try to keep our questioning to

around 5 minutes.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me

say on behalf of all of us who are not members of the committee,

to both you and the ranking member, we appreciate your generosity in allowing us to participate in this important hearing. And I

want to thank you especially for your ongoing interest in this part

of the world.

Is it possible that in a democracy, even a great democracy, if it

has fighting men and women in uniform in an area where they are

trying to control terrorism and terrorists, and that great army of

that great democracy has members amongst them, even a minority

amongst them, commit atrocities, mayhem, and things condemnable by all civil people, is it possible that those people are acting

alone or is it a government policy to which you would attribute that

activity?

Mr. KOZAK. You are asking the question in a sort of general status?

Mr. ACKERMAN. We could start out that way.

Mr. KOZAK. OK. Obviously, both can be true. In many cases you

have people acting on their own, and in other cases you have deliberate policy. I guess my experience has been that democracies do

not tend to, because they tend to be more open societies, do not

20

tend to have ordered government policies to commit terrible

abuses.

Mr. ACKERMAN. The atrocities that have taken place at the

hands of a few American soldiers in Iraq, is that official U.S. policy?

Mr. KOZAK. Of course not.

Mr. ACKERMAN. And the atrocities that have taken place in the

state of Jammu and Kashmir, is that official Indian government

policy?

Mr. KOZAK. It certainly does not track with the stated policy of

the Indian government.

Mr. CAMP. And if I may add. The statement that my colleague

just made referred to members of the security forces are responsible for as opposed to a larger pie that India is responsible for.

Mr. ACKERMAN. That was duly noted. I think it is fair to say that

a great deal of the violence in Kashmir over the last 15 years has

been perpetuated by militants infiltrating from or through Pakistan across the Line of Control. Given repeated requests by the

U.S. Government and India as well that Pakistan halt that type of

infiltration, do you think that Pakistan bears some of the responsibility for the deaths of so many people?

Mr. CAMP. I think it is our view that the people committing the

acts are responsible, sir. I think our position on Pakistan’s role is

very clear, that we have been very insistent with Pakistan that

support for any infiltration be ended, because there are people in

Kashmir who are committing these acts who are not from the inside of Kashmir.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Where are they from?

Mr. CAMP. They are from many places, but some of them certainly are from Pakistan.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Is there a particular area that they come

through? What is their last point of embarkation before they arrive

in Kashmir?

Mr. CAMP. The Line of Control is a lengthy demarcation between

the Indian side and the Pakistani side of Kashmir and they have

certainly come across from the Pakistani side.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Is Kashmir doing all that it can to prevent that

from happening?

Mr. CAMP. I think that we have been pleased that there has been

a cease-fire along the Line of Control by India and Pakistan.

Mr. ACKERMAN. I am pleased too, but that was not my question.

Are the Pakistanis doing everything they can do to prevent that

from happening?

Mr. CAMP. We think that they are making substantial efforts and

that those efforts have been borne out by a decrease in infiltrations.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Has the infiltration continued this spring as it

has in the past?

Mr. CAMP. I would say the infiltration that we are aware of, and

this is difficult to verify, is lower than in the past. I think some

Indian officials as well have been quoted to that effect.

Mr. ACKERMAN. What is the state of play between us and Pakistan? When was the last time that we might have insisted that

they improve on their record?

21

Mr. CAMP. I would say that Assistant Secretary Rocca is in Pakistan today, is planning to meet or has already met with President

Musharraf, and I know that this is one of her points to make to

President Musharraf.

Mr. ACKERMAN. We have seen several press reports that indicate

that the voter turnout in Jammu and Kashmir during the recent

elections was depressed because of threats from militants against

the voters. Is that assessment by the press shared by the State Department?

Mr. CAMP. Yes, I think that is fair to say. Turnout in the elections in 2002 in Kashmir and the most recent one in the past

month have been lower than in other areas, and we attribute that

in part to threats by militants, yes.

Mr. ACKERMAN. I see the red light on, Mr. Chairman, and I do

not want to abuse it.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Gary L. Ackerman follows:]

22

23

24

25

26

Mr. BURTON. OK. Mr. Faleomavaega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, would like

to express my appreciation to you for your leadership in initiating

and also calling this hearing in looking into this very serious situation in Jammu and Kashmir province. Of course, we both share

membership in the International Relations Committee, so I think

we do have a common interest in wanting to know and to see how

we can best offer some suggestions or resolutions to this issue. I

think the overall issue here is not just with Jammu-Kashmir, obviously, because of the historical context during the colonial period

in terms of what has happened. And the irony of it all is that these

people are the same people, separated politically but mostly because of religious differences.

I think the basic position of our country is that atrocities committed by any group, whether it be by Indian security forces or by

Kashmirian militants, we oppose that. I think the chairman has

certainly given some specific numbers in terms of those who were

affected or tortured, the atrocities allegedly committed by Indian

forces. But I think whether it be 100,000 or 200,000 or whatever,

I think we certainly do not support these kinds of activities. But

adding to the complexity of the situation, Jammu-Kashmir, as I

think most Members realize, 65 percent of the population is Muslim. And there the situation becomes a little more complex given

the fact that this portion of the line of separation, and given the

fact that 65 percent of the people living in the Jammu-Kashmir

portion, which is India, are Muslims. This is what makes it very,

very difficult to see what kind of solution can be offered for this

and then with the militants. But added to the more serious problem, and I think the concerns that we have in our country because

of the seriousness of the nuclear dangers posed by these two nations; Pakistan and China comes out with a treaty relationship,

India expresses concern. So there is such a mixture which makes

this issue not very simple as people may think it is.

I would like to ask Mr. Kozak a question. You mentioned in your

statement that there are atrocities that have been committed by

both sides. Was there a State Department report on human rights

violations not only by the Indian security forces but also by Kashmir militants?

Mr. KOZAK. Yes, sir. Our State Department Human Rights Report, while it goes by country, when there is a problem of insurgency or terrorist activity in the country, it also describes the effects of that on the human rights.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And this was one of the reasons that Under

Secretary Armitage, a mission I think several months ago, in a

meeting with Mr. Musharraf a promise was given that no more

militants coming from Pakistan will cross that Line of Control. Because of these camps being along the borderline, it gives danger to

the safety and the security of those people who live in JammuKashmir. But added to the complexity, I might ask, who do you

consider to be the most active groups among the people in Kashmir

that I think just makes it a little more complicated? Some want to

pursue total independence. I know the chairman mentioned the

issue of a plebiscite. This has gone on since 1947 as it was promised by then Prime Minister Nehru that a plebiscite would be held.

27

But this has never happened. Of course, then conditions were given

and because of the overrun of portions of Kashmir, it makes it a

little more complicated than we think it is.

So I just wanted to ask Mr. Kozak, there has never been any

point on the part of the Indian government to approve, give any

sense of approval if there were atrocities made by the Indian security forces. This is definitely not the policy of the Indian government. Am I correct in this?

Mr. KOZAK. That is a correct statement of their stated policy. I

think what you will find though, both in my statement and in the

human rights report, is we think they could be doing more in terms

of prosecuting those and holding accountable those who commit

these atrocities.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And no more is it a policy of the Pakistani

government that they would encourage militants from creating

these atrocities in Jammu-Kashmir?

Mr. KOZAK. Correct. That is not their stated policy.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you. Mr. Crowley.

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you. First, let me thank you, Mr. Chairman, as well ranking member, for, as Mr. Ackerman said before,

allowing us to participate in this hearing today. I, too, am a member of the International Relations Committee, as I think all five of

us here are, and we really are appreciative of you being open to our

sitting in today. Let me also say that I want to associate myself

with the line of questioning of Mr. Ackerman as well. He and I did

not speak beforehand, but we had similar thoughts on the recent

goings on in Iraq in terms of how that is certainly not the image

of the United States that we want to portray as a Nation. The pain

that we are feeling here as well as around the world is palpable.

And it is much the same way as acts that take place in other democracies and around the world, quite frankly, are also not necessarily the face of that nation.

I just want to for the record, if I could, Mr. Chairman, submit

an Asian foreign press story that came out today, actually less than

6 hours ago. Three Pakistani infiltrators were killed by the Indian

army in Kashmir while making an incursion into what is present

day Indian-controlled Kashmir. If I can, I would like to submit that

for the record.

Mr. BURTON. Without objection.

[The information referred to follows:]

28

29

Mr. CROWLEY. Incidently, it says that it is the seventh incursion

this year. Certainly, incursions, I would imagine, are down a good

deal, but that does not take away the need for the Indian government to continue to patrol that border. And the tremendous

amount of resources that are being expended on both sides continue, whether it is one incursion or hundreds of incursions.

If I could ask both gentlemen if they could comment. Do we know

of any command structure within the Pakistani government army

service, intelligence service, any connection to those entities and

terrorist organizations that are training within Pakistan today?

Mr. CAMP. Let me answer that. I think we recently issued our

annual report on global terrorism, and there are a couple of terrorist groups designated by us as foreign terrorist organizations which

are operating in Kashmir, specifically, Lashkarytaiba and Jamiatul-Mujahideen, and those have been banned in Pakistan. But they

have historically been based in Pakistan. So I would say the connection is certainly there between groups based in Pakistan and

the insurgent activities in Kashmir.

Mr. CROWLEY. So let me get a further answer to the question.

That is, is there any connection that you know of government officials, army officials, and intelligence officials who are connected to

those terrorist organizations?

Mr. CAMP. I presume you are talking about Pakistan.

Mr. CROWLEY. Correct.

Mr. CAMP. I would say no, there are no connections, per se.

There have been relationships in the past I think, but those have

been in the past.

Mr. CROWLEY. None today whatsoever?

Mr. CAMP. Not that I am aware of.

Mr. CROWLEY. In terms of redress on issues—and, by the way,

no country is perfect, I think I made that clear by the beginning

part of my statement, nor is the United States perfect for that matter, we think we are a lot better than most, if not all—in India

itself, is there an opportunity for redress of human rights violations

within India? Is there a commission that exists? And is that used

by people who have been wronged or allegedly wronged in the past?

