Human Rights Watch has advocated for three policy prescriptions regarding the Kashmir conflict: 1) The US should pressure India to hold its armed forces accountable for human rights abuses and end immunity laws. 2) India and Pakistan must cooperate through renewed diplomatic talks mediated by international actors. 3) The desires of the Kashmiri people for independence should be considered, with the goal of creating a unified Kashmiri state free from Indian and Pakistani involvement.

1. Erin Stubbs
Simulation Assignment
Dr. Creed
October 27, 2008
Responsible Foreign Policy: An exploration of the Human Rights Watch’s influence over
American interventions in the Kashmir region conflict
Profile of a Human Rights Watch Analyst
​In 1978, the Helsinki Watch was established to monitor the compliance of Soviet
nations with the provisions of the Helsinki Accords, which enumerated ten points on the
protection of human rights. During the 1980s, similar “watch” committees formed around the
world and eventually coalesced in 1988 to form one organization, the Human Rights Watch.
Since then, Human Rights Watch has sought to monitor and expose human rights violations,
improve and enforce the international standards of human rights, and encourage offending
governments to amend abusive laws and policies (“About HRW”). In this endeavor, the
organization often calls on​ ​influential actors such as the United Nations and international
financial institutions, as well as the United States government, to support human rights in
policymaking.
​The professionals of Human Rights Watch are a diverse grouping of lawyers,
journalists, academics, and regional experts working in offices worldwide. Analysts for Human
Rights Watch work in different regions around the world, engaging in diplomatic talks when

2. possible and otherwise investigating potential human rights violations on the part of governments
and non­state actors (“About…”). Researchers visit the sites of rights violations in order to
interview victims and generate statistics, which are published in yearly reports, as well as
provide detailed media coverage about current crises. While some analysts work primarily in
emergency situations and must be available for quick deployment to unforeseen crisis regions, it
is the duty of other Human Rights Watch researchers to establish plans for anticipated troubles
and then regularly reassess those plans as events unfold (“About…”). In addition to these tasks,
analysts often work closely with diplomatic figures, seeking to establish further political
protection of human rights.
In writing annual reports and authoring numerous letters and recommendations, Human
Rights Watch has become an important figure in influencing American Foreign Policy. The
organization holds that “international standards of human rights must apply to all people equally,
and that sharp vigilance” on the part of dominant world players like the United States can be
useful, if not imperative, to the enforcement of those standards (“About…”). According to the
Human Rights Watch website, “exposing human rights violations…shames abusers and helps to
put pressure on them to reform their conduct.”
Policy Prescriptions
The newest wave of violence in the Kashmir region began in May 2008, when the Indian
government decided to temporarily grant land to a Hindu trust during an annual pilgrimage; the
decision to make this transfer sparked angry protests from the Muslim majority in Kashmir, and
the subsequent revocation of the decision angered Kashmiri Hindus, a minority in the region,

3. who feel that the Indian government ignores Hindu interests in order to pacify the Muslim
population. The result of this dispute is a renewed sentiment against Indian occupation and
control of Jammu and Kashmir, favoring instead an independent Kashmiri state.
​In determining the regions most suited for its work, Human Rights Watch considers
several factors: the severity of human rights abuses, the number of people affected, and the
possibility for impacting a change (“About…”). Based on these criteria, Jammu and Kashmir is a
part of the world very much in need of assistance. The ongoing and recurring conflicts of this
region make it a viable location for producing change, if and when the actors involved, as well as
influential global institutions, agree to encourage resolution. In this, the United States has the
potential to be both useful and helpful, as long as its policymakers understand that, as Louis D.
Hayes noted in his study ​The Impact of U.S. Policy on the Kashmir Conflict​, “The Kashmir
dispute is the result of a multiplicity of highly complex problems [and] it is unlikely that all of
these problems can be solved simultaneously” (1971; p. 53). Therefore, to improve the situation
in Kashmir, Human Rights Watch hopes to see new American Foreign Policy decisions arise in
the near future that would address the consistent violations of human rights on multiple levels.
Specifically, the organization would encourage American policymakers to consider the following
actions in response to the escalating violence in Kashmir.
Accountability of armed forces:
The primary focus of American Foreign Policy in relation to the Kashmir crisis should be
to establish accountability among the Indian armed forces. A large part of this is the need to
enforce the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms, a piece of
international legislation that allows the use of lethal force by law enforcement officials only in

