 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. The unholy alliance between the BJP and PDP came to an end yesterday as the BJP announced its decision to pull out of the government in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. So to talk about the future of the state and what this decision means and also the report which was released by the United Nations recently, we have with us today Gautam Navlika, a civil rights activist. So Gautam, the first question really is why does this decision come now? We know that this alliance was never really one which was formed on similar grounds to begin with and the government had problems right from day one. They had the differences. Well, if you recall in the previous interview that I did for NewsClick, I pointed out that it's for BJP to decide what approach they are going to take with 2019 elections due, whether it would be a conciliatory approach or a hard line approach that they will persist with. Well, now it's clear. It's clear. What line they are going to take. That is. So that matter is settled. So all this you and cry about the importance of ceasefire and the so-called offer of talks and all was just a lot of hot air. There was no substance to it and that became very clear. So in that context, as soon as the decision taken for not extending ceasefire was made, there was no basis left then for BJP to persist with an alliance, which as per their calculations, they were losing. It was more just a written understanding and a wish list. It was nothing and never meant to be taken seriously by any side. And that is what the last four years record shows. Please remember, in 2014, we had this September 2014 massive floods in Jammu and Kashmir. And it took two years before BJP government at the center, he did the demand of people in Jammu and Kashmir and made available resources to those who had been affected by it. So right from the beginning, BJP's attitude towards Jammu and Kashmir had been very clear. People tend to forget. It's an ideological party whose position has been consistent right from the big from 1950s. They were the ones who started the agitation against national conference government way back in 1950s led by Shama Prasad Mukherjee. Given that background, sooner or later, I mean, BJP would have called off this alliance and it was just waiting to happen. It also really puts the ceasefire into question. That was that really a decision. I mean, to expect the ceasefire to succeed in such a short duration of time without any proper political talks and to then state that as a reason for calling off the alliance also really puts the whole decision of announcing the ceasefire in the first place. Really like that becomes questionable. Please remember, the actual fact is that it was Dineshwar Sharma, the government appoint representative who pushed for ceasefire. Ministry of Home Affairs accepted it and this was communicated to the state government PDP in the middle of an all-party meeting where the suggestion came from MLA engineer Rashid and C P I M's MLA Tarigami PDP picked it up and made it appear as if it was their suggestion. So their own person is responsible for what today BJP accuses PDP of doing and for therefore mishandling so-called law and order problem. And I think that that itself says a lot because it's obviously an attempted passing the buck, all the blame onto somebody else. And also there are of course a lot of news going on about how this is coming right before the elections before the 2019 elections and like what do you think is the importance of this decision for the upcoming general elections? Well I think we'll know very soon on June 23rd when Amit Shah speaks on the death anniversary of SP Mukherjee Shah Mappasad Mukherjee. I expect that he would be making an announcement in line with their ideological stance vis-a-vis Kashmir. I mean that is going to be a hard line, that operation all out is going to pick up and become more all out offensive with no restraint. The reaction of the people of the state has been somewhat positive to this end of the government because like as what I've seen people are happy about the end of this opportunistic government but is there really a reason for celebration now because I don't think there is now the governor will be coming into rule will be ruling the state. So how would that affect the state now? Well governor's rule has never been a very happy experience for Jammu and Kashmir not withstanding what people claim. The governor's rule has always been the period when massive encroachments were made in the constitutional autonomy given to Jammu and Kashmir. So governor's rule has played a very important role in hollowing out of autonomy. Even the previous stint of NNVora when Mahbubha Mufti for three months was still undecided whether she would take on the mantle of chief ministership or not. Those three months showed very clearly which way the governor was headed. He was doing precisely the things that the BJP and RSS wanted to push in Jammu and Kashmir. Once the elected government was formed then many of those decisions were reviewed and were rejected. The only thing is and I hope that at that axis that the UN Office of Human Rights Council report which has come out recently that I hope that it acts as a restraint on the government and that they realize that the world's eyes would be international public opinion would any violation any atrocity that is committed against in Jammu and Kashmir will be taken note of by international public much more than otherwise. So coming to the report what do you have to say about the findings of the report? Well one the most interesting thing is that the Indian newspapers have written a lot about about the report and about its immorality and found false with the report attributing all kind of charges. I mean times of India went to the extent of pointing out that these people's funding where it came from made it suspicious that they are independent and things like that. Not once did India think of it when they were supporting the demand of the international community to criticize and demand and international enquiry into atrocities committed in Sri Lanka for instance India backed that demand. Of course there are also allegations of the office of the Human Rights Council that of it being biased against India. Yeah I mean for some obscure reason I don't know why they would be biased because this is the first time I mean bias would be if there being a consistent and reporting about Jammu and Kashmir our lament is that it's rather late for them to intervene and nobody is talks about none of the media has even bothered or have displayed even the courage to come out and refer to what the report has to say. It's an extremely well documented well researched rigorously researched very well sourced and its language is remarkably sober and polite despite talking about a matter which is horrendous it's a report which deserves to be read and to be understood and engaged with without reading to criticize something I think it only shows the intellectual imbecility that prevails in this country where the corporate media is concerned and