Mr. CAMP. There is a National Human Rights Commission that

is very active. There is also a Jammu and Kashmir Human Rights

Commission that has been in existence for at least 10 years and

has taken actions to investigate abuses committed by the security

forces and has instructed the government to make restitution.

Mr. CROWLEY. Does a comparable entity exist within Pakistan?

Mr. CAMP. There is definitely a Pakistani Human Rights Commission. It is located in Lahore. They issue annual reports. They

are well-known and quite independent.

Mr. CROWLEY. Would you say it is comparable to what is in India

today?

Mr. CAMP. They probably come out of similar roots. I would say

they are roughly comparable, yes.

Mr. CROWLEY. Would you care to comment?

Mr. KOZAK. I think maybe I would add one exception to that

though, which is that the authority of the human rights commissions, especially the national one in India, is limited as regards the

security forces. And so when we say in my statement that we

30

would like to see greater transparency, that is the kind of thing we

are referring to, is to have more capacity for human rights commissions, or for that matter members of the Indian Parliament, others

to——

Mr. CROWLEY. Is the Pakistani commission more transparent

than the Indian?

Mr. KOZAK. I do not have a basis——

Mr. CAMP. I do not think so. In fact, the Pakistani commission

I am sure is also limited in terms of the investigations it can conduct with security forces.

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you. Ms. Watson.

Ms. WATSON. I was not here when you began your presentations.

But I want to followup on my colleagues here on the right. We have

heard, and you can verify this for us, that the Kashmiri Hindus

and the Sikhs have been all but decimated in the Kashmir Valley

and the survivors are now living in refugee camps scattered all

over India. Is that true? Has that been verified?

Mr. CAMP. It is true that both Hindu and Sikh communities in

areas of Kashmir have in fact left because of persecution. That is

correct.

Ms. WATSON. Then will the Human Rights Commission address

these problems at the Federal-state level and investigate these

claims and really seek these people out? And if they are doing that,

can you address the economy in Jammu and Kashmir? And can you

also address the current relationships between Indian security

forces and Jammu and Kashmir residents?

Mr. CAMP. Let me try to address each of those. The economy of

Jammu and Kashmir has been severely affected by the insurgency.

There was a thriving tourist industry, for instance, before 1989.

That was devastated in the early years of the insurgency when

there was a great deal of violence in the urban areas. There is the

beginning of a rebirth of the tourist industry in Kashmir in

Srinagar, the capital, as violence has ebbed. But the economy has

been severely affected.

As far as the relationship between the security forces and the

people of Kashmir, I would say that there are still a great number

of security forces in Kashmir, they are not always viewed as a benign force by the Kashmiris, and therefore there is a lot of tension

and it is very much a heavily militarized city.

Ms. WATSON. What is our role and can you describe, and I am

addressing this to Secretary Kozak, what is the United States’ role

in this?

Mr. KOZAK. Well, in terms of trying to promote both sides to get

into a dialog and try to find a solution to the underlying conflict,

our effort has been to encourage them. So we have got two levels

of things going; one, as I mentioned, to try to promote dialog between India and Pakistan, and then also to promote dialog between

the Indian government and the residents in Kashmir. On the other

side, we have also taken the steps that were mentioned earlier, of

working with the Pakistani government to try to cutoff support for

the militants from Pakistani territory, and then raising with the

Indian government the need to be more transparent, to end the

31

abuses by its security forces, to prosecute those who are responsible

for those abuses.

So that is our effort. One is directly aimed at human rights, trying to stop the abuses and see that people are punished. The other

is trying to resolve the underlying conflict. But at the end of the

day, it is the parties themselves who have to make the peace. We

cannot do that for them.

Ms. WATSON. Am I correct in feeling that there is a bit of softening between the two countries, particularly on the Pakistani side?

How would you describe the current situation?

Mr. CAMP. I would say that the dialog that we have seen has

been very encouraging. Really since January, when President

Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee met at the Sark summit

in Islamabad, the rhetoric has been very positive, the dialog process has been proceeding very well. So, yes, there is a lot of potential there for an easing of tensions between India and Pakistan.

And if I may, I would add that another important dialog is that

being carried on between the Deputy Prime Minister of India and

the All-Parties Hurriyat Conference of Kashmir. That is an attempt

to basically establish a dialog between Delhi and separatist

Kashmiris, also a positive gesture.

Ms. WATSON. Are we in the United States applying any aid to

Kashmir?

Mr. CAMP. We do not have an aid program in Kashmir.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you. Do you have any questions right now,

or would you like to make a brief statement real quick?

Mr. PITTS. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Although I am not a

Member of the committee, I appreciate——

Mr. BURTON. No, we have waived the rules here so that all of our

colleagues can participate.

Mr. PITTS. I thank you for the hearing on looking into the human

rights violations in Kashmir. I have travelled to the region a number of times, met with the leadership in both Pakistan and Kashmir and India, and was there in January during the successful

Sark summit and very pleased with the leadership of Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Musharraf in the bilateral and in the

peace talks.

I also had the same question the gentlelady asked about do we

do anything there. And in checking, I found out that, although

there are some 26,000 refugees on the Pakistan side, they are not

considered refugees, they are IDPs, Internally Displaced People,

and the U.N. does not help IDPs. The United States takes our cue

from the U.N. and we do not help IDPs. So there is not a lot of

aid, or hardly any really, going to those people who are suffering

tremendously.

The cease-fire that occurred on November 26th was very welcomed. I met with a number of the refugees, what we would call

refugees, in their camps there and have tried to work with humanitarian efforts with some of the groups. But for the first time there

seemed to be a little bit of hope because of the peace dialog. And

then the residents were very grateful for the shelling to stop. They

wanted the troops on both sides to withdraw from the Line of Control a little bit further, continue the confidence-building like the

32

peace exchanges, opening the bus route, opening the air line, which

occurred about a week before, and then the cricket matches and

other exchanges.

I think one of the things that I looked into with human rights

abuse was using rape as a method of terror. Everybody it seems

could agree that those types of abuses on both sides should stop.

And we can also focus on things like educating children. The

schools that I saw there in Kashmir, they had absolutely nothing.

There ought to be some mechanism of getting some aid to these

poor, suffering people in Kashmir.

I thank the chairman for having the hearing on the violations of

human rights in Kashmir today. Thank you.

Mr. BURTON. Let me start my comments and questions by saying

that the definition of atrocities I guess is in the eye of the beholder.

From my perspective, what I saw in the prisons in Iraq was horrible but it was not an atrocity. An atrocity to me is cutting somebody’s head off in public, or flying an airplane into the World Trade

Center and killing 3,000 people, or bombing an embassy and killing

people, deliberately going after torture and killing people. Taking

pictures of naked prisoners is a horrible thing and those people

should be held accountable, and they will be held accountable. But

that does not compare to what I consider to be an atrocity. The people who commit an atrocity like what we saw this last couple of

days, by beheading an innocent American citizen who just happened to be trying to make a few dollars over there, those people

should be held accountable, and I mean held accountable to the full

extent of the law and that includes the death penalty.

Now let me talk about what is going on in India from my perspective. There have been, no question, horrible acts by the militants. And I understand the State Department tries to keep a balance here. You guys want to make sure that we do not upset the

apple cart as far as the peace talks are concerned, and I think that

is great because they now have a roadmap to peace and they have

a 6-month program. I think it would be great if India and Pakistan,

who are both nuclear powers, would move toward peace over Kashmir where we have had two wars and reach an agreement that

would be acceptable to them and to the people of Kashmir, and just

stop all this stuff. But they have in Punjab and Kashmir over a

million troops, about a million and a half troops up there imposing

marshal law. There are gang rapes, and there are all kinds of

atrocities taking place by the Indian troops, and, as I said, some

from the militants as well, nobody knows how many.

But the thing is India is a ‘‘democracy’’ like ours. That is what

it is supposed to be. It is supposed to be the biggest democracy in

the world. And of all these figures that I quoted, there has been

almost 90,000 people killed by Indian troops, 104,000 shops

burned, 105,000 children orphaned, almost 9,300 women raped and

molested, and 22,000 women widowed. It seems to me that in a democracy—I mean, in our democracy right now, those people in Iraq

are going to be prosecuted for pictures, for pictures. These are

atrocities involving killings, rapes, horrible things, torture, and the

Indian security forces have been punished by the Indian government to the extent from a slap on the hands to 10 years in prison,

that is the maximum sentence we know of. A slap on the hands to

33

10 years. And there have only been 118 people that have been

taken to task for that.

And so the Indian government, and the militants, there is no

court of law for them, there ought to be some way to deal with the

ones that are imposing these kinds of tortures on people on that

side as well, but the Indian government, which is supposed to be

the world’s largest democracy, like us, ought to be holding these

people accountable. If we can hold people accountable for taking

pictures of naked prisons, we sure as the dickens can say to the

Indian government that for raping, gang raping, torturing, murdering people that they ought to hold those people accountable. And

I hope the Indian government is watching. That is something that

could go a long way toward making your reputation in the world

be enhanced dramatically, because people ought to be brought to

justice for doing such things.

Now what are we doing from a public relations standpoint

through the State Department, what are we doing besides trying

to get the two parties to the table to negotiate? What are we doing

to try to get India and Pakistan, what we are doing to try to get

them to move toward what I was just talking about, is holding people accountable for these atrocities. Because once you make a soldier accountable for some act of rape or torture, it sends a message

to the entire force. If all you give is a slap on the hands to somebody for raping a woman or torturing, if that is all you give them,

then what does that say to the rest of the force? It says, hey, all

you are going to get is a slap on the hands or maybe a year in prison, so do what you want to do. So what are we doing to encourage

or to insist, if you will, that the Indian government hold these people accountable?

Mr. KOZAK. I think it is on several levels, Mr. Chairman, and I

must say, I cannot agree with you more that this is the kind of

message that needs to be sent to any kind of force, that these kinds

of practices are just not acceptable, and the way you send that

message is by holding people accountable. Of course, one of the

things we do is try to bring this out in the open with our Annual

Human Rights Report. That is on our Web site, it gets presented,

it gets covered in the press in India and elsewhere. I think that effort on our part and by several of the human rights NGO’s, as you

mentioned as well, hopefully that stirs up some debate within India

so that the democratic process causes people to say we do not want

to be seen this way.

