[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 10]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 13111]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                KASHMIR

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOSEPH CROWLEY

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, June 18, 2004

  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about India and to 
respond to recent remarks made on this Floor by Congressman Towns 
concerning the situation in Kashmir.
  First, I would like to praise India, a vast country of over 
1,000,000,000 people, for its recent successful exercise in democracy. 
The elections in India that concluded last month yet again demonstrated 
the strength and endurance of that country's democratic system and 
culture. India has been for 57 years the world's largest democracy, 
with a multiparty system in which all political views are freely 
expressed and respected. India's example of free and fair democratic 
elections, and respect for the rule of law, is truly an inspiration and 
model for the region and the world.
  India and the United States share a special relationship as the 
world's two largest democracies. Our countries are natural allies, and 
we share the fundamental goal of building a peaceful and democratic 
world free from the scourge of terrorism. I am confident this 
relationship will continue to grow stronger because of the shared 
interests between our countries. Next, I would like to respond briefly 
to remarks made recently by Congressman Towns about Kashmir. I believe 
his remarks demand a response given his inaccurate and misleading 
portrayal of the situation.
  In his recent remarks, the Congressman referred to a ``successful'' 
hearing held recently on Kashmir by the Subcommittee on Wellness and 
Human Rights of the Committee on Government Reform. On the contrary, 
that hearing included the testimony of a number of witnesses whose 
views on Kashmir were so lopsided that I, along with a handful of other 
Members not serving on the Subcommittee, felt it imperative to be 
present and lend some balance to the proceedings. It is unfortunate 
that this hearing was used as a vehicle for propaganda--one witness 
even described the hearing as an exercise in India-bashing. It is 
especially disappointing because it compromises and undermines efforts 
by India and Pakistan to resolve bilaterally all issues between them. I 
would like to add here that eligible citizens of India, including in 
Jammu & Kashmir, freely exercised their right to vote in India's recent 
elections. Despite terrorist attacks that resulted in the killings of 
and injuries to government ministers, candidates as well as voters, the 
people of Jammu & Kashmir came out and voted, much as they did in late 
2002 while electing representatives to their own State Assembly. This 
is much more than can be said of some other countries, where the 
military continues to dominate the political process.
  The situation in the state of Jammu and Kashmir is primarily one of 
cross-border terrorism, sponsored from across the Line of Control and 
the International Border in the state by Pakistan. Starting in the 
early 1980s in the state of Punjab and then since 1988 in the state of 
Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan has consistently sought to use terrorism as 
an instrument of state policy in its dealings with India. The 
involvement of the Pakistani state in recruiting, training, 
indoctrinating, financing, arming and infiltrating terrorists into 
Indian territory is a matter of international and public record. In 
addition to this, the active Pakistani military, political and 
diplomatic support to the criminal Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which 
provided refuge to Osama bin Laden, is also well known.
  Despite this record, the Government of India has sought 
reconciliation and repeatedly extended a hand of friendship to 
Pakistan. The previous Government in India had initiated this process 
and the new Government that has just taken office has reiterated its 
desire to build upon it. Indeed, the new Foreign Minister of India has 
just announced the rescheduled dates for talks on bilateral issues with 
Pakistan. These include talks on June 19 and 20 on Confidence Building 
Measures and on June 27 and 28 between the Foreign Secretaries of the 
two countries. India's approach is one of friendship and cooperation. 
The Government of Pakistan should respect the seriousness with which 
India is committed to engaging in this bilateral dialogue and play its 
part by living up to the commitments it has made to India and the 
international community, including the United States, most notably to 
create an atmosphere free from the menace of terrorism and violence in 
which the dialogue can be advanced.
  India is the world's largest democracy and has stuck to its tenets 
for over half a century. It has institutions and processes in place 
that afford strong constitutional protections for freedom of speech, 
expression, religion and assembly. There is no doubt that there have 
been instances of human rights violations, especially in areas affected 
by terrorist activity. Security forces in Jammu and Kashmir and some 
Indian states in the North-East of the country are primarily involved 
in combating the depredations of terrorists, who have been recorded as 
having been involved in grave violations of human rights. Wherever 
there have been allegations of violations by security forces, they 
have, on all occasions, been thoroughly investigated and, wherever 
deemed necessary, have resulted in the severest punishments possible. 
India has a free press and other media, an independent judiciary and 
vigilant non-governmental organizations, which are watchful of 
administrative and legislative actions and exercise the required 
oversight. In addition, it has a statutory National Human Rights 
Commission, which has proved vigilant at calling attention to the need 
to redress grievances, wherever they might occur, including where 
security forces are involved.
  I would like to make one final point. Congressman Towns' remarks 
appear to be based on material supplied by an organization calling 
itself the ``Council of Khalistan''. This organization supports a 
separatist agenda for the Indian state of Punjab. This organization has 
no standing in India, not even in Punjab. Even overseas, it is 
considered a fringe organization and its calls for secession for the 
Sikhs of India finds no resonance. The recent elections have 
demonstrated, more than anything else, that minorities in India have 
faith in the country's pluralistic, democratic system. Indeed, this 
organization has a questionable reputation on the Hill as well. In 
early 2002, a representative of this organization misled staffers in 
some offices to obtain signatures on a letter to the President.

                          ____________________