this report is remarkable it points out India's international obligations that it is a signatory to and therefore must live by and the violations therefore they point out of all the legal obligations that India carries as a member country and as a signatory to say international the civil and political rights on various covenants which we have signed but we have not ratified like on torture in force disappearances or covenants that we have signed and ratified like the one on children one on discrimination and violence against women etc etc it's reminding us that we are signatory to all this so we are in violation of this in Kashmir I mean for 30 years it points out that justice has not been delivered and obviously the if you reading between the line and makes it clear that exist under the existing system of criminal jurisprudence and and and and how in a conflict area and in a disturbed area the criminal courts do not exercise jurisdiction over armed forces therefore the inability of civilians to get to get justice for crimes that are inflicted on them committed on them and not just in Jamun Kashmir in northeast for much longer we may claim that Kashmir is a law and order problem as everybody wants to pretend it is it is not Kashmir is a disturbed area where armed forces of the union army as well as the central paramilitary forces have been provided legal immunity through Afspa for anything that they do in this area it's an armed conflict area it's not a peace area the criminal jurisdiction does not operate in a in a in a disturbed area so it's much closer to and therefore international humanitarian laws that come into play in armed conflict or war situations apply or our guidelines or they are they ought to be the guidelines for any of the of the of the fighting forces of the you know the of the belligerence on on either side either the state or the non-state subject of forces in this matter yeah the report has pointed out the violations committed by the militants as well by the on the state but at the same time it points out how India is in violation of not just international human rights but also international human humanitarian laws which apply in armed conflict and war situation this is hypocrisy we want to permanency it in United Nations Security Council but we don't want to abide by any of the international obligations so we want to be like the bunch of five who rule the rules who follow no laws to whom no laws and rules apply we want to be one of those evildoers in the world to use a you know colorful word rather than be part of some of a of a country which which abides by and lives up to its international obligations and pushes for it I mean with instead of taking a moral high ground we are stooping low and trying to compare ourselves with the worst like the US UK France Russia and China to clear to to claim that these rules and obligations don't apply to us which is rather strange in fact its timing is also very significant and now coincides with the with the imposition of governor's rule in Jammu and Kashmir because even if the Indian if Indian media and the corporate houses and the pracharats and the supporters ignore this report and the international public opinion other progressive and democratic minded Indians will not and together with them the international public opinion is going to be little more alert than in the past now that this report has come so if any atrocity or killing a massacre takes place mark my word it's not going to be like old times where the world would ignore whatever happens it would be different and let me add this report and this committee and this council was praised by most of the world for the really meticulous work they did on the on the atrocities commit being committed by by Israeli forces on the Palestinians recently it's the same council while we welcome the report unfortunately the kind of attitude displayed by the government of India and its and its accolades make it clear that they are not going to allow that to act as a restrain on them India's also always been very of course even now they did not want the UN to actually come and investigate that's why the remote monitoring was done so do you think after this report that might change the recommendation of the office of the Human Rights Commissioner to carry out investigations in Kashmir will that finally be accepted? Unfortunately since the UN Security Council that decides with the five veto powers there India will be working hard on one of them to put you know use the veto against it so I don't see international inquiry getting anywhere but this document still stays its recommendations its research still stays its lens credibility to all the work that civil liberties and democratic rights organizations have done especially in Jammu and Kashmir by the Kashmiris themselves it lends credibility to their work so for anybody to believe that we would have escaped because there won't be any international inquiry well that could be one that will be an outcome unfortunately to expect given the nature of international politics and how it operates but it's not something that India would be very happy in the long term apart from calling the report biased the critique has also been that Burhan Bani has been called a leader and not a terrorist groups like Hizbul Mujahideen have been called armed groups and not terrorist groups what do you think of these criticisms? Well I don't read too much into it in the first place I welcome I'm happy they've called them what they are Hizbul Mujahideen is not a terrorist organization as far as I'm concerned it's an indigenous militant organization government of India can claim whatever they want to but government of India's definition of things are not necessarily something that are acceptable to everybody and just because they decide to call their own people nationalists and patriots when we know that they engaged in terrorist acts and heinous crimes are the worst kind and they're the most foul mouth people despite that we don't call them terrorist or or or any such thing yes whereas I do make a distinction between Hizbul personally between Hizbul Mujahideen which is an indigenous force and Lashkar and Jaish-e-Mohammad whom I do not consider as indigenous force and yes criticism is valid but will name calling necessarily help no identify the crimes that they have committed bring them to book for crimes that they have committed criticize them for their ideological orientation yes perfectly valid and that's what we engage in also but to abuse somebody to use it as some kind of you know it's a to junk somebody to take away agency and history and motivation from a movement from people in struggle I think that's that's I think all governments engage and then and we reject it people rejected especially progressive and democratic-minded people so must we do it and those are minor things the substantive issues of the remote nevertheless these as grounds for dismissing the entire report you have to engage with substance not for these nomenclatures and name dropping that gets us nowhere thank you got them for joining us today and thank you for watching this book