Second, we have, and Don can give you more detail, but when

we have conversations at high levels with Indian officials this subject does get raised with the same kind of argumentation that you

just gave, that if they want to improve their image, they need to

clean this kind of stuff up.

We have seen some progress in terms of some of the worst effects

that you mentioned there of burning down houses and so on. There

was a lot of that going on in the early 1990’s and the embassy reports that has essentially ceased. But that does not mean that all

of the abuses have ceased. We still have torture and killing of people in custody and these faked encounters and all the other stuff

going on. So our bottom line is, yes, they need to be doing more

34

to bring those people who are doing these things to justice and

send a message.

Mr. BURTON. Over the years, and we have had debates on the

floor, Mr. Ackerman and I, in particular, and others, about this

problem. But I have seen pictures that have been brought to me

by friends of mine from both Kashmir and Punjab and they have

shown me hooks where people are held up and beaten, held upside

down and tortured with cattle prods and that sort of thing. And

they have shown me pictures of people that have been taken out

of the canals and rivers up in Kashmir who have had their hands

tied behind them and tortured and thrown into the rivers and

streams alive to drown. They have shown me reports of wedding

parties where the bride, before she even got to her wedding night,

the bus was stopped and troops gang raped this women, thus ruining their lives.

These sorts of things are the things that I hope you will convey

to the Indian government as prosecutable offenses that should be

carried out to the maximum. If they would do that, their image to

me and a lot of my colleagues would change dramatically. There

has been a division in the House between people who are ‘‘pro

India’’ and ‘‘anti-India.’’ That could change dramatically if we saw

some justice meted out on these kinds of offenses. So I hope that

you and Secretary Powell and others will convey that sentiment.

And if any of the Indian television is watching here today, I hope

that will be conveyed to the Indian government as well. Because

you could go a long way toward mending any differences that there

may be between the Congress of the United States and the Indian

government if they would just do that.

The other thing I want to talk about real quickly, and then I will

let you folks go and we will move to the next panel, is the plebiscites that were promised by Nehru and others back in the 1940’s.

Those resolutions by the United Nations General Assembly are still

in force, they have never been rescinded. What has been done or

what is being done by the State Department to urge the Indian

government to let the people of Jammu and Kashmir vote, have a

referendum on whether or not they want to be a part of Pakistan,

a part of India, or independent? What are we doing on that?

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, our position as a government has been

consistent for many years, which is that this issue is one that

needs to be decided between India and Pakistan, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. We are encouraging the

governments of both countries to look forward and come up with

a solution. That is where we think the dialog is the best

possible——

Mr. BURTON. This roadmap to peace you are talking about?

Mr. CAMP. The roadmap to peace. I think that there have been

other things that have happened in the past 50 years too, all of

them history, including the Simla Agreement in 1972 in which the

two countries agreed to resolve this bilaterally. So, there is a lot

of history there. We think they should go forward.

Mr. BURTON. My last question is, are we a participant at the conference table at all? Are we involved at all?

Mr. KOZAK. No.

35

Mr. BURTON. Well, when we talk to the parties that are members

of the conference I hope we will extend to them our concern about

allowing Jammu and Kashmir and the people that live up there to

have a strong voice in the outcome, as has been required by the

U.N. resolutions that were passed in the early 1940’s.

I think that is all we have for this panel. Did you have a few

questions that you would like to ask real quickly?

Mr. PALLONE. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. OK. We will let my colleague ask a question and

then we will excuse you.

Mr. PALLONE. Let me thank the chairman for not only giving me

an opportunity but also doing it at the last minute like this. I really apologize for just coming in.

I did ask some of my colleagues whether the issue of the Kashmiri Pandits had been raised, and I understand that the ranking

member here asked about it. But I wanted to ask a question about

it. I think you know that the Pandits have been living in the Kashmir Valley for 5,000 years and they have suffered a long history

of attacks through the 1990’s, leading to mass migration from the

Kashmir Valley. They are really a very small minority right now.

But I wanted to ask, in the annual State Department Report on

Human Rights, it lists the Kashmiri Pandits as a minority community victimized by gross human rights abuses who were forced to

flee under the most trying circumstances. And I just wanted to

know why the human rights abuses against this community, the

Pandits, have not been prioritized? And is it not true that the

Pandits have been all but decimated from the Kashmir Valley and

the survivors are now living in refugee camps or scattered all over

India? If you would just comment on that, because I do not know

that it has received any attention here today and it is something

that concerns me a great deal.

Mr. CAMP. It certainly is an issue that concerns us as well, Congressman. I would say that the Indian government has also been

very focused on the persecution of the minority communities, not

just the Pandits but Sikhs and others in Kashmir. And I think that

we have the full support of the Indian government in making the

Pandits’ lives as good as possible in light of what they have suffered. Kashmir has traditionally been a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society. And the expulsion of groups like this are is a tragedy.

Mr. PALLONE. So what is happening now to allow them to come

back? I mean, is their situation deteriorating further? Is it likely

that there are going to be more leaving the valley? I just want you

to give a little on their status at this point if you could.

Mr. CAMP. I would say the answer to that also lies in an end to

the conflict in a negotiated end and a return to peace in the valley.

That is the best potential to see communities like the Pandits and

the Sikhs returning, in my judgment.

Mr. PALLONE. OK. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you very much.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if I may just for a moment comment on something that you did.

Mr. BURTON. Sure.

Mr. ACKERMAN. You mentioned that if the Indian government

would be doing a better job in helping to control the actions of some

36

of the soldiers with regard to atrocities that have taken place that

there would be those in this Congress who would take a renewed

look at their view toward India. I want to say that I appreciate

your saying that. I, for one, would like to say that I would like to

see the Indian government do a better job, as we would like to see

all governments do a better job in cases where soldiers commit

these kinds of atrocities. As far as atrocities, I am not sure that

we agree on the definition of atrocities and the level of the bar.

Webster defines ‘‘atrocity,’’ and I just had somebody look it up,

among other things, as ‘‘an extremely cruel deed.’’ If I were writing

the dictionary, I would say an atrocity is something terrible that

happens to you or a member of your family or someone you know

or love. I do not think that the crime we are going to be charging

people with in Iraq is going to be that of taking pictures. And I

think that the world is not offended by the taking of the pictures,

but it is the deed that people are offended by, whether it takes

place in Iraq at the hands of Americans or in Jammu and Kashmir

at the hands of soldiers who are not properly supervised or militants that cross the border from other places.

Mr. BURTON. Well, I do not want to get into a big dialog on this.

But, obviously, the people in Iraq who took those pictures and did

those deeds in the prison will be prosecuted. There is going to be

a court marshal, I think it is going to take place almost immediately for the first person. It will be held in a public forum and

the media around the world will see what I consider to be the

greatest democracy in the world, the United States, handling people who do that sort of thing. And at the same time we see a beheading of an American who was an innocent over there. As I said

at the beginning of my remarks, atrocity I guess is in the eye of

the beholder. But to me, that is an atrocity. And what we saw in

the prison was a terrible deed that should not have been done, but

they should be prosecuted. And I hope that is an example to countries like India and around the world that even something like taking pictures and beating a prisoner in jail, which is bad and should

be prosecuted, that we consider that something that should be

dealt with severely, and we hope they will take that to heart when

they are dealing with troops who have done something that we consider to be immeasurably worse.

Mr. ACKERMAN. You have a unanimous verdict on that.

Mr. BURTON. Yes. Thank you.

With that, thank you gentlemen. And extend my thanks to Secretary Powell and to Mr. Armitage for having you folks come over.

Mr. KOZAK. We will, indeed. Thank you, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Our next panel is Mr. Kumar, who is the Advocacy

Director for Asia for Amnesty International.

OK, Mr. Kumar. Thank you very much for being here. Do you

have an opening statement, sir?

Mr. KUMAR. Yes, sir.

Mr. BURTON. I always swear in our witnesses. Would you please

stand and be sworn.

[Witness sworn.]

37

STATEMENT OF T. KUMAR, ADVOCACY DIRECTOR FOR ASIA,

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL-USA

Mr. KUMAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting Amnesty

International to testify at this important hearing. Why we say this

is important is this: The plight of Kashmiri people for the last 50

years has been marred by violence and abuse. We have documented

numerous abuses by all parties to the conflict—all parties namely,

Indian government, armed opposition groups, and Pakistani government. So I go one by one about what type of abuses we have

documented by these three groups.

Before I go into detail, I would like to say that Amnesty International as an organization does not take a position about the status of Kashmir, whether it is part of India, part of Pakistan, or

whether it is an independent territory. So our facility is based

purely on human rights. We have no political angle to it; that is

not our job. Also, we want to be very critical and we want to give

some comments about what can be done to improve the situation

there.

First of all, because of the conflict, the only losers are the people

of Kashmir. No matter what background they are. They could be

young, they could be old, they could be women, they could be Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, you name it, they are the ones who

lost out because of the abuses that are happening there. So there

is no discrimination in that sense from our point of view.

First going to the Indian side. In Indian side, there are two main

players that are involved in abusing the people of Kashmir. The

first is the government of India. The government of India’s armed

forces as well as the police are involved in massive human rights

abuses. I want to emphasize the term ‘‘massive.’’ Thousands disappeared. The families did not know what happened to them, still

looking for their loved ones. Thousands were imprisoned and are

still imprisoned. Quite a few people are executed, and thousands

were tortured and raped. So we have documented all these things,

including rape, which is very unique of certain issues there. But

also we have documented Indian shelling across the border to Pakistan, the civilians on the other side who are not military targets

yet get affected.

India also is using their special laws to Kashmir that basically

gives a green light to the military and to the police to do whatever

they want and get away with the abuses. That is the sad reality.

