It has been 30 days since Kashmir was placed under siege.
A few notes about the pitiful responses from International Human Rights organisations like @amnesty @AIIndia & @hrw who present themselves as the vanguard of human rights everywhere.
So far @amnesty HQ has released just one statement since the lockdown.
Though the statement attempted to place Kashmiris at the centre of a resolution, it called for vague diplomatic intervention from the UNSC & international community.
Since this statement, @AIIndia has posted vague diatribes about the situation in the valley.
"While the authorities have the right to maintain public order, use of pellet guns and other weapons are in defiance of international human rights standards."
How long does it take to formulate a campaign against the rabid actions of a regime that has 7million+ living under siege?
There is a shortage of comprehensive information but there is no shortage of credible information. We know what is going on.
So what is the delay?
Amnesty was formed with the: "aim of obtaining an amnesty for prisoners of conscience all over the world".
How does it explain its lip-service to: 3000+ adults & children who have been held without charge & not been allowed visits from family + subjected to torture?
Now let's talks about @hrw
For years I have followed the India's office statements about Kashmir. I have found the language to be apologetic to the state and connivance to the status quo.
Since August 5, it has become intolerable.
Look at the language of this statement from @hrw - August 12, a week after communication blockade.
"There are reports of worried families unable to contact loved ones, and a lack of proper access to medical services"
What else would happen if the net/phone lines were cut?
"When Modi addressed the nation last week, he conceded that Kashmiris are suffering due to restrictions on communications and movement, accepted that there are many who disagree with the constitutional changes his government enacted ... (contd)
... but told critics it was nevertheless in the country’s best interests."
Is @hrw & @mg2411 a mouthpiece for Modi and his government or for the people being oppressed?
What does Indian interests got to do with the people of Kashmir who are under the siege?
Here is another gem.
"While international law does allow governments to temporarily suspend some rights in exceptional circumstances, this cannot be allowed to become the new ‘normal.’"
What is the insinuation here? That so long as it doesn't continue, its fine?
Here is the full statement from @hrw if you care to read:
There are of course other statements, but the language is just as pitiful.
The complicity of @hrw and its India office is an open secret among observers and Kashmiri journalists.
The liberal humanitarian industrial complex; faux-condemnation from upper class / upper caste Indians to keep the facade that any one actually cares.
But little could prepare me for @KenRoth statement last week. He shared @ImranKhanPTI opinion on #Kashmir and immediately invoked an exact talking point of the Indian government. "What about Balochistan?"
Is whataboutery the methodology of a human rights defender?
For those who don't know:
To talk about Balochistan is official Indian policy when it comes to countering criticism of Kashmir.
You can follow @azadessa.