Nature of human rights

Human rights are considered to be the unit for measurement universal values and legal guarantees that defend individuals and groups against actions and omissions primarily by state agents that interfere with elementary freedoms, entitlements, and human dignity. Human rights always look for the welfare and benefit of the people at large in respect of protection, promotion and fulfillment of civil political, social, economical which lead to the development of the people. Human rights square measure universal—in different words, they belong inherently to all human beings—and are interdependent and indivisible.

Terrorism

Terrorism is usually understood to confer with the commission of acts of violence that concentrate on civilians within the pursuit of political aims. In legal terms, though the international community has nonetheless to adopt a comprehensive definition of the terrorist act, existing declarations, resolutions and universal sectors of treaties in relation with the aspects of it define certain statutes. In 1994, the overall Assembly’s Declaration on Measures to Eliminate Terrorism declared that terrorist act includes “criminal acts meant or calculated to electrify a state of terror at intervals the overall public, a bunch of persons or explicit persons for political that may be invoked to justify them. “Purposes” which such acts “are in any circumstances are unwarrantable, regardless of the concerns of a political, philosophical, philosophic, racial, ethnic and religious or other nature.

The impact of terrorism on human rights

Terrorism aims at the terrible destruction of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. It attacks the values that lie at the heart of the Charter of the United Nations and other international instruments: respect for human rights; the rule of law; rules governing armed conflict and therefore the protection of civilians; tolerance among peoples and nations; and therefore the peaceful resolution of conflict. Terrorism incorporates a direct impact on the enjoyment of a variety of human rights, especially, the rights to life, liberty, and physical integrity.

Terrorism or the ruthless act performed by the terrorists impacts a lot and with a huge gravity among the citizens of the Country particularly and which impacts for the providence of the resistance of the enjoyment of the basic human rights of each and every individual affecting society or more specifically the civil society. With it, these types of acts also impact the Government activities and therefore the stability cannot be maintained. Because of such effect, the peace and security of the nation also get damaged and there is a huge loss of the economic and the property of the state where such activities are being brought into practice. Thus the terrorism is considered which destroys the political, social and economic development and progress which all have a negative effect upon the whole of the citizens.

All of those have an on the spot impact on the enjoyment of elementary human rights. The damaging impact of a terrorist act on human rights and security has been recognized at the best level of the United Nation, notably by the protection Council, the overall Assembly, and the former Commission on Human Rights and also the new Human Rights Council specifically, Member States have set out that terrorism-

• Threatens the dignity and security of individuals everyplace, endangers or takes innocent lives, creates an environment that destroys the freedom from fear of the people, jeopardizes fundamental freedoms, and aims at the destruction of human rights.
• Has an adverse effect on the establishment of the rule of law, undermines pluralistic civil society, aims at the destruction of the democratic bases of society, and destabilizes legitimately constituted Governments.
• Has links with transnational organized crime, drug trafficking, money-laundering and trafficking in arms, as well as illegal transfers of nuclear, chemical and biological materials, and is linked to the consequent commission of serious crimes such as murder, extortion, kidnapping, assault, hostage-taking, and robbery.
• It has adverse consequences for the economic and social development of States, jeopardizes friendly relations among States, and encompasses a pernicious impact on relations of cooperation among States, together with cooperation for development.
• Threatens the territorial integrity and security of States, constitutes a grave violation of the aim and principles of the United Nation, could be a threat to international peace and security and should be suppressed as an important component for the upkeep of international peace and security.

Accountability and the human rights victims

In addressing the needs of victims of terrorism, consideration must be given to the distinction between victims of crime, on the one hand, and victims of human rights violations, on the other. While this distinction is not always clear-cut, terrorist-related acts will be addressed as criminal offenses committed by individuals and a State won’t, in principle, be responsible for the illegal conduct itself. Act constituting human rights violations area unit committed primarily by organs or persons within the name of, or on behalf of, the state. In some circumstances, however, the state may be responsible for the acts of private individuals that may constitute a violation of international human rights law.

In explicit, international and regional standards with regard to victims of crime and victims of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law may be instructive in addressing the needs of victims of terrorism. Certain provisions of the universal treaties concerning specific aspects of coercion are relevant to addressing the things of victims of terrorism.