I noticed you mentioned about impunity. They should be brought

to justice. The issue there is the laws. The laws give them basic

protection. And the other side of the law is the Indian National

Human Rights Commission does not have any authority to investigate abuses that are happening in Kashmir which are committed

by the armed forces. That may be a first step whereby Congress,

the U.S. administration can pressure the Indian government to expand the mandate of the National Human Rights Commission to

investigate abuses in Kashmir. The Indian National Human Rights

Commission is having a pretty reasonable record, pretty independent, pretty critical of the government, especially on the Gudjurat

issue. So that we consider a test under the first steps.

The other one is the political will from the administration. There

are two administrations that we are talking about when it comes

38

to Kashmir: One is the state administration, the other is the Federal administration. The state administration, they have a new

minister. About 2 years ago there was new chief minister who came

to power and he promised that he will prosecute and disband certain notorious police and military forces. But nothing happened. It

may be due to different pressures that person is receiving. So the

reality is that we are talking about two different entities. One is

the Federal Government dealing with Jammu and Kashmir from a

different lens, and the state government which is looking from a

local perspective.

Also as I mentioned, thousands of political persons are still in

prison. And even peaceful dissent is being curtailed by the Indian

government. For example, about 2 months ago there was a demonstration by the families of the disappeared. The Organization of

the Disappeared just was demonstrating asking that the issue be

brought to the U.N. attention of all their disappearances. But unfortunately, the demonstrators were beaten up, some were arrested, and some were abused. So even the peaceful dissent is not

being allowed at this present time in Kashmir. That is something

that can be pressurized by the State Department and by the Congress, to allow the peaceful aspect to it. Leave the armed struggle

alone. Let the people come out and express their feelings.

Coming quickly to the armed opposition groups. There are numerous armed opposition groups in Kashmir. Some want total independence, some want to be part of Pakistan, and there may be

other reasons they are there. They are also committing massive

human rights abuses. Torture, killing, extra judicially executing

people, and rape. That is something that has to be brought up publicly to basically humiliate these armed groups, that you are involved in abuses which you are supposed to be fighting against for

which are champions. If you claim that, that is a reality. The other

issue is that they also go and harass the families. When they demand food and they are refused, the families get harassed, they get

abused, and sometimes they get killed. They need protection when

they are running away from the Indian intelligence and the security forces. When the civilians are reluctant, again, they get abused

by these armed opposition groups.

The other issue that armed opposition groups are involved in is

attacking the minorities; in this case, Hindu minorities. They are

called Pandits, which was brought up earlier. About 10 years ago

there were massive anti-Pandit activities by some groups, not

Kashmiri people, we are talking about some armed groups. About

150,000 Pandits fled Kashmir really, and most of them are living

in Jammu and in refugee camps. They are the internally displaced.

But it is sad, their plight is basically not in the forefront when you

discuss Kashmir at this moment.

The other issue is kidnapping and torture by the armed opposition groups. The last one that I would mention about armed opposition groups is about attacking people, groups, isolated individuals

who are advocating a political solution to the Kashmiri conflict.

They assassinated them, tortured them, and threatened them. The

latest development was the election. You mentioned that you postponed the hearing because of elections. During elections in Jammu

and Kashmir, especially in Kashmir, the armed opposition groups

39

basically challenged and threatened anyone who participated in the

elections and they informed them they face dire consequences.

They attacked rallies and they killed people. Scores of people have

been abused and killed because they were participating in the

democratic process there.

Quickly coming over to Pakistan. We purposely wanted to look

at Pakistan because you asked us to testify about Kashmir. So

there is one part, at least one-third or whatever the percent is

under the control of Pakistan. There, even though you do not see

the abuses that are mentioned, there are four main issues that are

of concern to us.

First, is the oath that the Pakistani government basically forced

the state legislators of the Kashmiri part of Pakistan to take. Basically, committing them that Jammu and Kashmir will be part of

Pakistan. That is may be a political question, but from the human

rights point of view, this has been used to intimidate the legislators

there.

The other issue is peaceful dissent. Basically, peaceful dissent is

being curtailed when it hurts the Jammu and Kashmir status debate; for example, independence of Kashmir or part of India debate.

And the third one, obviously, is the shelling. Pakistani troops are

also involved in shelling across the border, despite the fact it may

hit the civilians on the other side.

So in closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell you that the losers in the whole battle between these three groups are the people

of Kashmir. So we are extremely pleased that you are holding this

hearing, even after a small delay, that at least the suffering of the

Kashmiri people is being brought to the attention of the Congress

and the world at large. We hope that this momentum will bring

some settlement to the suffering of Kashmiris. We also believe that

before you take a political solution, human rights abuses should reduce. You cannot have a political solution when massive human

rights abuses, women get raped, people get killed, are happening.

Thank you very much for inviting me.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kumar follows:]

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Kumar, for coming to testify. First

of all, when they had the election and we deferred the hearing, we

did it because we were told that this might lead ultimately to a

peaceful solution, which we have all waited for for so long. You said

that people were intimidated when they tried to go to the polls

there in Jammu and Kashmir. Do you have any idea on what the

percentage was of people that were turned away or afraid to vote?

Mr. KUMAR. It is not only the election day events that we are

talking about, we are talking about pre-election rallies and activities. They have attacked rallies, they have stopped people from

going to polls on the polling day. But we are talking about the preelection, people were killed.

Mr. BURTON. And people were killed.

Mr. KUMAR. We do not know the exact—it just ended about 2

days ago.

Mr. BURTON. Do you know what the percentage was that ultimately did vote?

Mr. KUMAR. Not for sure. Maybe 50 percent. I do not want to

comment.

Mr. BURTON. That would just be a guess?

Mr. KUMAR. Yes, it is a guess.

Mr. BURTON. But it was way below what they would anticipate?

Mr. KUMAR. No. Overall, Indian rate is around 55 or 60 percent.

Mr. BURTON. How about up in the Jammu and Kashmir area?

Mr. KUMAR. That I do not know.

Mr. BURTON. But there was a lot of intimidation?

Mr. KUMAR. Yes. In Kashmir, in particular, that is the only

place, with the exception of northeast of India and certain pockets

in other parts of India. There was a call by a group of armed men

who are pretty strong basically informing the candidates and the

people at large that they will face the consequences if you go to the

polls.

Mr. BURTON. Tell us real quickly, and I am familiar with this,

but for the edification of the people in the room and my colleagues,

tell us about the laws that protect soldiers, military personnel who

commit torture and rape and that sort of thing.

Mr. KUMAR. Basically, they have a special powers act in Kashmir

which basically gives blanket immunity to the armed soldiers, the

military from being brought to justice, with the exception of Home

Ministry, that is Interior Ministry, giving green light to them to be

brought then to justice, which is not forthcoming; that is a given.

It is not forthcoming because the Home Ministry is very reluctant

to give permission to bring any military person there to justice.

Their argument may be that it is national security. So our objective

is at least allow the National Human Rights Commission, they are

so nationalist they do not allow outsiders, why do you not allow

your own institution to investigate. So these are the laws. There

are three separate laws.

Mr. BURTON. Yes. Now if a group of soldiers gang rape a woman,

or if soldiers hang a man up on one of these hooks and torture him,

or tie his hands behind him and use cattle prods and then throw

him in a river and drown him, what are the chances of prosecution

with these current laws?

47

Mr. KUMAR. It is case by case we have to analyze. If it brings

lot of public outcry, not only in Kashmir but also outside, then

there may be people who—people have been brought to justice. But

that is far below what the real percentage of abuses that have

taken place. We are talking about from 1980 onwards. The whole

human rights abuses intensified after the armed struggle started.

I mean, you can argue whether the chicken or egg which one is responsible for the abuses. But the armed struggle started in 1979–

80, then retaliation. And for the last, say, 14 or 15 years, there

were hundreds, if not thousands, of abuses that have been committed.

Mr. BURTON. Since 1987.

Mr. KUMAR. Only very few were brought to justice. Very few.

Mr. BURTON. So a member of the armed forces pretty much has

carte blanche as far as being involved in torture, rape, or anything

else? I mean, they have a pretty good idea that the chances of them

being brought to justice for something like that is almost zero?

Mr. KUMAR. I will not go to that extent of zero. But I will say

they will feel that the laws are protecting them. I am sure there

are some people who were brought to justice.

Mr. BURTON. So what you would say, as a human rights advocate

from Amnesty International and what you would like the world to

know, is that those laws should be changed so that the military is

held accountable when they do these atrocities which would send

a signal that they better stop it.

Mr. KUMAR. Yes. And as a first step we would urge the National

Human Rights Commission be given the authority to investigate

and recommend and come publicly. The laws should be changed,

which their State government, when it came to power 2 years ago,

basically gave that promise to the people of Kashmir that when

they come to power they will make all these changes. But nothing

happened. They are backtracking.

Mr. BURTON. So your message to the government of India and

the newly elected government 2 years ago of Kashmir is let us get

on with changing the laws and make them more just so that we

can make sure that the military personnel who are in that area are

held accountable for these atrocities?

Mr. KUMAR. To recommend also the straight political message

should go as well as people should be—we have documents, we can

give them documents.

Mr. BURTON. We will try to make sure that message is sent out

worldwide.

Mr. KUMAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Faleomavaega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank

Mr. Kumar for his very eloquent statement and certainly in citing

the facts and trying to be neutral in the process. I have always had

a very high respect for Amnesty International in its efforts worldwide in reporting on human rights issues throughout the world.

You indicated that these activities conducted by the Indian security forces is documented. Has it also been part of the International

Human Rights Commission efforts in documenting the same activities from the years past?

Mr. KUMAR. The National Human Rights Commission.

48

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. The National.

Mr. KUMAR. No. That is the main issue we are facing, the National Human Rights Commission’s mandate being limited to nonarmed forces. So when the armed forces are involved in abuses,

they cannot get involved. So two areas in India that are being excluded from their mandate are Kashmir and northeast India.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And just to kind of get a little better sense

again, in your reporting efforts for all these past years about the

abuses by the Indian security forces, of course you brought this to

the attention of our State Department, our government, and we

have made official notifications also to the Indian government

about these atrocities or these tortures?

