Good intentions alone will not bring relief to child victims of human rights violations

The Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is having its 98th session in Geneva, presided over by its Chair, Dr. Ann Marie Skelton, a South African Jurist. CRC is comprised of 18 independent experts who monitor the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child by its state parties.

CRC statement says that it monitors the implementation of two Optional Protocols to the Convention, on the involvement of children in armed conflict (OPAC) and the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (OPSC). On 19 December 2011, the UN General Assembly approved a third Optional Protocol on Communications Procedure (OPIC), which allows individual children to submit complaints regarding specific violations of their rights under the Convention and its first two optional protocols. This Protocol entered into force in April 2014.

The Committee is also able to consider individual complaints alleging violations of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its first two optional protocols (OPAC and OPSC) by States parties to the OPIC, as well as to carry out inquiries into allegations of grave or systematic violations of rights under the Convention and its two optional protocols.

Dr. Ann Marie Skelton, Committee Chair, in her opening statement, said since the last session, the Committee had marked the thirty-fifth anniversary of the Convention, and diverse celebrations of this milestone were held across the world. However, she said it was hard be in a celebratory mood while children’s rights continued to be violated across the world, particularly in conflict zones. However, Ms. Skelton said the Committee would not give up; it would continue to uphold children’s rights to the best of its ability.

ANDREA ORI, Chief, Groups in Focus Section, Human Rights Council and Treaty Mechanisms Division, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and Representative of the Secretary-General said ‘The outlook for children continued to be concerning, underscoring the urgent need for coordinated global efforts to protect their rights and ensure their well-being. It was imperative that governments honoured their commitments under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.’

I find problematic several provisions in the ‘Convention of the Rights of the Child.’ Article 9, paragraph 1, for example, approves severing parental rights if necessary for ‘the best interest of the child.’ The theme is laudatory, but the implementation is extremely worrisome. Determining the best interest of the child is not a science. It is not even an art. It approaches pure speculation, as anyone intensely experienced in child-rearing can testify. Suppose a child welfare agency proposes to sever the parental rights of a low-income couple lacking even high school education in favour of a married professional sporting lavish incomes and a cornucopia of educational stimuli in the home. Would the best interest of the child standard dictate that child adoption and swap of parents?  If not, why not? And wouldn’t it be easy for an authoritarian government to brandish that standard to remove children from the homes of political dissidents or human rights champions in favour of more docile or submissive parents unwilling to challenge the regime?

Article 13, paragraph 1, also seems brimming with troubles. It guarantees to each child a right to receive or impart information through the Internet or otherwise. It would prohibit parents from limiting access to indecent or other material thought injurious to the development of the child, and thus make a major inroad on traditional parental prerogatives.

Article 15, paragraph 1, endows children with rights to freedom of association and peaceful assembly. Does that mean that a parent cannot prohibit a child from joining a hate group which are dangerous and scatterbrained? Does it mean that a parent must acquiesce in a child’s ill-informed decision to participate in anti-Semitic and Islamophobic demonstrations?

Article 16, paragraph 1, prohibits arbitrary interference with a child’s privacy or correspondence. That would seem to indicate that a parent could not search a child’s room for evidence of crime or delinquency or open a child’s mail or e-mail to detect improper communications unfit for youths in the judgment of the parent.

In sum, it does not seem self-evident to me that the Convention reasonably balances parental prerogative and children’s rights or gives reasonable weight to the manifold hazards of child immaturity. Children, in my judgment, benefit when they are prevented from indulging their own foolishness and folly, even if the appreciation is recognized years after the saving events.

It is easy to commiserate over child victims of human rights violations, but more difficult to craft a responsible and effective remedy. We must be alert that as we make the effort, we do not trample on the urgent child-rearing rights of parents, one of the most cherished rights known to humanity. And we must be alert to avoid worsening the plight of children while aiming at relief, such as aggressive outlawing of child labour on farms and factories, which then pushes them into criminal prostitution or drug trafficking. Good intentions standing alone will not bring relief to child victims of human rights violations.

Man does not live by bread alone. The soul also matters and matters greatly. A child in the lap of loving parents, even if also sent daily to work, may be much happier spiritually and otherwise than in the custody of the state which holds no natural affection towards any particular child. All experiences teach that in the vast majority of cases, parents are more likely to act in their best interests than any other Individual or institution. Thus, a standard of removing children from poverty-stricken parents is more likely to do harm than good.

UN Security Council resolution on “Children and Armed Conflict” states that armed conflict creates a harmful and widespread impact on children and has also long-term consequences for durable peace, security and development (UN Security Council Resolution, 2001).

It is a fact that children are the most vulnerable group for human rights violations in a conflict zone like Kashmir, and thus special care should be given to deterring and remedying child abuses.

The UN has expressed "concern by child casualties in Jammu and Kashmir and calls upon the government to take preventive measures to protect children, including by ending the use of pellets against children."

A 2012 study by United Kingdom-based charity Save the Children found that Kashmir valley has 215,000 orphans ‘out of which 37% have lost one or both parents to the prevailing conflict’.

Al-Jazeerah reported that nearly 40 per cent of over 200,000 orphans in India-administered Kashmir are victims of armed conflict.

A report by the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS) said: "Children in Jammu and Kashmir are living in the most militarized zone of the world, with the presence of 700,000 troops, which exposes them to the risk of all six grave violations against children as laid out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.”.

Khurram Parvez, a Kashmir-based human rights activist, told DW that the children in Kashmir are witnessing two types of violence: "The first type is when they are directly affected by killing, torture, and arrests; the second is when they see their families suffering," adding that these children cannot lead a normal life. "Their life is shaped by a sense of injustice, and the tendency to accept violence increases with time. All these things have a negative impact on their mental health."

Anees Zargar quoted Khurram Parvez in NewsClick that it is not normal for any society where children are exposed to violence. “It compels children to think about their identity, politics, and other issues. There are implications where violence then becomes normal and acceptable,” he said.

Zahid Mushtaq wrote in Foreign Policy News on May 5, 2017, The condition of the children of Kashmir reflects the tragic fate of the children when otherwise they were supposed to bloom. The everyday traumatic effects have had a profound and long-lasting impact on the emotional, cognitive, behavioural and psychological functioning of the children. These children find themselves through no fault of their own lacking the opportunity to learn and develop the necessary skills to become fully functional members of society. This lost generation of our time is the tragedy of our time. For these children, in the future, the possibility of finding gainful employment as an adult becomes increasingly challenging. To sum up in poetic terms

By Yusra Shakeel of Kashmir Institute of International Relations wrote under the heading, “The Impact of Conflict on Children’s Mental Health in Jammu and Kashmir, “The most vulnerable group are children who have been traumatized by violence, loss, and insecurity since childhood. Cognitive development in conflict zones differs from that of children in stable environments. Daily life for children in Jammu and Kashmir is characterized by prolonged restrictions, armed forces, fear of violence, and uncertainty about the future. These conditions have a significant impact on the health and development of individuals and lead to many psychological disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety stress and other injuries.

I would strongly recommend the UNHRC and in particular ‘Committee on Rights of Child’ meticulously studies of whether strict laws against child labour and their scrupulous enforcement in less developed countries cause children who lose jobs to turn to crimes or fall into depravity. Child labour laws are certainly benignly motivated and aimed to benefit the child. But kindly motives do not invariably lead to kind results.

CRC should tell India to abide by the provisions of international humanitarian law in Kashmir.

CRC must persuade India to offer mental health treatment including therapy to those children in Kashmir who are suffering from PTSD, anxiety and depression.

CRC should request an official visit to Kashmir to assess the situation there.