According to the Declaration on Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, placed in front once General Assembly resolution number 40/34, which informs us about the victims, as it defined as the victims include “persons who have suffered harm individually or collectively which receives physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, loss of economy, social effects or other infringement of their fundamental rights, through omission or commission of the acts that are in violation of criminal laws operative at intervals the Member States, together with those laws proscribing criminal abuse of power.”

The Declaration further encompasses the very standards for the treatment of victims in accordance with the several basic characteristics of justice. The Declaration tells that the victims should:

• The same compassion and respect for the proper enforcing with the right to live with dignity of the victims.
• There should be proper assistance for the legal proceedings or the actions for the proper enforcement of the rights.
• Be protected against intimidation and retaliation;
• Their privacy status could remain protected without infringing.
• Also, be able to have their participation in the relation of the dispute alternatives.
• To provide with the necessary obligation for the victim to look for the materials in need, medications, psychological treatment as well as social assistance.

Terrorism and international humanitarian law

International humanitarian law contains a set of rules on the protection of persons in “armed conflict”, as that term is understood in the relevant treaties, as well as on the conduct of hostilities. These rules are reflected in a number of treaties, including the four Geneva Conventions and their two Additional Protocols, as well as a number of other international instruments aimed at reducing human suffering in armed conflict. Many of their provisions are now also recognized as customary international law.

If it comes to define the term for the Terrorism under the purview of the International Humanitarian Law, it is found no such explicit definition; however the International Humanitarian Law prohibits many acts which are inclusive of the arms conflicts or which are involved in the terrorist activities, as they were done or performed in the times of peace.

International Humanitarian Law, also in its strict sense also prohibits for the measure of the terrorism or the acts of the commission of terrorism, which leads to criminal liability with the collective punishments. Terrorism is known to be the act which causes threats with the main objective to spreads the terrorism effect upon the civilians or the citizens of the nation or specifically for a community, is also strictly considered to be under the prohibition acts of the International Humanitarian Law.

According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, while even a lawful attack on a military objective may spread fear among civilians, these provisions, related to the conduct of hostile actions, attempts to prohibit those attacks that especially aim to terrorize and fear the civilians.

Terrorism and human rights

It becomes very clear from the perspective of Human Rights and the organizations and for democracy, there shall be strict as well as defensive action must be taken against the act of terrorists. On the other hand, there becomes a widespread threat in expressing the anti-terrorism statutes.

Ways to counter misuses of anti-terrorist laws to restrict freedom of expression

Terrorism poses a real and serious threat to people’s lives and is a menace for human rights and democracy. Therefore every state has the duty to protect society against terrorism and to adopt certain measures to prevent and punish terrorist activities in an effective manner. However, this duty is counterbalanced by the obligation to uphold human rights in the fight against terrorism. A number of steps are needed to achieve that difficult balance:

• Existing legislation must thus be reviewed and the notions used should be clearly defined.
• Anti-terror and security laws should not unduly interfere with the right of the media to impart information of public interest and the right of people to receive it.
• All persons imprisoned because of the legitimate criticism they have expressed should be freed and the criminal records of those who have been convicted for such reports should be cleared.

Freedom of expression may be an efficient tool to get rid up to some extent terrorism resulting in a wide ambit of principles like terrorist propaganda, glorification or apology of terrorism, including to contents that clearly do not incite to violence. This misconception should be eliminated as undermining human rights is precisely one of the aims pursued by terrorism, which can in no way be eradicated by sacrificing the very principles and values of our democratic societies. On the contrary, pluralistic and democratic debates are of utmost importance, as a free society can thrive only through free expression and the exchange of ideas.

Frequently asked questions

1) What do you mean by the word “Terrorism”?

Terrorism aims at the terrible destruction of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. It attacks the values that lie at the heart of the Charter of the United Nations and other international instruments: respect for human rights; the rule of law; rules governing armed conflict and therefore the protection of civilians; tolerance among peoples and nations; and therefore the peaceful resolution of conflict. Terrorism incorporates a direct impact on the enjoyment of a variety of human rights, especially, the rights to life, liberty, and physical integrity.

