‘Jailing of Parvez, Meraj has Made Human Rights Work Very Difficult in Kashmir’

Today, the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (Forum-Asia), the Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD), Martin Ennals Awards, CIVICUS, Front Line Defenders, The Observatory, the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the Kashmir Law and Justice Project have organised a webinar to raise awareness about Khurram Parvez’s arbitrary and prolonged detention, highlight his contributions to the human rights movement, and rally support for his immediate and unconditional release.

Khurram, the most prominent human rights defender of his generation from Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), was arrested on charges under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 on November 22, 2021.

Khurram’s house was raided in connection with alleged funding of secessionist and separatist activities in 2020.

His arrest was seen as part of the larger crackdown on human rights defenders and journalists in J&K in the lead-up to and aftermath of the deoperationalisation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution on August 5, 2019.

Khurram’s house was raided in connection with alleged funding of secessionist and separatist activities in 2020.

Two months prior to the raid, the Jammu & Kashmir Coalition of Civil Societies (JKCCS) released a report Kashmir Internet Siege: an ongoing assault on digital rights, which traced how the disruption of the internet led to the denial of many human rights to the people of J&K.

Khurram is a founding member of the JKCCS, one of the only functional organisations in J&K that documents human rights abuses by Indian armed forces and militants belonging to various local and Pakistan-supported outfits.

Khurram is chairman of the Philippine-based AFAD and has been named one of the 100 most influential people of 2022 by Time magazine. He was the recipient of the 2006 Reebok Human Rights Award. He has also been a laureate of the 2023 Martin Ennals Award.

He has been involved in decades of investigative reporting highlighting the impunity enjoyed by Indian armed forces in J&K because of the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990.

The Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP), of which Khurram is coordinator, is a founding member of the AFAD.

As per the organisers of the webinar, “Khurram’s ongoing detention underscores the severe restrictions on civil liberties in Kashmir and reflects a broader strategy to suppress dissent and visibility of human rights violations in the region.”

The Leaflet spoke with the deputy director (Asia) of FIDH, Juliette Rousselot, about Khurram’s incarceration and its reflection and implications in the larger human rights situation in Kashmir and the wider world.

Can you tell us a little about the work of FIDH, its history and the way in which it engages with human rights?

FIDH is one of the oldest human rights organisations in the world: it was founded over 100 years ago, in 1922. We federate 188 human rights organisations around the world and work with our member organisations to defend all civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Our members are the beating heart of FIDH: they direct our strategy and our actions and are at the center of everything we do.

How did FIDH come to form an association with the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (APDP) and Khurram Parvez? When did it begin and what is the work undertaken by the two human rights defender organisations?

JKCCS and APDP have had links to FIDH and some of our members for a long time, through other networks and connections— including for instance AFAD.

Khurram is chairman of the Philippine-based AFAD and has been named one of the 100 most influential people of 2022 by Time magazine.

We started officially working together in 2018, and APDP became an official FIDH member during our congress in 2019 in Taiwan. Having a member organisation in Kashmir made a lot of sense for FIDH, as it allowed us to really deepen our understanding of the human rights violations in the region and to be able to support APDP and JKCCS to raise awareness of these violations.

We published a number of briefing notes and statements together, highlighting some of the key violations that were occurring at the time in J&K. The abrogation of J&K’s statehood in August 2019 and the ensuing months-long internet shutdown significantly impacted a lot of the plans we had for joint activities.

How does FIDH view the human rights situation in J&K? What were the reasons behind including APDP as a member organisation? How has the work of JKCCS and APDP helped FIDH understand the situation in J&K?

The human rights situation in J&K is dire. This is obviously nothing new: human rights organisations in J&K had been documenting serious human rights abuses for decades: enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, torture, arbitrary detentions, severe curbs on freedom of expression and the press … the list goes on.

Having active human rights organisations on the ground was crucial for FIDH and others to really be able to understand the scope and nature of the violations, but also the root causes and the political dynamics on the ground, especially since the Indian government has not given international organisations or even the United Nations access to J&K to conduct their own monitoring.

The incredibly detailed, in-depth monitoring and documentation of human rights violations that JKCCS and APDP have done over the years, such as the 2019 report on torture— if one were to cite just one example— is really what has permitted us to convey to a broader audience the extent to which impunity had taken hold and to refocus the discussion in international policy circles on human rights, and on the people who are impacted by State policies.

What has been the impact of Khurram Parvez and his colleague Irfan Mehraj’s arrest on the Kashmir component of FIDH work?

Since August 2019, and even more so since Khurram’s arrest, it has become incredibly hard to get any systematic information about violations. We are no longer talking about ‘shrinking civic space’ but rather ‘shrunk civic space’; civil society and the media have been threatened and intimidated into silence.

