Agreed Kashmir, Baluchistan two different stories

 Loads of data tend to obscure human suffering. Engrossed with figures, readers lose track of the primary object. To avoid this pitfall, it is essential to keep one’s blessings and others’ deprivation in perspective all the time. To present the grim reality of economic deprivation and poverty, I quote credible experts and reports. Syed Fazl-e-Haider, a respected developmental analyst, says, “Poverty is a multi-dimensional concept rather than simple income (consumption) deprivation. Any single measure of poverty, such as head-count ratio based on specific ‘poverty line’ does not fully capture all its dimensions and does not reflect the real causes of wider human sufferings. ‘Poverty of opportunity’ index, a composite of deprivation in three vital dimensions — health, education and income — is quite useful in this regard. In case of Balochistan, any single measure indicates that it is the poorest province.” Further highlighting the neglect he says, “Balochistan remains almost voiceless, having no say in the decision-making process at the centre. Over 50 percent of its population subsists below the poverty line. Income-based inequities in human development need to be addressed. During fiscal year (FY) 2000-2001, only 9.2 percent of the total Khushhal Pakistan programme budget had been allocated to the province compared to 16.2 percent for the NWFP, 19.7 percent for Sindh, and 48.9 percent for Punjab. During the first year of the programme, utilisation as a percentage of the budgeted amount was the lowest for the province at 2.8 percent compared to 7.7 percent in NWFP, 8.2 percent in Sindh, and 19 percent in Punjab.“In the FY 2004, the federal contribution to the provincial development programmes was 56 percent for NWFP, 28 percent for Punjab, 19 percent for Sindh and only eight percent for Balochistan. The share allocated in foreign project assistance (FPA) to Punjab was 53 percent, NWFP 29 percent, Sindh 12 percent and again only six percent for Balochistan.”The table of ‘Districts Showing Decline in Index of Multiple Deprivation of More than 10 Points’ in Research Report No.72 by Social Policy and Development Centre (SPDC) for comparing1998 to 2005 tells that there was not a single district from Balochistan showing decline while there were three from Punjab, five from Sindh and seven from the NWFP.Moreover, in the table ‘The Ten Highest Deprived Districts of Pakistan’, nine were from Balochistan and it emerges as the most deprived province with over 91 percent of population residing in high-deprived districts during 2005. It shows that in 1998 the percentage of population living in a high degree of deprivation was 25 percent in Punjab, 23 percent in urban Sindh, 49 percent in rural Sindh, 51 percent in NWFP, and 88 percent in Balochistan. In 2005, the figures were: Punjab 28, Sindh 35, NWFP 35 and Balochistan 91, showing that Balochistan is in a consistent nose-dive. The report adds, per annum declining rate of deprivation is the lowest in Balochistan; it has the weakest long-term growth performance. From 1972-73 to 2004-05, the economy expanded 2.7 times in Balochistan, 3.6 times in NWFP and Sindh, and 4.0 times in Punjab. The growth divergence has widened historic income differences and Balochistan’s per capita income level of $400 in 2004 was only two-thirds of Pakistan’s national level. Perhaps, with the sole exception of the area in and around Quetta, social deprivation is widespread in all districts of Balochistan. As expected, in terms of level of deprivation during 2005, Punjab possesses the lowest, while Balochistan has the highest magnitude of Index of Multiple Deprivation. A horrific picture emerges if one surveys the maternal mortality rate, which is 650 per 100,000 births in Balochistan while it is 281in Karachi. This is double the national average. Infant mortality in Balochistan is 158 deaths per 1,000 live births. Even Democratic Republic of Congo’s average of 126 is lower while Pakistan’s national average of 70 is less than half.Similarly, Balochistan accounted for seven out of the nine districts with the lowest full immunisation rate, including the four districts with the worst record. Balochistan’s performance would look even worse without the exclusion of Dera Bugti and Kohlu in the Pakistan Social and Living Standards Measurement Survey (PSLM) sample due to security reasons. Only 20 percent of its people have an access to safe drinking water compared to 86 percent in the rest of Pakistan. Village electrification is only 25 percent compared to 75 percent in the rest of the country. The education sector figures are depressing too. Access to education is also far below the ratio of other provinces. Over three-fourths of women and two-thirds of the population above ten are illiterate. The conditions in the insurgency-affected Marri-Bugti areas and among the internally displaced persons (IDPs) are much worse. With regard to net primary enrolment, 11 out of the 16 districts, including the four districts with the worst record, in 2004-05 belonged to Balochistan. These figures prove that Balochistan has perpetually suffered from neglect and wilful attempts to keep it in a state of deprivation. Blaming Sardars for obstructing development cuts no ice because the areas under the government’s writ haven’t prospered either. Take the example of Bugti area. Though gas was discovered in Sui in 1951, meets approximately 45 percent of Pakistan’s total needs and is worth Rs 85 billion annually, yet what Dera Bugti receives in return for the wealth it generates is evident from the UNDP Human Development Report 2003, which ranked Dera Bugti last among the 91 districts on the Human Development Index.