2) How the concept of terrorism is taken by the society?

Terrorism or the ruthless act performed by the terrorists impacts a lot and with a huge gravity among the citizens of the Country particularly and which impacts for the providence of the resistance of the enjoyment of the basic human rights of each and every individual affecting society or more specifically the civil society. Also, impacts the government activities and therefore the stability cannot be maintained. Because of such effect the peace and security of the nation also gets damaged and there is a huge loss of the economic and the property of the state where such activities are being brought into practice. Thus the terrorism is considered which destroys the political, social and economical development and progress which all have the negative effect upon the whole of the citizens.

3) How the state tackles the problems of victims with the crimes of terrorism and how they are implemented?

In addressing the needs of victims of terrorism, consideration must be given to the distinction between victims of crime, on the one hand, and victims of human rights violations, on the other. While this distinction is not always clear-cut, terrorist-related acts will be addressed as criminal offenses committed by individuals and a State won’t, in principle, be responsible for the illegal conduct itself. Act constituting human rights violations area unit committed primarily by organs or persons within the name of, or on behalf of, the state. In some circumstances, however, the state may be responsible for the acts of private individuals that may constitute a violation of international human rights law.

4) What are the basic principles of justice which are being undertaken by the victims?

Victims according to several basic principles of justice which should include the same compassion and respect for the proper enforcing with the right to live with dignity of the victims, be entitled to proper assistance throughout the legal process, be protected against intimidation and retaliation, their privacy status could remain protected without infringing, be able to have their participation in the relation of the dispute alternatives, to provide with the necessary obligation for the victim to look for the materials in need, medications, psychological treatment as well as social assistance.

5) How terrorism is seen with the context of International Humanitarian Law?

International humanitarian law contains a set of rules on the protection of persons in “armed conflict”, as that term is understood in the relevant treaties, as well as on the conduct of hostilities. These rules are reflected in a number of treaties, including the four Geneva Conventions and their two Additional Protocols, as well as a number of other international instruments aimed at reducing human suffering in armed conflict. Many of their provisions are now also recognized as customary international law.

India and Pakistan signed a landmark agreement to operationalise the historic Kartarpur Corridor to allow Indian Sikh pilgrims to visit the holy Darbar Sahib in Pakistan.

• The agreement is valid initially for five years.
• Either party can terminate the agreement at any time by giving notice of one month.
• Also, the pact could be suspended in case of exigency or persistent violation of its provisions.
• Pilgrimages between India and Pakistan are governed by the 1974 Protocol on Visits to Religious Shrines, which includes a list of shrines in Pakistan and India open for visitors from both countries.

Kartarpur Corridor

• The Kartarpur Corridor connects the Darbar Sahib Gurdwara in Narowal district of Pakistan with the Dera Baba Nanak shrine in Gurdaspur district in India’s Punjab province.
• The agreement will facilitate visa-free movement of Indian pilgrims who would just need a permit to cross over to Pakistan.
• The Kartarpur Sahib corridor was first proposed in 1999 when Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee took a bus ride to Lahore.

Importance for Sikhs

• The corridor was built to commemorate 550^th birth anniversary celebrations of Guru Nanak Dev, founder of Sikhism on 12th November 2019.
• It is one of the holiest places for Sikhs where Baba Guru Nanak Dev Ji settled and preached for the last 18 years of his life.
  • It was also his last resting place.

Significance of Kartarpur Corridor

Recent incidents of URI, Pulwama attack and surgical & air strike by India had led to a complete breakdown of peace initiatives between the two nations. In such circumstances, soft power diplomacy can be a potent tool for bringing harmonious relations and peace between the two Nuclear Powers and Kartarpur corridor is a step in the right direction.

