Indian Army Accused of Killing Civilians in Kashmir

Is it Impossible to Balance National Security and Human Rights?

Newsreel Asia Insight #83
Dec. 25, 2023

The recent civilian deaths in Kashmir, allegedly at the hands of the Indian Army following a rebel attack, require a critical evaluation against the backdrop of the “human security” approach. This framework, adopted to varying extents by many countries, can serve as a crucial reference point to gain a deeper understanding of the core issues behind the tension between national security and human rights.

In the Poonch district of Kashmir, three men – Mohammad Showkat, Safeer Hussain and Shabir Ahmad – were detained following a rebel attack and found dead on Dec. 22, as reported by The Hindu, which says the families’ accounts suggest torture, sending ripples of shock and anger through the region. A day earlier, militants had ambushed an Army vehicle in Pir Panjal valley area, killing three Army personnel and injuring three others.

A video allegedly showing the torture of the victims has gone viral, fuelling anger and calls for justice.

The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), which grants the military significant powers in “disturbed areas,” is at the centre of the debate on the dynamics of power in military-civilian interactions in conflict zones. Some defend the AFSPA as necessary for combating insurgency, which is understandable, particularly in contexts such as the ongoing violence in Manipur. But others view it as a legal cover for potential human rights abuses.

There is apparently a deep mistrust between the local populace and the state machinery in Kashmir. The mistrust is rooted in the history of the region, marked by political decisions and the everyday experiences of people living under a heavy military presence.

The longstanding conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir adds to the region’s instability. The claim of responsibility for the recent ambush on the army convoy by the People’s Anti-Fascist Front, linked to Jaish-e-Mohammed, highlights the transnational aspects of the conflict.

The alleged torture and deaths of the three civilians may have been a consequence of some officers reacting emotionally, rather than professionally, to the ambush attack. If true, such actions are indeed highly condemnable and culpable. However, it’s not only the individual officers at fault but also the broader security framework that tacitly allows such violations of civilians’ human rights.

Traditionally, when we talk about a country’s security, we often think about protecting its borders, maintaining a strong military, or defending against external threats. This “state security” framework typically prioritises national security and territorial integrity, often focusing on military and law enforcement measures to counter threats. This approach can sometimes lead to challenges in balancing state security with the human rights of civilians.

In conflict zones, where tensions are high and the risk of violence is significant, there’s a tendency for security forces to adopt stringent measures. These can include curfews, checkpoints, and, in some cases, more aggressive tactics like raids and detentions.

While these measures might be justified as necessary for maintaining order and safety, they also lead to major human rights challenges, including restrictions on civilians’ movement, expression and assembly as well as unlawful detention, torture and extrajudicial killings, especially if accountability mechanisms within the security forces are weak.

Now, let’s look at the “human security” framework.

Imagine you’re thinking about what makes you feel safe and secure in your daily life. For most people, this includes being free from harm or danger, having enough food, a roof over their head, access to healthcare and living in a society that respects their rights and freedoms. The human security framework is all about ensuring these basic needs and protections for everyone.

It argues that true security is not just about protecting a country from outside attacks but also about protecting its citizens from anything that can harm their well-being – like poverty, disease, environmental disasters and violations of their human rights. It’s like saying, “A country is not just secure because it has a strong army, but also when its people are healthy, educated, free from hunger and treated fairly.”

This approach is important because it recognises that threats to people’s safety and well-being can come from many sources, not just other countries. By focusing on human security, governments and organisations try to address these broader issues, ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to live a safe, dignified and fulfilling life.

The human security framework emerged in the post-Cold War era, notably with the United Nations Development Programme’s 1994 Human Development Report, shifting the focus of security from state-centric to people-centric concerns. Gaining international endorsement, it influenced global and national policies, emphasising the protection of individual rights and well-being.

Japan, Canada, Norway, Thailand, South Africa, Sweden, Spain, and Costa Rica are among the nations that have incorporated this framework, to varying degrees, into their domestic policies and international cooperation strategies.

Currently, it may be challenging to envision India adopting this approach, but a starting point could be to introduce it into public discourse, using it as a benchmark for evaluating pertinent issues in India’s conflict zones.

We need to at least acknowledge that balancing national security with human rights is an urgent and essential task.