A common theme running through all the speeches of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Kashmir has been the absolute necessity of minimizing human rights violations. The closing remarks at the Third Round Table in New Delhi on 24 April 2007 also emphasized the need for ensuring the dignity and protection of basic human rights. His appeal to the security forces to carry out tasks in a humane manner has been oft repeated. The concept of zero tolerance has been a key theme of political leaders in Kashmir including of the present and former Chief Ministers. Even the top brass of the security forces have been trying to reassure the hierarchy as well as the masses by reiterating their commitment to human rights from time to time.

Regrettably the situation on the ground does not reflect this sense of commitment. This has resulted in the Prime Minister changing his stance from "zero tolerance to "limiting violations." Many claim that zero tolerance is an unrealistic expectation given the heavy deployment of troops in the Valley, the continued presence of a large number of active militants and their strategy to instigate security forces into committing violations. However, zero rights violations is practicable in the Valley, particularly in the present situation of declining militancy. This is even more critical in the present situation as any instance of human rights violation will affect the civilian psyche significantly given that the level of violence is receding. While people expected that their right to life to be respected even during the most violent times in the Valley, today their expectations are much greater. They want the right to lead a life that is devoid of frequent stop and search operations and which gives them the freedom of movement.

To meet these aspirations, security forces have to make protection of human rights as the core of their strategy in Jammu and Kashmir. An operational strategy based on civil rights has been attempted before in Kashmir and though it was implemented only in small pockets and for relatively short periods of time, it was invariably rewarded by peace and tranquility which continued beyond the time for which it was implemented. A similar approach needs to be adopted that would encompass the entire state.

A rights-based strategy goes beyond the zero tolerance approach. It would involve planning, organizing and conducting all operations by security forces with the objective of ensuring the rights of the common man at all times. If there has been a violation of rights, people should be provided with full information and also adequate recompense for deprivation resulting from rights violations. The aim should be to fix the responsibility on the militants for the disturbed routine rather than the security forces as is happening now.

Giving up of operations in crowded areas such as bazaars should be an important part of the strategy. This would imply withdrawal of security forces pickets from the busy market areas and a nuanced approach to prevent the terrorists from having a free run in these areas. The choice of deployment could be left to the bazaar committees. Where reports of militants exploiting such vacuum are received, the government has the option of redeploying troops which should act as a powerful motivation to the people of the area to ensure that their locality remains free from militant activity.

To make counterinsurgency operations of the security forces more effective, areas should be categorised as white, grey or black based on the support to militancy in those areas. Designation of an area as white would mean the termination of operations by security forces, grey less so and black would translate into the security forces would have the freedom to carry out their duties without any restrictions. The adoption of a rights based strategy would provide greater incentive to the people for keeping their areas free of militant activities. Such an approach would greatly transform the attitude of the people and motivate them to work towards a society free from terrorism and discourage them from taking pride at the death of their kith and kin as during the height of militancy. The media can play a significant role by creating a positive buzz thereby providing greater impetus to the desire of the people to retain their rights through freedom from both the uniformed men and militants.

Many would feel that this does not conform to the primary aim of counter militancy operations which is the elimination of militants. Here again a fine distinction needs to be made between terrorism and terrorists or militancy and militants. A human rights-based strategy would deal with militancy rather than militants, thereby addressing the root cause of the problem. The time is ripe in Kashmir to adopt this rather unconventional and lesser tried approach as it has the potential of bringing succour to the people after almost two decades of virtual bondage.