Mr. KUMAR. Yes. We approach the Indian government through

different channels.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And what has been the response?

Mr. KUMAR. Luke warm. It depends which ministry. If it is the

Foreign Ministry will say we will do everything we can, and nothing happens from the Interior Home Ministry perspective.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And what is your understanding as to why

there seems to be a passive response on the part of the Indian government in really doing a comprehensive review of these atrocities

that have been mentioned?

Mr. KUMAR. It is very difficult to judge their mindset whichever

government that is in power, be it Congress, be it JPB, be it any

other government, they consider this, I presume, this is my personal statement, not as Amnesty, it is a national security issue. So

anything goes. Everything is fine when it comes to national security. The sad reality is that if people of India come to know what

is happening in Kashmir, they will be a sea change because it is

immediate that you have brought attention to what is happening

there to the people of India.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. We also know, of course, that there have

been times in different periods of the time of Prime Minister

Nehru, Prime Minister Indira Ghandi, different policies, a more

centralized form of government versus decentralization of the government, and even also in the time of Prime Minister Rajiv

Ghandi’s administration. So there has been, not to say consistency,

but because of the differences of the leadership that have been

elected accordingly for all these years, you get a different bearing

in terms of what has happened. You indicated that we are looking

at Pakistan for its human rights abuses of the residents living in

Jammu-Kashmir.

Mr. KUMAR. In the Kashmir, yes.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I wanted to ask you, has this been just as

strongly advocated by Amnesty International about its atrocities

and the militant troops?

Mr. KUMAR. Yes. We have been very critical of Pakistan as well.

It is not to give a balance or anything. That is a reality.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And I am not trying to do that.

Mr. KUMAR. No, no. I know. It is a reality on the ground. If Pakistan is a champion, then they better treat people under their control also fairly, give them equal chance of expressing their political

will. So, no, we have been very critical. But there are other issues

in Pakistan we always are concerned with as well.

49

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You made a comment about a political solution versus human rights—and I am fleshing this thing out in

terms of your views on this—and the fact that if there is no political solution, then human rights as part of the problems is going to

continue. And as my good friend the chairman has been saying

here, I cannot agree with him more on tortures or rapes from anybody, whether it be from the Indian security forces or from the militant groups. But the fact of the matter is, because there is no political solution, we are going to continue having these very serious

human rights problems. Recently, there seems to be a sway among

the leadership by both Pakistan and India that it is a lot better not

only communicating but finding a solution to their problems. And

it seems to me that the human rights issue will I think just find

its way in being resolved, I would think.

But as the chairman had indicated earlier about the fact that, if

this is giving notice publicly to the Indian government, that if they

have known for all these years that the Indian security forces have

committed these atrocities, why there has been such a passive attitude toward it, no more than the fact that we have given just as

much notice to the Pakistani government for the same problems

that we are faced with—atrocities on both sides. And so I appreciate your reporting of the issues at least trying to establish a

sense of balance here.

I recall an African proverb, Mr. Chairman, about two elephants

fighting each other and the grass gets trodden. I recall that this

was stated, and my cousin, who is a former prime minister of Western Samoa, made this remark to President Acrumba, who made

this proverbial expression, and he said, ‘‘Well, Mr. President, if the

two elephants make love, the grass still gets trodden.’’ Well, we do

not have elephants in my home, Mr. Chairman, but I just wanted

to give that sense of proverbial expression. And you are absolutely

correct, Mr. Kumar, it is the poor victims and the people who are

caught in the middle simply because the two countries cannot find

a political solution to their problems. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you. Do you have any comment you would

like to make?

Mr. KUMAR. Basically, as a final statement——

Mr. BURTON. No, no. Mr. Pitts I guess will question. I just

thought maybe you had a response.

Mr. KUMAR. No.

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been to Azad Kashmir four times. I have not been permitted by the Indian government to go to Indian Kashmir, although I have been to India a couple of times and requested that. I would like to see, for instance,

a congressional delegation go and visit both Pakistan and India, go

to Azad Kashmir and go to India Kashmir and talk to all the parties involved. When I was in Azad Kashmir, the journalists were

there, the human rights groups were there. Are you permitted to

go to India Kashmir as Amnesty International? Can you as a

human rights organization go there?

Mr. KUMAR. No. We do not have access to Indian Kashmir. Not

only Kashmir, but other parts of India as well. There are certain

parts that we have problems. And also on the Pakistani side, we

did not ask, but we did not get the indication from the Pakistanis

50

that we will be blocked from going there. But the Indian side, yes,

we were not allowed to go there.

Mr. PITTS. Every time I have been to Azad Kashmir, I hold a

town meeting with the men and boys. I see the men and boys

whose arms and legs are hacked off by the Indians and talk to

them. Unfortunately, our government does not give aid, but I have

reached out to NGO’s who have gotten 2,000 wheelchairs and

crutches and walkers and some little humanitarian aid to those

IDPs there. If the United States were to provide assistance to the

Kashmiris, what type of assistance would you suggest that the U.S.

Government provide, No. 1.

No. 2, if the U.S. Government were to be involved in any way,

what role do you see them playing in helping encourage the peaceful dialog?

And then third, you mentioned the use of rape as a weapon of

terror. We heard the same report when I met with the Kashmiris

there. What is the best way to pressure all sides to stop using rape

as a weapon of terror, in your opinion?

Mr. KUMAR. First, coming back to your last question of using

rape during the operations, using the rape as a weapon of terror

may be part of it. I mentioned in my opening remarks that it is

being used by the Indian armed forces as well as the armed opposition groups on the Indian side. The best way, at least from the Indian side, Indian government, they can bring people to justice, they

can prosecute them, they can charge them, they can punish them.

And give a very strong signal, not only to Kashmiri women but

women at large in India, that Indian government will not tolerate

this type of abuses against women. That is important for Indian

government for their own self-interest, not because of anything,

just purely for their own self-interest they should have a special

body to look into that. Now for militant groups, it is everybody’s

guess how to control them. But at least Indians can control themselves.

The second question of a political solution, what can be done. We

are not a political organization. But I can only comment that without having human rights addressed first, even though you can

argue with the chicken and egg issue, we strongly believe that

human rights can be addressed before a political solution. The reason being, India can punish their soldiers before a political settlement happens. It is under their control. They can do it today. They

can initiate a campaign basically sending a political message and

arresting people and punishing them. And Pakistani government

also. It is very easy for the Pakistani government because they can

just repeal all those laws and allow Kashmiris under their control

to express their views and not to force them to take oaths that

Jammu and Kashmir will be part of Pakistan. So these two governments can start the process without even sitting at a table to talk

about peace or how to solve the problem. The armed groups are the

third entity which, as I mentioned earlier, it is anyone’s guess.

Coming back to the aid, it is obviously the Pakistani side as well

as Indian side you have to address separately. On the Pakistani

side, I will say the administration can give aid to those IDPs or refugees, whichever term you can use because it is all political terms,

and also that falls under these victims of human rights abuses. On

51

the Indian side, it is going to be very tricky. We do not know how

you are going to channel the funds to the victims there. Obviously,

you can do it for Pandits. But I doubt even Pandits who are in refugee camps, even that I doubt Indian government will allow because

their standard policy about getting into India is very strict. I mean,

that is their policy. We are not commenting on that. They are taking care of thousands, if not thousands, millions of refugees. So

they may have a reason not to allow U.N. fix here. But I will say

when it comes to Kashmir proper, then you can always say that

any aid to empower accountability and documentation of human

rights can be a first step.

I also forgot to mention about Buddhist. I mentioned about

Sikhs, Hindus, and Muslims, they are all Kashmiris. There is also

the Ladar population who are Buddhists. They are not facing the

brunt of the abuses, but they are also in the middle, they are also

getting beaten up. So by the end of the day, everyone, it is equal

opportunity abuse that is going on in Kashmir by the government

of India, by the militants, and by the Pakistanis.

Mr. PITTS. Thank you. My time is up. I would just like to say,

having seen the beauty and the potential of Kashmir, there is great

potential for economic prosperity there. But until the issue of Kashmir is settled, the people of Kashmir will never realize the stability, the peace, the economic prosperity that they deserve. Thank

you.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Pitts.

Let me just ask one more question. Next to Jammu and Kashmir

is Punjab. Do you have any kind of report on how the Indian troops

are treating the people in the Punjab? We have had reports in the

past over the last several years of comparable abuses to the Sikhs

there.

Mr. KUMAR. I was not prepared to brief you on that. But just

knowing the region, working in the region, I can tell you that in

Punjab there is no military operations going on. It is over. It was

over about 10 years ago. So there is no military operation there.

There is elections. There is local police.

Mr. BURTON. But there are no military personnel in Punjab right

now?

Mr. KUMAR. No. The only issue that we are looking at at this moment are past abuses that happened about 10 years ago with the

disappearance and the accountability of the abuses that took place

during the violent uprisings there.

Mr. BURTON. Do they have any human rights abuses that are

taking place at the hands of law enforcement there?

Mr. KUMAR. That is common not only to Punjab, everywhere.

And also that is common in Pakistan. So when you come to Pakistan and India, there are custodial deaths, that is people being

taken into police custody, torture, rape in custody, fair trial issues.

These are common to both India and Pakistan. So it is not unique

to Punjab. What I mentioned earlier was unique to Kashmir that

is happening there.

Mr. BURTON. Well we have some people here from Punjab as well

who are going to be testifying. I just wanted to get your perspective

on that.

Thank you very much, Mr. Kumar. We appreciate it very much.

52

Mr. KUMAR. Thank you, sir. Thank you for inviting.

Mr. BURTON. The next panel is Mrs. Inayatullah testifying, we

have Dr. Gurmit Aulakh, Mr. Selig Harrison, Dr. Fai, and Mr. Bob

Giuda, who is the chairman of the Americans for Resolution of

Kashmir.

