On December 10, the World celebrated the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was on this day in 1948 that the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted resolution 217 A (III) and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the preamble of the declaration itself it is mentioned, “Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law”. Thus the World Organisation itself has admitted that the denial of basic human rights may force people to take recourse to rebellion as a last resort. This is precisely what has been happening in Kashmir for decades but unfortunately the basic issue has been deliberately clouded by larger political considerations. The necessity of establishing overall peace for economic development of the downtrodden masses in the region is taken to be of primary consideration for the two neighbouring countries in the sub-continent. However, none of these holistic objectives of peace and tranquility essential for the economic development can be achieved unless the core issue of the denial of basic human rights in Kashmir is addressed with sincerity. In an article on the subject, the former Attorney General of India, Soli Sorabjee called the Declaration a “Modern Magna Carta of Mankind”. According to him, “Human dignity is at the centre of international human rights instruments. Right to life, mentioned in Article 3 of the Declaration, is a basic human right and finds a place in every international human rights instrument and national constitution.” He goes on to define the meaning of life and relevance of all other rights in regard to this basic right as interpreted by various courts and legal luminaries and concludes, “They reveal a single thread and add up to a single right: the right to survive without which the possession of other human rights such as freedom of speech or franchise becomes a cruel joke.” In case of Kashmir, the cruel joke has been taken to its extreme by suspending the very right to life through a legislative process. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act has taken away the basic right to life by authorising Indian security personnel to kill a Kashmiri and destroy his property on mere suspicion with total immunity to a judicial review of their actions. A soldier can be hauled up for targeting wild life but not a human being! It would be interesting to reproduce certain pertinent articles of the Human Rights Declaration to compare the ground situation in Kashmir. The article 5 states, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The use of torture on a regular basis is a normal routine in Kashmir. The security personnel do not think it to be something illegal. It is the part of the training they have been given to tackle militancy. Daily humiliation of frisking, molestation, and man-handling is a commonly accepted procedure without any protest. One witnesses massive public protests only when the forces cross the ultimate limits. The article 9 states, “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.” This sentence has been totally obliterated from the law books and rules in Kashmir for last two decades. People have totally forgotten something called a search or arrest warrant. The article 12 defining a human being’s right to privacy proclaims, “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” People have now got used to nocturnal knocks and consider it to be an inherent right of the security forces. The word privacy has ceased to exist in the valley. The articles 18 and 19 pertain to freedom of thought and expression and state, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” And “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” It does not need a further detailed review or analysis to conclude that none of the above mentioned rights are available to a common Kashmiri at present. Everything is controlled and the “rights” are “administered” sometimes in a most brazen and arbitrary way. All political parties representing different streams of thought have been highlighting the gross violations of human rights in Kashmir. Various forms of protest available at present have been undertaken by prominent leaders for drawing world attention to these violations which have been going unabated for decades now! In fact, all international organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International etc. have been regularly mentioning in their reports about gross human rights violations being committed in Kashmir. These organizations have been making persistent efforts for getting permission from the Indian Government to enter Kashmir to undertake field visits for ascertaining the truth. This permission is being consistently denied to them. Unless the Government has something to hide why are they refusing permission for field visits by these organizations? India is a signatory to Universal Declaration of Human Rights and many other global conventions and treaties concerning the protection of these rights. In spite of this, they are able to get away with total intransigence in their refusal to implement these universal laws. For a pretty long time, India has been lobbying for a permanent seat in UN Security Council. However, every time these attempts get stalled by their stubborn attitude in regard to situation in Kashmir. They refuse to see the writing on the wall and totally deny any violations of human rights in Kashmir. The greatest tragedy is that most of the legal luminaries and intellectual stalwarts campaigning for human rights fail to see and speak out loudly about happenings in Kashmir. One would have expected a massive human rights movement in India in support of Kashmiris in view of the declarations on the subject made by various organizations leading similar initiatives in different parts of India as well as abroad. One fails to understand why all these principles, ideologies, and other humanitarian considerations totally vanish in case of Kashmir? It is often said that the reason for this apathetic attitude is the “crime” of Kashmiris being a rebellious Muslim majority. However, there are many instances where the Hindu majority leaders have been boldly coming out in support of the rights of the Muslim minority in India. The actual cause seems to be something else and may have external dimensions. Another reason could be the weak projection of these issues involving human rights violations by Kashmir’s own leaders coupled with western bias and prejudice involving Muslims in such situations especially after 9/11. In any case, all these declarations and conventions become meaningless unless the organizations proclaiming these are in a position to enforce the same. The last article (30) in the Declaration of Human Rights states, “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein”. This remains a very noble and sublime thoughtful wish in the absence of actual enforcement on the ground. Isn’t it possible for the UN to take a suo moto cognizance of the violations? Shouldn’t one consider the violations of human rights anywhere in the world by any government or organization a cognizable offence attracting automatic intervention by the concerned global agencies? All such declarations and conventions the makers of which have no power to execute and enforce these on the ground become in themselves null and void and in the words of Soli Sorabjee are a cruel joke!