Whenever India’s civil society has debated Kashmir’s human rights situation, the rationality, not legality, of the state’s measures has been the bone of contention. Condemning the criminality of the law in ‘rational’ terms was simply not possible because it is, after all, a matter of ‘national security’. It is time we recognise that in a de facto military dictatorship, the rule of law endorses the belief of the strategists rather than the honouring of human rights. Presumably, this is their Divine Right. But the scope of this Divine Right is restricted to the law of the land. What about international treaties? There is a ‘rational’ as well as ‘legal’ interpretation to the atrocities under the UN Convention on Rights of Child. It explains how the current behaviour of the executive with respect to child rights in Kashmir is not only improper but also criminal.

For instance, Zahoor Ahmed Lone, a 16-year-old student, was killed on October 4, 2003, in Budgam, allegedly being used as a ‘human shield’. In reply to the court, the accused 35 Rashtriya Rifles, ‘humbly’ informed that they took Lone’s ‘consent’ before taking him for a search operation. The security forces also reminded the court that under the Section 6 of the Armed Force Special Powers Act this doesn’t come within the purview of the judiciary. By implication, reiterating the state’s power to construct and seek interpretations that suit its ‘cause’. This leads to more untoward incidents. On November 11, 2005, in Baramulla, eight boys were also used as human shields in the shah mohalla encounter and two were killed. By bringing a minor in line of hostilities, the state has clearly violated the UNCRC provisions.

... contd.