4. order to protect life (“Basic Principles…”). This foundational law for the international protection
of human rights have been repeatedly violated in the by Indian law enforcement officials, and
little has been done to address the situation.
Since 1958, soldiers and police in India​ ​have been protected and empowered by the
Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) (Human Rights Watch 2008). This act provides for
laws that require government permission in order to file charges against law enforcement
officers, and therefore human rights violators rarely face prosecution (Ganguly 2008). According
to Meenakshi Ganguly, a Human Rights Watch senior researcher on South Asia, immunity laws
for officials have perpetuated human rights violations over the past fifty years, more recently
exemplified by the killings of at least 15 demonstrators on August 11​th​
and 12​th​
of this year, when
Indian security forces opened fire on both Muslim and Hindu protestors (2008). Unfortunately,
the Indian government has repeatedly ignored​ ​concerns and recommendations by the United
Nations and Human Rights Watch to review the AFSPA and address the abuses of the special
powers it outlines.
Demonstrations are perpetuated in response to government actions against Kashmiri
protestors, and “with violence escalating…the [Indian] government should order security forces
to act with restraint (Ganguly 2008). In order to assuage the crisis, it is imperative that the Indian
armed forces be held accountable for their violations of human rights; for this to happen, the
United States and other international bodies must take action to persuade the government of
India to “investigate and prosecute government officials, including members of the armed forces,
police, and paramilitary for human rights violations” (“Army Killings…” 2008).
While the dispute of the Kashmir region has been contained at various points over the

5. years, the conflict has not ceased and will not until specific steps are taken to address the issues,
particularly that of human rights. As Ganguly argues, “unless there is justice for previous crimes,
Jammu and Kashmir will remain a tinderbox that can be set aflame by anyone with a vested
interest in the conflict” (2008).
Cooperation between the governments of India and Pakistan:
In his address to the General Assembly of the United Nations five years ago, former
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf spoke in favor of building cross­border relations with India
in the hopes of absolving the crisis of the Jammu and Kashmir region. He cited the end of the
Cold War as inspiration for diplomatic dialogue, saying, “When the Berlin Wall collapsed, hopes
revived for a new age of cooperation and peace, free from ideological confrontations” (2003).
Unfortunately, the talks that followed resolved nothing; Musharraf accused India as “brutally
suppressing” the Kashmiri people’s demand for self­determination, and the Indian Prime
Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee responded in turn with citing cross­border terrorism sponsored by
Pakistan.
There must be a renewed attempt at forging diplomatic relationships between India and
Pakistan. As Musharraf pointed out, a political solution to the dispute between India and Pakistan
“holds the key to peace and security in South Asia” (2003). Terrorism and immunity for human
rights violators must be condemned on both sides and by the global community. In a preliminary
step to develop trust between Indian and Pakistani leaders, mediation will most likely be
required. Mechanisms should be put in place, as Musharraf suggested in his address, to monitor
any violation or infiltration across the Line of Control; the United States can influence the

6. establishment of such a monitoring system and may even be allowed to take part in mediation
between the disputing nations. Ultimately, the most important aspect of any dialogue between
India and Pakistan is to make it one of peace, cooperation, and resolution.
Formation of an independent Kashmiri state:
​The desire of the Kahmiri people to be free of Indian rule needs to be reviewed
objectively by all parties, and then, ultimately, a decision must be made that all can be content
with, but, more importantly, that satisfies the inhabitants of Jammu and Kashmir, Hindu and
Muslim alike. The United States, particularly as a Western democracy, has the potential to
positively influence the creation of a unified Kashmiri state. The primary goal of such an
establishment must be to discourage further involvement in the region by either India or
Pakistan, thus allowing the Kashmiri the self­determination they so desire.
Suggested Implementation Methods
Before the main issues of religious conflict in Jammu and Kashmir and the state disputes
between India and Pakistan can be addressed diplomatically, the more immediate crisis of human
rights violations must be absolved. The United States has the potential to be a key player in
solving this problem. American foreign policymakers must make the protection of human rights
and enforcement of international law a priority.
​While the Indian government may choose to ignore the voices of its people and the
recommendations of human rights organizations, it cannot long withstand the pressures of the
international community. Fortunately, if it chooses to take action through policy decisions, the
United States can be very influential, especially if allied with other actors like the European

