US lawmakers demand transparency from India over IOK move

US Congressman says even during the Iraqi insurgency, he never witnessed a communication blockade like in IOK

KARACHI: The United States Congress has censured India over the months-long communication and information blockade in Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK).

In a congressional hearing titled 'Human Rights in South Asia: Views from the State Department and the Region', Congress members questioned the Indian narrative of imposing a curfew citing 'security' concerns. They also raised doubts over the Narendra Modi government's claim that revoking the occupied valley's autonomy was done in a bid to improve security and economic development.

The US lawmakers underscored that even during a war, no country had imposed a complete information and communication blackout as that imposed by the Indian government.

They also questioned why the Indian government was not being transparent about the matter.

A representative from the State of Arizona recalled being stationed in Iraq's Anbar – while serving in the US Marine Corps – and said that even during the height of the Iraqi insurgency, neither the US nor the Iraqi government had imposed a communications blockade.

"I don’t remember any of the actions that I have read so far or heard so far [about IOK] that we or the Iraqi National Guard conducted."

"It would help our friendship and alliance with India if we are open and transparent and honest about what is going on."



Andy Levin reminisced travelling to the occupied region over 30 years ago and said it was hard for him to believe that Kashmir needed economic development.

He asked Amnesty International Asia Pacific Advocacy Manager Francisco Bescosme if it made sense to impose a curfew to boost economy or tourism as claimed by India.

"It’s completely unthinkable that in order to increase tourism you need to block all communication inside the region," replied Bescosme.

Levin also noted that he had received backlash for raising the rights issue in Kashmir but he "didn't really care".

"The government of India is very eager to meet us and tell us their view of things but even so, people who use cellphones or pay-as-you-go cellphones don’t have services restored, the internet is not restored, they’re still not letting foreign journalists in."

Citing an Amnesty report on Kashmir, Bescosme added that the human rights organisation saw the situation as dire. "People we spoke to and interviewed on the ground said because of the communication blockade, there has been a 50 per cent drop in patients due to no public transportation for people to be able to reach hospitals. Critical medicines for advanced stages of many diseases are not available."

He called upon the US administration to press upon the Indian government that the lockdown was not justified.

"Irrespective of security concerns, there needs to be a better balance between human rights and security. There actually needs to be a release of political prisoners and lifting of the communication blockade."

"There was still a lot more that the US administration could be voicing with respect to Kashmir," he said as he condemned the US administration for "oftentimes" holding "back punches".



Susan Wilde expressed her constituent's concern about the situation in occupied Kashmir. "It is difficult to monitor the situation in Kashmir as it evolves because of the crackdown on journalists and humanitarian aid workers and political leaders and that US Senator Chris Van Hollen and Indian opposition members were denied entry amidst a communication blackout from within the state," she pointed out.

"Historically, humanitarian aid workers, journalists, and political leaders have been able to conduct their work even in an active war zone. What is the justification for this lack of transparency?" she asked.

Bescosme told the panel that Amnesty International did not believe there to be any legitimate justification for the lack of transparency.

"One of our calls is for an independent investigation. We have conducted our own inquiry and found arbitrary detention of not just political leaders but regular people in Kashmir – plumbers or food distributors and even cases of children being detained for, according to the Indian government, vague notions of security or economic development."

Ravi Batra of National Advisory Council for South Asian Affairs claimed that the Kashmiris were afraid to come out of their house because they were "afraid to get blown up".

"The first thing somebody wants before they want human rights is that they want to live," he added.

Wilde pointed out that the rationale still did not explain the lack of transparency shown by India. "To me, the lack of transparency means something is being hidden and this is what concerns me terribly."

"There is no justification whatsoever for what they are doing and they know that which is why it is important for them not to let people speak," said Associate Professor in Politics and International Relations at the Centre for Study of Democracy at the University of Westminister Nitisha Kaul.

"Fundamentally, it is not about violent actors but about what is being carried out is politically and constitutionally not right and it doesn’t have the support of people."

Interrupting the conversation, Senior Assistant Editor at the Times of India Aarti Tikoo Singh lamented: "If the US Congress does not understand that the right of life supersedes every other right and every other fundamental right, I don’t know what to say."



Addressing Singh, Ilhan Omar said a reporter's job is to find the objective truth about what is happening and report it to the public.

"You have an enormous audience at TOI and you have an enormous responsibility to get it right," she continued. "I’m aware of how the narrative shaped by reporting can distort the truth and I’m also aware of how it could be limited to sharing only the official side of the story."

"The press at its worst is a mouthpiece for a government. In your version of the story, the only problems in Kashmir are caused by who you call militants and the only people protesting to break away from India are all nefariously backed by Pakistan. You also make the incredible dubious claim that the Indian government's crackdown in Kashmir is good for human rights," she noted.

Omar pointed out that if the move was good for the Kashmiris then it would not be happening in secret.

Co-chair of Political Conflict and Gender and People's Rights Initiative at University of California and Research anthropologist Angana Chatterjee affirmed Omar's statement.

"If it was good for anybody, we would announce it to the world, it would be free, we would be able to go there, we would be able to enjoy it."

"Most importantly, the people that it's being done to would be appreciative. We do not have Kashmiris being appreciative. They have said that they feel like they are being caged, their rights are being revoked and they are terrified."

Chatterjee shed light on the Bharatiya Janata Party's impact in the world's biggest democracy and stressed that their ideology as the human rights violations was being committed through it.

"It is dubious to claim that you need to shut down all forms of communication, lock up political leaders and activists and children, and harass journalists in order to have security in Kashmir," added Bescosme.