• The corridor has the potential to bridge the differences that have assumed unnaturally grave proportions in the last seven decades.
• Through this corridor, the ideology of universal love and tolerance propagated by Guru Nanak Devji, will eventually pave the way for harmony between the two nations, whose people share common roots and a common aspiration for the future.
• Terror and violence have no place in this Corridor of Peace. It can be the burial ground for hatred and mistrust, and for all those inimical forces that have obstructed peace between the two nations all these years.
• The corridor can be step forward in Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s formulation of “breakfast in Amritsar, lunch in Lahore, dinner in Kabul”, which can pave the way for greater cultural integration and strengthening of ties.
• From Pakistan’s perspective, the corridor conveys a message to the international community that it respects minorities and wants to create goodwill in the Sikh community, something that can become a factor in future relationship between the two nations.
  • Inspite of strained relations and continuous attacks on Indian Military establishment by Pakistan backed terrorist organisations, Indian government responded positively to the proposal because it cannot afford to antagonise Sikhs community.
• It may be helpful in healing one of the wounds of Partition for the Sikh community.

Indo-Pak Relations and Peace in South Asia

• The peace and stability in South Asia has been undermined mostly due to the hostility between India and Pakistan, the two major players with significant population.
• Conflicts on Kashmir Policy, border issues, terrorism, cross border ceasefire violations have affected the trade and economic cooperation in the region and has disturbed the stability in the Indian subcontinent.
• More than 70 years of strained relations between the two countries have affected not only trade and economy, but also people to people interaction and common perception of the two countries for each other hindering attempts towards resolution.
• Both India and Pakistan are suffering expenditure in order to block out each others’ trade routes this in turn affects the overall trade and connectivity. The internal differences have also affected the global dialogues at the platforms like the United Nations, Financial Action Task Force, International Court of Justice, and World Bank.
• The regional tensions have negatively affected the connectivity and trade in the region. cross-border energy grids and road rail network connectivity, shipping and air networks to consolidate connectivity have been hampered.
• Deteriorating Indo-Pakistan relations have led to the weakened cooperation amongst the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) countries. It has abysmally low intra-regional trade. The regional group is unable to push itself as a regional block because of instability.
• With the U.S. drawing India into its Afghanistan policy, and China’s stakes in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, the subcontinent is becoming an area of contestation by players bigger than both India and Pakistan.

Resolving Differences: Way Forward

• India should work on its ‘Neighbourhood first’ policy by creating a mutually beneficial partnership with Pakistan. Kartarpur corridor is a good starting point for better relations.

• Both India and Pakistan as part of SAARC should learn from ASEAN and contribute to the larger goals for the region. A strong dispute resolution mechanism can be framed within SAARC in this context.
• The South Asian region faces many challenges that range from terrorism to climate change; working together will help these countries leverage their collective strengths to improve the lives of their people.
• Most of the South Asian countries have a shared culture, ethnicity and have shared experiences of historical events including British imperialism and its consequences. Resolving the conflict between India and Pakistan can unite the entire subcontinent to work towards shared goals.

Challenges in Successful Implementation of Agreement

• Pilgrim Fee: Pakistan had decided to levy a fees of $20 per pilgrim for visiting the revered gurdwara. Indians claim that such charges are not aligned with the religious-cultural ethos of the country. The fringe elements in India viewed it as the imposition of modern jaziya.
  • However, the claims are not true because many big shrines in India charge worshippers for “special darshans” and China too charges for Mansarovar Yatra.
• Security Issues: They possess a grave threat to the sustainability of the project. Constant backing of terrorist organisation by Pakistan Army for carrying out attacks in India can be a major roadblock in the peaceful effort.
• Termination Clause: The agreement has the provision to terminate it by either party by giving just one month notice. This provision has the potential to threaten the continuity of project in case of terrorist attack under populist pressure.

Conclusion

As the historical ‘connectivity’ of the subcontinent crumbled after Partition, it created massive a dysfunction in cultural ties and people to people relations. The Kartarpur Corridor provides an opportunity to restore the strained relations and pave the way for a wider constructive engagement between the two countries.

In his last years, Albert Einstein was fond of saying that he went to his office on the Princeton University campus only for the privilege of walking home with Kurt Gödel. Among the foremost mathematical logicians in history, Gödel is famed for his Incompleteness Theorems. One explanation of these formulations given to laypeople like myself is that they prove no system can be both complete and consistent, where completeness means all statements in the system can be proved true or false, and consistency means no statement can be both true and false.