7. Union and the United Nations, both of which have proven to be champions of human rights and
friends of Human Rights Watch.
​When a cease­fire is established across the Line of Control and when India’s law
enforcement and military begin to be held accountable for their actions and their violations of the
United Nations Basic Principles for the Use of Force and Firearms, then it will be imperative for
diplomatic negotiations to ensue between India and Pakistan so that the cease­fire can be
maintained and resolutions to the political conflict of the region can be established.
​It would be beneficial if the United States worked with the ambassadors of these
countries to both encourage negotiations as well as mediate the proceedings should India and
Pakistan find themselves unable to reach agreements. Of course, at the same time, it is best that
the United States present its policy objectives as being neutral and politically unmotivated so as
not to rouse the suspicions or hostility of one or both nations. The United States should align
itself with groups like Human Rights Watch, whose interests are primarily invested in the
protection of the Kashmiri people.
​Ultimately, the desires of the Kashmiri people must be met; otherwise, the violence of
the last fifty years will continue to reappear. Unfortunately, before the issue of establishing an
independent Kashmiri state can be discussed, there must be a mutual cease­fire on both sides of
the dispute so that diplomatic deliberations may ensue. Releasing Jammu and Kashmir from
Indian control needs to be a gradual and delicate process; for India to simply relinquish control
while the region remains violent and hostile would be to throw the new state into further chaos.
​American policy in favor of a Kashmir state is desirable, but it must emphasize the need
for liberation as a process, which will require punitive acts by the Indian government against

8. human rights violations, reparations for victims, and rehabilitation of displaced persons. In the
past, South Asia has been “one of the best examples of the failure of American Foreign Policy to
accommodate itself to regional security problems” (Hayes, 53); therefore, policymakers must
learn from the failure of previous perceptions and begin to address regional conflicts like that of
Jammu and Kashmir according to the specific problems of that particular part of the world.
Works Cited
"About HRW."​ ​Human Rights Watch​. Retrieved 25 Oct. 2008 from <http://hrw.org>.
"Army Killings Fuel Insurgency in Manipur."​ ​15 Sept. 2008. ​Human Rights Watch​.
Retrieved 24​ ​Oct. 2008 from <http://hrw.org>.
Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials​. United
Nations. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Ganguly, Meenakshi. "The Kashmir Tinderbox."​ ​19 Aug. 2008. ​New Statesman​
Hayes, Louis D.​ ​The Impact of U.S. Policy on the Kashmir Conflict​. Tuscon, AZ:
University of Arizona Institute of Government Research, 1971.
Human Rights Watch. "These Fellows Must Be Eliminated: Relentless Violence and
Impunity in Manipur." 15 Sept. 2008. Press release. Retrieved 24 Oct. 2008 from
<http://hrw.org>.
Musharraf, Pervez, Munir Akram, and Atal Bihari Vajpayee. "Is Indian Control of
Jammu and Kashmire Unjust and in Violation of International Law? Pro and
Con."​ ​2004. ​International Debates​. 9th ed.Vol. 2.. 264­71.

9.
Works Consulted
"India's Dirty Little War." 6 Sept. 1994. Editorial.​ ​The New York Times​ ​:18.
"India: Order Kashmir Forces to Use Restraint."​ ​13 Aug. 2008. ​Human Rights Watch​.
Retrieved 24 Oct. 2008 from <http://hrw.org>.
Mariner, Joanne. "Re: Revocation of Visa of Amina Masood Janjua." Letter to Michael
Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security, United States. 22 Sept. 2008.