| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
088328
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Following shelling by the security forces in Jammu & Kashmir, 11 people were killed on 18 September 1997 in Arin, in Bandipore of Baramullah district. Eleven years later, the victims' families in this little hamlet are still awaiting justice. This is just one of scores of such incidents to have taken place over the past two decades of conflict in J & K, where the issue of human rights has long occupied the centre of the political discourse.
Kashmiri separatists have always used rights abuses as a central theme of their struggle against rule by New Delhi. Likewise, every major 'pro-India' political party has also demanded greater accountability for the armed forces, the repeal of draconian laws such as the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, and justice for the victims of abuse. During the recent election in J & K, both the ruling National Conference and the opposition Peoples Democratic Party again promised elaborate action plans to halt such violations. Yet in practice, human-rights defenders and other civil-society actors continue to be kept far from the negotiation table.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, in J & K the lack of accountability of perpetrators and denial of justice to victims has become a norm. The reason for this lies in the exclusion of human-rights and justice agendas from both the wider peace process and negotiation mechanisms. In fact, the peace process and the demand for justice have run parallel courses, with little attempt being made by negotiators to integrate calls for justice into official procedures. Meanwhile, the government's response to human-rights violations has been knee-jerk: announcement of enquiries and compensation of INR 100,000 to victims' families, rather than working to bring perpetrators to justice. Given such a situation, the larger problem is the near-total breakdown of trust in any official move to provide succour to victims, and the fact that the human-rights debate has become mired amidst the complex political dispute within J & K and with New Delhi.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
092985
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article investigates the relationship between national politics and local violence in the aftermath of Kenya's 2007 election. Focusing on the Kibera slum, the article shows that while the area's 'big man' Raila Odinga at times appeared to have a strong hold over his constituents at the grassroots, patrimonialism and big man politics cannot provide a full explanation of the post-election violence. Instead, local socio-economic factors played a key role and lent the conflict its own specific dynamics. The article also shows that while Raila's strong patron-client relationship with Kibera residents has empowered him as a national politician, in his current role as Prime Minister this relationship restricts his political room for manoeuvre. Thus the focus on Raila's 'big man' status in Kibera illustrates the pressures faced by Kenyan politicians in mediating between their public roles and the demands of their constituents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
145351
|
|
|