Highlighting the increased number of attacks against minorities in India, Ted Lieu asked Bescosme whether the human rights organisation thought the Indian government has any intentions of making India essentially a one-religion country.

"We have been able to document a substantial increase of religious and hate bills based on violence against religious and other minorities," answered Bescosme.

"In fact, it’s not just Christians. It is actually any religion if it's not Hindu," said Lieu. Stressing that the curfew was a human rights violation, he wondered how people would call an ambulance in emergencies. He said it was "unbelievable when the Indian government says that no one died in Kashmir due to communications blackout."

Kaul interjected that a doctor was whisked away on camera by Indian security forces when he was speaking about the shortage of medicines and other healthcare matters.

"When the state itself is seen as perpetrators and we return to the same officials to provide justice – it becomes very problematic," said Chatterjee. "It is one of the reasons Kashmiris repeatedly want this matter to be internationalised."

Lieu also highlighted India's use of pellet guns. "Essentially, the Indian government is blinding Kashmiris."

He said if US Secretary Mike Pompeo wanted to uphold religious freedom then he should have a serious conversation with the Modi government.



Singh called out Chair of the Committee Brad Sherman over the emphasis that foreign press was denied access to IOK. "The reportage of human rights violations has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Times."

Irked by her speaking out of turn, Sherman abruptly interrupted her to underscore that it was his time to speak not hers. "I will simply point out that non-Indian citizen journalists for American publications have not been allowed in so we get our reporting from good journalists but not the journalists who the editors of the publications that I respect would want to send in. Likewise, US diplomats and senators have been barred."

He clarified that only employees of foreign publications who happen to be citizens of India had been allowed into Kashmir.

Pramila Jayapal questioned whether the use of the Public Safety Act 1978 by the Indian government was to circumvent the criminal justice system in IOK to undermine accountability, transparency, and respect for human rights.

"I am very concerned about the things Amnesty International mentioned in the testimony around human rights orgnisations being targeted by the Indian government and I have heard this from other places as well."

"People we spoke to on-ground said what they’re afraid of are the Indian security forces," replied Bescosme. "They feel that many of their voices have been taken away."

"One person said politics as they know it is now dead in Kashmir because the entire political leadership has either been detained or forced to sign away affiliation with politics. The fact that people who wanted to peacefully protest were either harassed or detained only inflates the situation."

"A lot of these laws are vague and don’t define what national security or a threat to Indian state mean so they have been abused by Indian security forces," he continued. "There’s no potential for recourses and those of the few who have spoken up have found themselves harassed or their families threatened."

Jayapal also inquired about the Indian government making people sign bondage for their release with a requirement to give up the right to political activities in the future. Kaul had earlier informed that the panel of detention of elderly women Srinagar for protesting who were released on the condition that they sign a bond saying that they won’t speak to the media – this is two days ago.

"We have recorded several instances and seen a sheet ourselves – from Amnesty International’s perspective it is a violation of political speech and freedom of expression," said Bescosme.

"Why does the Indian police favour use of Public Safety Act over criminal proceedings?" asked Jayapal. To which, Bescosme said the act has been used in administrative detentions and multiple violations of human rights. "It is a way of circumventing the criminal justice system and proceedings – it makes it a lot easier for them to circumvent the rule of law in India."

Earlier in the hearing, Chatterjee had pointed out that stats by the Indian government placed active militant threats between 170 to 1,300 in the years 2006-19. She said it was a "very small amount and disproportionate in relation to the Indian army, paramilitary and police forces stationed in [occupied] Kashmir."

When Sherman spoke about the Indian government justifying the repeal of Article 370 as a step forward for women’s rights in terms of allowing Muslim Kashmiri woman to marry a non-Muslim non-Kashmiri man, he was informed by Kaul that the law was already struck down by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in 2002.

"This is a red herring to say that this is somehow going to help with women’s rights. Like other things, these are just instruments used to justify emancipation and liberation narrative."

Sherman asked whether revoking special status would mean less of a status. "It is actually demarcated Jammu and Kashmir into union territory. You are absolutely right that it will have less status," replied Chatterjee. "Two things I would point out: the idea was for security and development however Article 35 (a) which allows Kashmiris to determine who are residents and who can own land, is gone which means that Kashmiris may not be landowners in Kashmir so their claim to the land itself may be vitiated or nullified over time."



Chrissy Houlahan asked about the current status of women in Kashmiri society. "Women are powerful in Kashmir – they take to streets as much as men do. Women are fierce actually men have been disproportionately targeted in Kashmir – killed or disappeared or executed or those buried in unknown and mass graves. It is women who become heads of the household – who then not care for their families but seek justice."

Chatterjee stressed on the "incalculable gendered and sexualized violence" perpetrated on women by the occupying forces.

"Young women who did not want to go to school, they love learning but they don’t want to go to the school because at the entrance of the school there is a checkpoint and there is a soldier and they get frisk and they get exhausted by that because its violent and abusive," she recalled.

"The relation of the Indian forces to Kashmiri women is extremely dangerous. There’s a sense that the body of a woman is where one can sort of… it becomes a battlefield. And the Hindu-isation of the forces so there’s an added element to it. In India, Islamophobia has escalated."

"Kashmir is not backward when it comes to women’s rights in fact compared to India it has always been more progressive," added Kaul "This is a very colonial move on the part of the nation-states around Kashmir of claiming it as if they are liberating Kashmiri women as if they are mere territory."

Among other issues, Levin also highlighted the situation in Assam. "As an American it's difficult to go around the world and to talk to people from around the world where the rights of people to citizenship in their own country and the rights of refugees are at stake when we are denying the most basic human rights of people trying to approach our own country as refugees."