Mrs. Inayatullah is an aid worker. I would just like to say that

she came half way around the world from Kashmir. Her mother

passed away last Sunday. And she thought this was so important

she actually missed her mother’s funeral to be here. And we want

to tell you how much we sympathize and appreciate your being

here. If you could come forward and have a seat. Dr. Fai is the executive director of the Kashmiri American Council. I have known

Dr. Fai for a long time. Mr. Harrison is the director of the Asia

Program for the Center for International Policy. And Dr. Aulakh is

the president of the Council of Khalistan.

Would you all please stand so I can have you sworn in.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. BURTON. I think because Mrs. Inayatullah came in spite of

the personal loss that she suffered, I think I will show her a little

bit more respect than my other witnesses and ask her to go ahead

and testify first. And I am very sorry to hear about your mother.

STATEMENTS OF ATTIYA INAYATULLAH, AID WORKER;

GURMIT SINGH AULAKH, PRESIDENT, COUNCIL OF

KHALISTAN; GHULAM-NABI FAI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

KASHMIRI AMERICAN COUNCIL; SELIG HARRISON, DIRECTOR OF THE ASIA PROGRAM, CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL

POLICY; AND BOB GIUDA, CHAIRMAN, AMERICANS FOR RESOLUTION OF KASHMIR

Mrs. INAYATULLAH. Thank you, sir. Honorable House of Representatives, I testify before you because I have confidence in the

legislative government of USA. It listens intently and, more importantly, it responds justly.

I, a daughter of Kashmir, who is fortunate to be yet able to

breath the air of freedom, call out to you on behalf of the trapped

3.5 million heroic Kashmiri mothers, daughters, and sisters for protection—protection from the most gruesome and blatant violation of

human rights in contemporary history by 700,000 Indian security

forces. Since 1989 and as of January 2004, the orphaned count,

which you have mentioned, is 105,210; women, from the small age

of 7 to 70, have been abused, molested, raped, and the count is

9,297; and another 21,826 are reported widows; and, regrettably,

the huge number viewed to have been sexually incapacitated

through torture and disabled for life, there is no count.

As for violation of women, as has already been mentioned, rape

in Indian held Kashmir is used as a type of tool of war. The NGO

Committee for Initiative on Kashmir, New Delhi, reports: ‘‘Of all

the atrocities committed by the security forces, the treatment of

Kashmiri women has embittered the people of the valley the most.’’

The alienation, sir, if I may say so, is complete due to this.

In my first person testimonies with women who wish to remain

anonymous, the narrated atrocities are grotesque—hung naked

from trees, breasts lacerated with knives, whilst gang rape in front

of the family was reported to be common practice. A young woman,

53

Zerifa, in a refugee camp in Muzzafarabad, no longer speaks, her

aunt recounts how she was mercilessly gang raped in paddy fields.

Another young woman said to me, ‘‘Give me training so I can kill

the men who raped me.’’ A pregnant women who during a cordon

and search was kicked in the stomach by security forces, resulting

in a miscarriage and death.

Yes, Honorable House of Representatives, protectors have become

predators. This inhuman impulse of army personnel in India’s militarized Kashmir must stop because we know a military solution is

not the solution. We must heed to the findings of the Human

Rights Watch World Report which says, ‘‘Respect for human rights

must be at the center of any effort to resolve the conflict,’’ which

we have been talking about. Indeed, the only way to stop human

rights violations is a just and durable solution of Kashmir based

on U.N. resolutions and the wishes and aspirations of Kashmiri

people.

You, Honorable Members, know more so than any how important

it is to have peace in the geo-political situation. The agony of my

people has been summed up in eight words by Asia Watch: ‘‘There

is a human rights disaster in Kashmir.’’ Women in Indian occupation reach out to you, the House of Representatives, to facilitate a

mechanism through which legal, social, and physical relief is provided to widows and to mothers, relatives of political prisoners, of

the disappeared, and the assassinated. I ask, in this land of Jefferson and Lincoln, why has freedom been denied to the Kashmiris?

Freedom has been illusive, and I say this as an answer for

Kashmiris: Because it has been treated too long as a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan.

Today, as the two countries talk peace and engage in CBMs, you,

Honorable Members, can help them do it right. If ever a CBM was

needed, it is needed in the disputed territory of Kashmir. I suggest

that together the governments of India and Pakistan, through the

United Nations, must effectively engage in protection of orphans,

widows, women in distress, and the incapacitated youth. Because,

Honorable Members, the key to India and Pakistan making

progress toward a political solution lies in the joint provision of humanitarian assistance to the victims of the many atrocities.

Sir, the world must know that whilst Kashmir is awash with

every form of human abuse and brutalities of state terrorism coupled with coercive diplomacy, the Indian government unabashedly

is exploiting the phenomena of global war against terrorism. The

use of buzz words like ‘‘cross-border terrorism’’ must not, cannot

hide India’s guilt for over 80,000 graves in Indian held Kashmir.

Honorable Members, there is a humanitarian emergency in Indian held Kashmir. We need action and we need it today. I leave

the devastated hearts, the tortured minds, the innocent souls of the

valley in your care knowing that you who represent the American

people do not turn and walk away. Thank you, sir.

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Inayatullah follows:]

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

Mr. BURTON. Thank you. We will certainly take to heart what

you said and do everything we can to bring about a resolution. My

heart goes out to all the people who have suffered over there.

My good friend, Dr. Aulakh.

Mr. AULAKH. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to

discuss the lack of human rights India for Sikhs and other minorities today. The written report that I have submitted and the supporting documentation will give you additional information on the

matters I am discussing today.

Human rights violations are wide spread in India. Amnesty

International has not been allowed to visit Punjab since 1978. Even

the repressive Cuban regime has allowed Amnesty International

into the country more recently.

The reality is that India is a Hindu theocracy, not the democracy

it claims to be. The leaders are militant Hindu nationalists associated with Rashtriya Swayamesewak Sangh, RSS, a pro-Fascist organization. The government maintains a policy called Hindutva, a

total Hinduization and Hindu control of every aspect of political,

religious, social, and civil life in India. A senior leader of the ruling

party was quoted as saying that everyone who lives in India must

either be a Hindu or subservient to Hindus. A cabinet minister was

quoted as saying that Pakistan should be absorbed into India.

The Indian government policy of Hindutva is a policy of elimination of minorities such as the Sikhs. An army commander in Amritsar district threatened that he would murder the Sikh men,

bring the women to the army barracks, and produce a new generation of Sikhs. Mr. Chairman, this is disgraceful and extremely insulting to the proud Sikhs. It is unbecoming of an army commander of a nation which claims to be the world’s largest democracy.

According to the figures compiled by the Punjab State Magistracy, which represents the judiciary of Punjab, and human

rights groups, over a quarter of a million, over 250,000 Sikhs have

been murdered by the Indian government since 1984. They join

over 300,000 Christians in Nagaland who have been killed by the

Indian regime since 1947, as well as more than 85,000 Kashmiri

Muslims who have been killed since 1988, and tens of thousands

of other minorities.

Amnesty International reported in February that at least 100 individuals, including social activists, human rights defenders, and

lawyers, were currently being tortured in Punjab. The report by the

Movement Against State Repression shows that India admitted to

holding 52,268 Sikhs as political prisoners. They are held without

charge or trial, some of them since 1984. Why does a democratic

state hold tens of thousands of political prisoners, Mr. Chairman?

Why does a democracy pay bounties to police officers to kill minorities? Why does a democracy need a Movement Against State Repression?

According to the February 17 issue of the Tribune of Chandigarh,

a Sikh named Gurnihal Singh Pirzada, who was a high official of

the Indian Administrative Service, was released from jail claiming

that his fundamental right to liberty was violated. He was arrested

after allegedly being seen at a meeting of gathering of Punjab disVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:05 Nov 08, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\96410.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
63

sidents. Pirzada denies attending such a meeting, but points out

that it would not be illegal if he did.

In June 1984, the Indian government brutally invaded the Golden Temple and 150 other Gurdwaras around Punjab. Over 20,000

people were killed in these attacks, including the Sikh leader Sant

Jarnail Singh Bhrindranwale, who was the strongest spokesman

for Sikh rights and Sikh freedom. More than 100 young boys, ages

8 to 12, were taken outside into the courtyard of the Golden Temple and asked whether they supported Khalistan, the independent

Sikh homeland. When they answered with the Sikh religious incantation ‘‘Bole So Nihal,’’ they were summarily shot to death. The

Guru Granth Sahib, the Sikh holy scripture, handwritten in the

times of Sikh Gurus, was shot full of bullet holes by the Indian

military.

In 1995, the Human Rights Wing, under the leadership of Sadar

Jaswant Singh Khalra, found that the Indian government has a

policy of arresting Sikhs, often innocent ones, then torturing them,

murdering them, declaring their bodies ‘‘unidentified’’ and secretly

cremating them without even notifying the families. Mr. Khalra

concluded that at least 15,000 Sikhs have been made to disappear

this way. The followup to his effort places the number around

50,000. Mr. Khalra was arrested by Punjab police on September 6,

1995, and killed in police custody about 6 weeks later. His body

was never given to his family. No one has ever been brought to justice for the Khalra murder.

Sadar Gurdev Singh Kaunke, who was Jathedar of the Akal

Takht, the highest Sikh religious position, was murdered by senior

superintendent of police Swaran Singh Ghotna. He has never been

punished for this crime.

Unfortunately, Sikhs are not the only victim of India’s brutal tyranny. Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two sons

were brutally murdered by being burned to death while they slept

in their jeep by a mob of Hindu militants affiliated with the militant, pro-Fascist Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh, RSS, who

chanted, ‘‘Victory to Hannuman,’’ a Hindu god. An American missionary from Pennsylvania, Joseph Cooper, was expelled from the

country after being so severely beaten by RSS goons that he had

to spend a week in the hospital. In January 2003, an American

missionary and seven other individuals were attacked by RSS-affiliated Hindu militants. RSS-affiliated gangs have raped nuns,

murdered priests, burned churches. Christian schools and prayer

halls have been attacked and destroyed. A Christian religious festival was broken up by police gunfire. Church staff have been harassed. Church events have been disrupted. And yet India continues

to claim it is secular and democratic.