In April 1948, Einstein accompanied Gödel to the hearing that would confirm him as an American citizen. Although the proceeding was a formality, Gödel made a detailed study of documents related to citizenship. When the presiding officer stated that, unlike Nazi Germany (and the annexed Austria), from which Einstein and Gödel had fled, the United States would never be a dictatorship because of the rights enshrined in its constitution, Gödel replied that he had found an inconsistency in the text that would permit a dictatorship to emerge.

The citizenship process was hastily completed before Gödel defined the incompleteness of American constitutional freedoms, and we can only speculate which fatal inconsistency he had found. Most historians believe it involves Article V of the American Constitution, which deals with how the document can be amended.

The procedure laid down is notoriously difficult, with any amendment needing to be proposed by a two-thirds majority in each of the two houses of Congress and then ratified by legislatures of three-fourths of states. However, should Article V itself be successfully amended, it could in theory permit a cascade of other changes, potentially threatening civil liberties.

The Indian Constitution, unlike that of the United States, is relatively easy to amend. One Article within it, however, has seemed impervious to any meddling, and that is Article 370. It was negotiated with the erstwhile king of Jammu & Kashmir as part of the merger of that state with India, and was like a lock with two keys: it could be changed or nullified only if both India’s Parliament and Kashmir’s Constituent Assembly approved.

Separate constitution

The Constituent Assembly drew up a separate constitution for the state, which was adopted in 1956 and has applied all these years along with a separate penal code. Clause 147 of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution states, “… No Bill or amendment seeking to make any change in (a) this section; or… (c) the provisions of the Constitution of India as applicable, in relation to the State, shall be introduced or moved in either House of the Legislature.”

Framing this clause was the equivalent of locking the room and breaking the second key. Once the constitution was approved, Jammu and Kashmir’s Constituent Assembly was dissolved, which meant the broken pieces of the key were chucked into the Dal Lake.

How, then, did Amit Shah abrogate the un-repealable Article 370 on Monday, August 5, 2019? What incompleteness did India’s Law Ministry find in its formulation? Instead of going at Article 370 directly, the Presidential order amended Article 367, which defines how constitutional provisions are to be interpreted. Newly inserted text redefined the terms “Government of Jammu & Kashmir”, “Sadar-i-Risayat (elected head of State)“ and “Constituent Assembly of Jammu & Kashmir”. The first two were now to be read as “Governor of J&K” and the third taken to mean “Legislative Assembly of Jammu & Kashmir”.

Since the Legislative Assembly of Jammu & Kashmir was dissolved by the Central government months ago, the governor currently stands in for it. In effect, every state-wide elected body in Jammu & Kashmir, past and present, is now to be interpreted to mean “governor of J&K”, who is, of course, a puppet of the Central government. Any change that could previously only be made with the consent of those bodies can now be achieved by the Centre through its man in Srinagar.

The assault on democracy

For years, India’s establishment has countered the idea of Kashmir’s right to self-determination by highlighting the democratic process in the state. The argument is disingenuous, since nobody views elections held in India under British rule as having undermined India’s quest for complete independence. Nevertheless, internal democracy was the strongest argument against Kashmiri self-determination, especially given Pakistan’s relative failure in that respect.

With a stroke of a pen, Narendra Modi and Amit Shah have destroyed that argument. By taking a series of deeply consequential decisions without a process of consultation or a vote by elected state representatives, knowing those decisions would be deeply unpopular even among Kashmiri political parties committed to the Indian republic, India’s rulers have shrugged off the cloak of democracy to reveal the naked power behind India’s control of Kashmir.

The move is motivated by the belief that people in one nation ought to have one law. It’s a compelling idea, no doubt, but needs to be balanced by the equally powerful sense that particular histories must be give their due if perfect equality is not to become a form of injustice. That is why we have quotas and reservations for women and for historically disadvantaged communities, which attempt to redress entrenched inequities even as they cut against the ideal of pure parity.

Jammu & Kashmir was not the only state to be assigned a special form of autonomy in India’s Constitution for historical reasons. At the very least, Kashmiris, on being told that as Indian citizens they should follow Indian laws, can retort that they were never asked whether they wanted to be Indian citizens in the first place. It was the whim of a king that settled their fate, and India’s latest move reneges on promises made to that king. The only factor in the country’s favour now is sheer might, military and economic situations.