www.kashmir-information.com/kashmirstory/chapter8.html An assessment of the Human Rights situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir must take the involvement of Pakistan in providing sanctuary, arms and training and finance to terrorists to operate in Indian territory as its starting point since, having created a situation of armed terrorism and subversion of the democratic polity, Pakistan now seeks to exploit the resulting situation by raising the bogey of Human Rights. Lord Howe speaking in the British House of Lords on the question of human rights observed "... the important question of human rights ... is an inevitable and legitimate question for societies such as our own that are struggling with the uneven balance between, on the one hand, the forces and agencies of Government charged with the uncomfortable duty of upholding the rule of law- all of whose decisions are open to challenge, open to appeal, open to debate . . . and on the other hand terrorists who are subject to no such constraints; they act as self appointed prosecutors, self appointed judges, self appointed jury and self appointed executioners.." Democracy, with its concomitant principles of freedom of expression and faith is the surest protector of human rights. Dwelling on human rights, when the very institutions which can guarantee human rights are the target of terrorism spawned and supported from across a State's borders, is self destructive. It diverts attention from what should be the primary focus - the preservation of the human rights of all citizens, not only a gun wielding minority. The Government of India is extremely conscious of the need to protect the human rights of all its citizens. When India became free in August 1947 it gave itself a representative Government, chosen on the basis of adult suffrage. Its Constitution drew inspiration from the French and American Constitutions while retaining the best of British Conventions which ensure the rights to Freedom and Liberty. It inherited a judicial system from the British, which is based on natural justice and the principles of jurisprudence. India, has been in the forefront of the struggle against colonialism and apartheid. It is a signatory to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and has acceded to the two International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1979. In fact the Indian constitution guarantees almost the entire gamut of Civil and Political Rights, and the Directive Principles of State Policy, which form a part of the Constitution, require the Government to promote social and economic rights. Strange then that India should come under criticism for alleged violations of Human Rights. No one disputes the fact that at times, faced with the violence perpetrated by the terrorists, some violations have been caused by the security forces also. The question arises have the excesses been condoned? What are the safety valves? The institutions of democracy - the legislature, the judiciary and the press - have played a vital role, in putting a break on the executive and ensuring the Human Rights are not violated with impunity. The Parliament of India and the State Legislatures keep the Executive under close scrutiny. India has an independent Judiciary and a free Press. Alleged excesses have been exposed in the Press, and taken up by the Legislatures and in some cases followed up suo-moto by the Judiciary. In the recent past, the country has also seen the emergence of many non-Government organizations, which have taken up the cause of Human Rights. And more importantly a National Human Right Commission was set up recently. The Indian Security Forces have had to fight the terrorists, particularly in Jammu and Kashmir, under very difficult conditions with grave danger to their lives. Whenever they are under pressure, the terrorists resort to a deliberate disinformation campaign making all types of wild allegations against the Security Forces, to demoralize them and deflect the thrust of their operations. One of the allegations leveled against India is that the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act and the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act confers immunity on the Security Forces for "anything done or purported to be done" under the Act. Such conclusions are grossly irrational. The special powers conferred on the members of the Armed Forces do not keep them out of the purview of the law of the land. They are accountable for their actions. All allegations against the security forces are investigated fully and pursued vigorously. Most of the allegations made against the Security Forces have been found to be inaccurate, highly exaggerated and fallacious. Punitive action has been taken whenever proved to be true. Despite the fact that over 700 security force personnel have lost their lives in encounters, grenade attacks and mine explosions, action has been taken against 174 personnel of the Security Forces. The punishment ranged from imprisonment upto 10 years, dismissal from service, suspension and forfeiture of seniority. Because of orchestrated propaganda, an impression has gained currency that the Government of India is not seriously concerned about the violation of Human Rights. This is not true, and the impression needs to be dispelled. A National Human Rights Commission was established through an ordinance, and later confirmed by an Act of Parliament in 1993. The Human Rights Bill provides for the setting up of Human Rights Commission at State levels too. The National Human Rights Commission has come into being with a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India as its Chairman. The Commission has also taken cognizance of the recent events in the Valley, and has invited information about the violent incidents in such sensitive spots like Bijbehara. Allegations of Human Rights violations have been leveled against India by Pakistan to gain international support in its proxy war against India. The method followed is simple. Whenever they are under pressure, the terrorists in Jammu & Kashmir resort to a deliberate disinformation campaign, making all types of wild allegations against the Security Forces. Besides the threats of killing, extortion and kidnapping, the terrorists often browbeat the ordinary citizens, into making bizarre allegations. Based on the stories inspired by the terrorists and also on a few occasions when Security Forces may have overstepped their limits many Human Rights organizations have published exaggerated reports of alleged excesses. The reports published in the local Press in the Valley under threat of militants are fed to agencies across the border who use it in their anti-India campaign. They are also used by international Human Rights organizations. In Kashmir alone action has been taken against 174 officers and men of the Security Forces. They include imprisonment upto 10 years for 67 members of the Security Forces, (ii) dismissals, removal from service, or compulsory retirement for 16 personnel (iii) reduction in rank or loss of seniority for 7, (iv) other departmental penalties for 44 personnel and (v) suspensions and arrests pending enquiry for 36 personnel. But while the institutions of Indian democracy make the government apparatus answerable for human rights violations, is there any similar mechanism for controlling the terrorists? Debating the human rights issue without answering this pertinent question will remain a futile exercise devoid of any relevance to the conditions in Jammu and Kashmir.