Both Prime Minister Vajpayee and Deputy Prime Minister L.K.

Advani are members of RSS and neither has ever repudiated the

Hindu fundamentalist ideology.

In March 2002, between 2,000 and 5,000 Muslims were brutally

murdered by RSS-affiliated mobs in Gujarat. According to the U.S.

Commission on International Religious Freedom, ‘‘Hundred of

mosques and Muslim-owned businesses and other kinds of infrastructure were looted or destroyed.’’ The Commission reports that

‘‘Many Muslims were burned to death, others were stabbed or shot.

64

India’s National Human Rights Commission, and official body,

found evidence in the killings of premeditation by members of

Hindu extremist groups; complicity by Gujarat state officials; and

police inaction in the midst of attacks on Muslims.’’ A police officer

confirmed to an Indian newspaper that the massacre was preplanned by the government.

Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, and Orissa have all passed bills barring religious conversions. These bills are targeted against the conversions

of Hindus to Christianity and other religions. Yet Hindu mobs have

forcibly converted lower-caste individuals to Hinduism and no action is taken.

India has never been one country. It has 18 official languages.

There was no such entity as India until the British conquered the

subcontinent and threw it together for their own administrative

convenience. History tells us that such multinational states are

doomed to fall apart.

Sikhs ruled an independent Punjab from 1710 to 1716 and again

from 1765 until the British conquest of the subcontinent in 1849.

The Sikhs have never accepted the Indian constitution. When the

Indian constitution was adopted in 1950, no Sikh representative

signed it, and no Sikh representative has signed it to this day.

On October 7, 1987, Sikhs declared independence from India,

naming their new country Khalistan. Yet India insists that Punjab

Khalistan is an integral part of India. Only a free Khalistan will

stop India’s repression of Sikhs. Only independence for all nations

and peoples of South Asia will bring freedom, dignity, stability,

prosperity, and peace to the region. The cornerstone of democracy

is self-determination.

Mr. Chairman, there are measures that America can take to help

end the repression of Sikhs, Christians, Muslims, and other minorities in India and to support the cause of freedom in the subcontinent. Cutting off U.S. aid to India would be a good start. Why

should American tax dollars go to support the brutal, repressive,

theocratic regime I have described, especially when a British documentary called ‘‘Nuclear India’’ show that India spends 25 percent

of its development budget on its nuclear program and only 2 percent, just 2 percent each on health and education? All that U.S. aid

does is provide additional resources with which to carry out the repression of minorities. In addition, America should support democracy in South Asia in the form of a free and fair plebiscite under

international monitoring on the question of independence in Punjab, Khalistan, in Kashmir, in Christian Nagaland, and wherever

the people are seeking freedom.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you, the members of the

subcommittee, and other Members of the Congress who are attending for this opportunity. I respectfully urge you to support freedom

for all the minority nations of South Asia as the only way to end

the repression and secure full human rights for everyone in that

troubled region. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Aulakh follows:]

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Dr. Aulakh.

Mr. Harrison.

Mr. HARRISON. Chairman Burton, members of the subcommittee,

I greatly appreciate your invitation to testify here today. I have

studied Kashmir for 53 years as a journalist and as a scholar, and

never before in that half century has there been a more promising

opportunity for peace in South Asia and for the reduction of tensions in Kashmir.

The people of Kashmir are trapped in the cross-fire between

India and Pakistan. War inevitably breeds human rights abuses, as

we ourselves learned in Vietnam and as we are now re-learning in

Iraq. The only way to end the human rights abuses that have been

committed by both India and Pakistan in Kashmir is to move the

peace process forward.

I am going to begin by underlining the hard reality that both

India and Pakistan have been guilty of human rights abuses in

Kashmir. We will not help the people of Kashmir if all we do today

is engage in India-bashing or Pakistan-bashing.

The insurgency in Kashmir began in 1987 after the ruling party

in India at that time interfered in the state elections. Pakistan,

under General Zia Ul Haq, saw a golden opportunity to destabilize

Kashmir and began to support both the Kashmir insurgency and

the Khalistan movement, to which we have just heard reference.

Pakistan was at that time awash with American weapons and

money that we provided for the Afghan struggle against the Russians in Afghanistan. The Interservices Intelligence [ISI] in Pakistan began to use those weapons and that money as well as U.S.-

trained Islamic fundamentalist Afghan resistance fighters to escalate the insurgency in Kashmir. Elements allied with Al Qaeda

were among the foreign fighters who poured into Kashmir to help

the Kashmiri insurgents. India reacted to this challenge by building up an inflated military and paramilitary forces in Kashmir that

have pursued repressive tactics and have committed many welldocumented atrocities.

Gradually the Kashmiri fighters have lost the leadership of the

fighting in Kashmir to Pakistan, Afghan, and other foreign Islamic

extremist fighters sponsored by the Pakistani ISI. Among the worst

human rights abuses committed by Pakistani-sponsored Islamic

militant groups in Kashmir has been the ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus, to which reference has been made several times this

morning. Ninety-five percent of the Hindus in the Kashmir Valley

have been driven to seek refuge in Jammu and New Delhi, as the

2001 State Department Human Rights Report confirms.

Pakistan has systematically attempted to undermine or assassinate moderate Kashmiri leaders who have favored a cease-fire

with India and participation in state elections. The principal insurgent group consisting mainly of Kashmiris is the Hizbul Mujahidin.

Like all of the insurgent groups, it has relied on Pakistani aid. In

July 2000, Hizbul Mujahidin offered to conclude a cease-fire but

within days the ISI pulled the reins and Hizbul was forced to renege on its offer. In 2002, when preparations for state elections

were underway, a prominent Kashmiri moderate who advocated

participation in the elections, Abdul Ghani Lone, was assassinated

by groups linked closely with the ISI. During the elections and as

76

recently as 1 month ago, Mahbooba Mufti, a leading moderate, has

been the target of ISI-sponsored assassination attempts.

Despite the atmosphere of fear promoted by Pakistan as a deliberate policy in Kashmir, 22 of the 27 leaders of the Hurriyat, a

grouping of insurgent Kashmiri leaders, has engaged in talks with

Indian Deputy Prime Minister Advani on January 20 and March

27. Another round, a very important occasion, will be held in June.

The principal grievances raised by the Kashmiris raised in those

talks relate to the political prisoners, the lack of accountability concerning the identity of Indian held Kashmiri prisoners, their indefinite detention, and allegedly in some cases their execution and unaccounted deaths while in custody. There is clearly a need for a review of Kashmiri political prisoners. India has promised action on

these grievances but has yet to deliver. Prompt action is an essential precondition for the June talks to make progress. In the case

of Pakistan, prompt action is needed to get its surrogate groups to

negotiate a cease-fire in Kashmir. This is essential to defuse the

climate that leads to human rights abuses.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Harrison, just 1 second please. We have five

votes on the floor, which means that we will be gone for about an

hour. So what I would like to do is have you sum up so we could

hear from Dr. Fai and Mr. Giuda before we leave. So if you could

sum up, we would really appreciate it.

Mr. HARRISON. Pakistan must terminate ISI sponsorship of the

insurgency and dismantle its infrastructure for the support of

cross-border infiltration by Islamic extremist groups. If it refuses to

do so, I am afraid the peace process is likely to break down.

Pakistan’s intentions to honor the peace process in Kashmir have

not been tested because the snows in the Himalayas prevent significant cross-border infiltration. The test will be what happens

when the snows melt.

Skipping to the end, sir. What can the United States do? I am

sure you want that. President Bush promised General Pervez

Musharraf $3 billion in economic and military aid at Camp David.

If we are interested in human rights in Kashmir, this aid should

clearly be conditioned on Pakistan’s termination of support for the

Kashmiri insurgents. Second, the United States should encourage

World Bank and Asian Development Bank aid for key economic development programs in Kashmir. Finally, at the political level, in

conclusion, the United States should make clear that it views the

Line of Control as the eventual international boundary in Kashmir.

This is necessary to make clear to Pakistan that there is no hope

for internationalizing the dispute. As long as that hope remains

alive in Pakistan, the Islamic extremist forces in Pakistan will

push General Musharraf to keep the pot boiling in Kashmir, and

that would mean a never-ending human rights tragedy. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harrison follows:]

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Harrison.

Dr. Fai.

Mr. FAI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am grateful for the opportunity to share my thoughts about the human rights situation in

the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir.

I do believe in the universality of human rights, the universality

of human aspirations, and I do believe in the universality of peace

and prosperity. That is why, Mr. Chairman, I would like to express

my deep appreciation for the latest peace initiative between Prime

Minister Vajpayee of India and President Musharraf of Pakistan.

Prime Minister Vajpayee has maintained that the conflict between

India and Pakistan was fundamentally to the controversy over

Kashmir. He is on record to have said that the settlement of Kashmir conflict does not need to be within the constitution of India but

it could be within the parameters of ‘‘insiniya,’’ that is, humanity.

The reciprocity shown by President Musharraf was equally optimistic when he said: ‘‘The victory would be neither mine nor Prime

Minister Vajpayee’s. It would be victory of negotiations and dialog.’’

Mr. Chairman, peace and justice in Kashmir are achievable if all

parties to the conflict—the government of India, the government of

Pakistan, and the people of Kashmir—make some concessions.

Each party will have to modify its position so that the common

ground is found. It is almost impossible to find a solution of the

Kashmir problem that respects all the duties of India, the values

all the sentiments of Pakistan, and that keeps intact the unity of

the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Yet that does not mean that we

cannot find a workable solution of the Kashmir problem. Yes, we

can find it, but it demands sacrifices, modifications, and the flexibility by all parties to the dispute.

Mr. Chairman, despite this new peace initiative in South Asia,

unfortunately, the human rights situation in occupied Kashmir has

not changed. It remains alarming and very much disturbing. A

massive campaign of brutal force has been launched by Indian

army against the people of Kashmir since the beginning of 1990.