The consequences of speaking out are grave. We know violations are ongoing, but the complete repression of civic space has made it impossible to get a complete picture of what is going on. We still track violations and legal developments in the region and alert the international community, but it is incredibly hard. And, of course, a lot of our attention has turned to trying to secure Khurram’s and Irfan’s release.

FIDH has intervened in numerous human rights situations and conflicts across the world. How does one understand the work of JKCCS and APDP in this wider context as it draws inspiration from and at the same time contributes to the ongoing movement for the application of international law, justice and against impunity?

Regardless of the complexity of any given situation, or of the circumstances leading to human rights violations, local human rights organisations are a cornerstone of the fight against impunity.

This is certainly the case for JKCCS and APDP, even in the face of widespread impunity and a complete absence of accountability for human rights violations committed by the Indian authorities. It is in these times of need though, that we need to stand in solidarity with them and their fight. Conversely, there is a need to learn from other situations of grave violations of international law.

Unfortunately, India is far from being the only country in the world that uses anti-terrorism legislation and the excuse of conflict to restrict human rights organisations and silence human rights defenders.

Domestic laws are passed to justify these actions, to give them a veneer of legality— despite completely flying in the face of international human rights law.

The Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP), of which Khurram is coordinator, is a founding member of the AFAD.

The commendable work done by the JKCCS and APDP— and by extension Khurram— in this regard over the years work has been exemplary in its use of international law to reframe the situation, to refocus the discussion on the illegality of these actions, despite all of the justifications made by the Indian authorities under domestic law. There is much to be learned from this framing of the situation.

What are the interventions FIDH hopes to make in the upcoming 56th session of the Human Rights Council (June 18 to July 12, 2024) and at the UN Human Rights Committee (CCPR) ahead of the review of India’s fifth periodic report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)?

India’s upcoming review by the UN Human Rights Committee is a much-welcome opportunity to shed some light on India’s disastrous human rights record and the extent to which the country is failing to live up to its obligations under the ICCPR.

We have submitted a report— with OMCT and Front Line Defenders— for that review, where we shed light on the systematic repression of human rights defenders and civil society under incumbent Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi’s leadership, including by using anti-terrorism legislation such as the UAPA.

The judicial persecution of human rights defenders is a clear violation of the ICCPR, and we are confident that the Human Rights Committee will echo this.

The question will be whether India is willing to listen to constructive feedback and change its practices.

It is also crucial for the UN Human Rights Council to take the human rights situation in J&K more seriously. In 2018 and 2019, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) released scathing reports on the human rights situation in Kashmir— but, unfortunately, the Human Rights Council failed to act and follow up on these reports.

Member states of the Human Rights Council have a responsibility to ensure that human rights in Kashmir are not pushed aside because the situation is seen as too complicated politically.

The UN and human rights groups including FIDH have called for the release of Khurram Parvez and Irfan Mehraj. Can you share the reasons for doing so?

We are calling for their release because we truly believe that they are human rights defenders and that they are being detained and charged simply for documenting human rights violations that the Indian government does not want brought to light. This is not just us saying it: last year, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention opined that Khurram’s detention was indeed arbitrary.

“We are no longer talking about ‘shrinking civic space’ but rather ‘shrunk civic space’ in Kashmir,” FIDH’s Juliette Rousselot.

But looking beyond personal motivation to see them released, it would certainly be in India’s best interest to release them and all the other HRDs currently being detained on politically-motivated charges. If India really wants to maintain its reputation as the world’s biggest democracy, then it is high time it also starts to rebuild the rule of law in the country, restore faith in the judiciary, and respect its international legal obligations.

India is certainly on a downward trajectory when it comes to the protection of human rights but this trajectory can be reversed with political will and respect for the law.

Why does FIDH believe that the stringent Indian law UAPA must not be applied against Khurram Parvez, Irfan Mehraj and the work of JKCCS and APDP?

The UAPA is being systematically used to arbitrarily detain human rights defenders and silence critics. The 2019 amendments to the law only made it easier for the authorities to use it against human rights defenders, by increasing the scope of the UAPA and enabling the authorities to designate individuals and not just organisations as terrorists.

The definition of “unlawful activity” under the law is so broad that it allows authorities to go after anyone who the authorities deem to be a thorn in their side. This is a law that urgently needs to be repealed or amended to bring it in line with India’s international legal obligations.

India is certainly on a downward trajectory when it comes to the protection of human rights but this trajectory can be reversed with political will and respect for the law.

Unfortunately, the UAPA is only one of the ways in which the Indian government instrumentalises anti-terrorism discourse to go after human rights defenders. Anyone who disagrees with the government’s policies is called secessionist, or anti-national, or accused of sedition.

Arif Ayaz Parrey is Editor, The Leaflet.