Various estimates are given of the death toll of civilians. So far, the

figure runs into tens of thousands. Countless individuals have been

maimed, and thousands of women molested and humiliated. More

than 100,000 Kashmiri Hindus who are known as Pandits have

been uprooted under deep conspiracy of Governor Judmujan, who

was then the Governor of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. An

international impartial agency must investigate the tragedy of the

Kashmiri Pandits.

The most baffling phenomenon, Mr. Chairman, regarding the situation in Kashmir is that it has been allowed to arise and to persist in a state which, under international law, does not belong to

any member state of the United Nations and whose status is yet

to be decided by the people of that land. It is interesting to note

that when the Kashmir dispute erupted in 1947, the United States

upheld the stand that the future of Kashmir must be decided by

the will of the people and that their wishes be ascertained under

the supervision and the control of the United Nations. The United

States was a principal sponsor of the resolution of the Security

89

Council which was adopted on April 21, 1948 and which was based

on that unchallenged principle.

Mr. Chairman, let it be known to everybody that Kashmir is not

an integral part of either India or Pakistan. Because under all

international agreements which were agreed upon by both India

and Pakistan, which were negotiated by the United Nations, they

were endorsed by the Security Council, and accepted by the international community, Kashmir does not belong to any member state

of the United Nations. If that is true, Mr. Chairman, then the

claim that Kashmir is an integral part of India does not stand. And

if Kashmir is not an integral part of India, then how can Kashmiris

secede from a country like India to which they have never acceded

to in the first place?

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I believe that future negotiations between India and Pakistan can be meaningful and successful if all

parties concerned—that is the government of India, the government of Pakistan, and the Kashmiri leadership—take the very first

step, and that very first step is that there has to be a cease-fire

from all sides and that must be followed by negotiations. The negotiations should be initiated at four different levels: one, an introKashmir dialog between the leadership of All Parties Hurriyet Conference, and the leadership of Buddhists, Sikhs, and the Pandits;

two, talks between the government of India and Pakistan, which

has just started; three talks between the government of India and

the Kashmiri leadership, which has also started but that needs to

be expanded, the government of India needs to understand that

any agreement between the government of India and the Kashmiri

leadership without a Syed Ali Geelani, Mohammad Yasin Malik,

and Shabir Ahmed Shah does not mean anything; and four, tripartite talks between India, Pakistan, and genuine leadership of

the Kashmiri people.

The reason, Mr. Chairman, the talks must be tripartite is that

the dispute involves three parties—India, Pakistan, and the people

of Kashmir. But the primary party is the people of Kashmir, because it is ultimately their future, the future of 13 million people

of Kashmir that is yet to be decided. If India and Pakistan will try

to settle the issue of Kashmir by themselves, they will be performing Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark. I thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fai follows:]

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Dr. Fai.

Victor Giuda.

Mr. GIUDA. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, let me

preface my remarks by saying that they are colored by the repeated

refusals of the government of India and its embassies to respond

to my request to visit Azad Kashmir, similar to Congressman Pitts.

For the record, my name is Robert Giuda. I am a 1975 graduate

of the U.S. Naval Academy, former officer of Marines, former Special Agent of the FBI, and Deputy Majority Leader of the New

Hampshire House of Representatives. I am also founder and chairman of Americans for Resolution of Kashmir.

Kashmir is classified by the U.N. as a ‘‘disputed territory.’’ It lies

within what is arguably the most dangerous region in the world,

where the confluence of religious, ethnic, political, military, and

economic factors affords every conceivable basis for violent conflict.

Over the past 57 years, India and Pakistan have fought two major

wars, numerous lesser battles, and engaged in a near-nuclear exchange just 2 years ago. Kashmir today is home to the largest concentration of ground forces on Earth since the Second World War;

700,000 troops and para-militaries—half of India’s standing army—

are garrisoned among IOK’s 8 million people. This equates to 1

armed combatant for every 11 civilians. Pakistan maintains 95,000

troops among its 5 million inhabitants in Azad, Kashmir, about 1

combatant for every 500 civilians.

Every day, unspeakable atrocities occur at the hands of India’s

army of occupation. Even as it proclaims to the world its desire to

reach a political solution to the conflict, Indian law today immunizes its army and police forces from prosecution for actions committed under color of ‘‘prevention of terrorism,’’ enabling a hideous

government-sanctioned repertoire of torture, rape, murder, arson,

and custodial killing. Pakistan allows U.N. observers and human

rights organizations unfettered access to Free Kashmir, while India

denies access to substantial portions of IOK. One must ask oneself,

why are no observers allowed? What is India hiding?

India began its occupation of Kashmir by invading it in 1947,

that included the airlift of troops from Delhi to Srinagar, as documented in Alister Land’s books. During the past 15 years, with

statutory immunity, the Indian army has killed 2 percent of Kashmir’s mostly Muslim male population, raped some 9,000 Kashmiri

women, orphaned more than 100,000 Kashmiri Muslim children.

When considered in the aggregate, these actions, committed by the

Indian military with the full knowledge of the highest levels of the

Indian government, comprise genocide against Kashmiri Muslims,

and are chargeable both as war crimes and as crimes against humanity.

This murderous paradigm—military brutality, immunity from

prosecution, and denial of access to a free press—is anathema to

the rule of law, and lethal to the advancement of human rights, regardless of political outcomes.

India cleverly deflects attention from its actions in Kashmir by

claiming that the Kashmiri insurgency is really Muslim-incited

cross border terrorism supported by Pakistan. There is some element of truth in that, but the element is overshadowed by the

economies of scale in the torture, rape, arson, and murder commitVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:05 Nov 08, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\96410.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
100

ted by the respective parties. My lengthy personal discussions with

President Musharraf indicate that he is committed to the end of insurgency across the border in Pakistan into Kashmir. India’s success with this charade of cross-border terrorism depends on public

ignorance of the exemption of indigenous freedom struggles from

the U.N. definition of ‘‘terrorism.’’ I submit to you that Kashmiri

resistance to Indian repression is little different than the resistance

of American colonists to British occupation during our War of Independence. I assure, however, that the British never committed such

atrocities as are part of daily life in Kashmir.

In July 1999, a U.S. House committee voted to reject the concept

of a plebiscite in Kashmir, this despite the 1948 resolution championed by the United States, signed by India and Pakistan, and reiterated in four subsequent Security Council resolutions. That vote,

denying the right of the indigenous people of a former nation-state

to determine their own future, is utterly inconsistent with America’s demonstrated commitment to human rights. Even as United

States and coalition forces fight today to restore freedom in Iraq,

I ask the committee to bring forth a resolution reaffirming the

right of self-determination for the people of Kashmir. I ask you to

stand strong in support of human rights without regard to race,

creed, gender, or national origin.

Enormous economic benefits will flow from such an affirmation.

Leaders of the 350 major U.S. corporations doing business in India

and Pakistan today will attest that the future of South Asia, with

one-quarter of the world’s population, remains inextricably intertwined with the future of Kashmir. The peace dividend that would

accrue from resolving this blood conflict would enable India and

Pakistan to reduce their burgeoning defense budgets and to invest

those funds instead in desperately needed health and education reforms.

One fundamental principle is essential to resolving the conflict in

Kashmir. That is the principle of self-determination, upon which

our own United States was founded, and for which the blood of

Americans has been shed and continues to be shed around the

globe. Honorable Members of the committee, Mr. Chairman, we

cannot allow subterfuge to undermine America’s commitment to

human rights. Yesterday I walked quietly among the graves of

thousands of men and women in Arlington National Cemetery who

gave their lives in defense of human rights both here and abroad.

The silence of their repose provides unimpeachable testimony to

America’s unwavering opposition to tyranny and despotism. Does

not the magnitude of their sacrifice compel us here today to advance the cause of human rights at every opportunity? And does

that not include the people of Kashmir? I ask you, if not us, who?

And if not now, when?

I thank you and will accept any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Giuda follows:]

101

102

103

104

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Representative Giuda. We appreciate

your being patient with us. I know you wanted us to have this

hearing earlier. But we, as I said, we acceded to the wishes of the

State Department because of the pending elections over there.

Let me just say to all of you, I appreciate very much, and I am

sure everybody on the committee appreciates as well, your testimony. One of the things that we will try to work very hard to accomplish is to get the eyes and the ears of the world into Kashmir

so that everybody can see what is going on, from the Indian troops

as well as the militants that are fighting to try to get their view

held in Kashmir. And the best way to make sure that the world

knows is to get organizations like Amnesty International in there

and the U.N. human rights organizations. It is unfortunate that

the Indian government has not allowed them to be there.

Mr. Harrison said this should not be a forum for India-bashing.

I agree that we should not be bashing anybody at this point. However, the atrocities are factual, the rapes are matters of fact, the

tortures are a matter of fact, and the vast preponderance of those

problems have originated with the military in India—I see Mr.

Harrison shaking his head—but we have been studying this issue

for a long, long time, and I know he has a different point of view.

And we know that the Pakistani government and the militants

have been involved in some major problems as well.

So all I can say is that we will do everything that we can to see

that the peace negotiations between India-Pakistan include

Kashmiris, and that we see the eyes and the ears of the world focused on this, not only from an external standpoint but from an internal standpoint. If we could get inside and actually see what is

going on in Kashmir on a daily basis, then I think you would see

the atrocities start to cease because you cannot stand up to world

scrutiny very long.

In addition to that, I would like to see, and I think the committee

would like to see, whether they are for or against our position on

India and Kashmir and Punjab, we would like to see the laws that

protect military personnel from prosecution for atrocities repealed.

Everybody should be held up to the same standard—and that is,

if somebody violates the human rights of another individual,

whether it is here, in Iraq, in Kashmir, in Punjab, or wherever it

happens to be, that they are held to the same standard and they

are brought to justice. That is the only way you can eliminate these

sorts of things from happening. And so we will continue to push

forward to make sure that happens. It may take a while. But you

may rest assured that your testimony has been a giant step forward. As you can see, the media of the world has been here to

cover it and I am sure it will be reported around the world.

I want to thank you very much for your patience and for being

here today. Thank you very much.

We stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:22 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to

reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

[The prepared statements of Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Hon.

Frank Pallone, and Hon. Joe Wilson follow:]

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

Æ