Articles
Impunity must end in Jammu and Kashmir
Source: Report compiled by Amnesty International (ASA
20/023/2001)
Author:
Amnesty International
1. Introduction
On 27 March 1996, the dead body of human
rights lawyer Jalil Andrabi was found in the river Jhelum, 19 days after he had
been seen taken away by military personnel.(1) His killers remain free.
On 30 March 1996, 23 members of the faction of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation
Front led by Amanullah Khan were killed when police fired mortar shells at their
office in Srinagar.(2) Their killers remain free.
On 18 September 1997, 11 people, including women and children, were killed by
mortar shelling at Arin Bandipora. The killers remain free.
In January 1998, nine people, including a woman and child, were killed in
Kadrana village, Doda district, when army soldiers opened fire on people
protesting an earlier arrest. The killers are free.
In July 1998, 40 people, including women and children were killed in and near
Surankote. The killers remain free.
On 28 June 1999, fifteen members of two Muslim families, including women and
children, were shot dead at Surankote, Poonch district, by unidentified gunmen
wearing army uniforms who shot two more women as they fled. The killers remain
free.
On 20 March 2000, 36 Sikhs were shot dead in Chittisinghpora; on 25 March 2000,
five men were unlawfully killed who were implicated in the earlier killings. On
3 April 2000, seven people demonstrating against the earlier two incidents were
shot dead by police. The killers of these 48 people remain free.
On the night of 1 August 2000, at least 105 people were shot dead in several
different incidents. The killers remain free.
On 15 February 2001, six people were shot dead in Haigam during protests at an
earlier death in custody when security forces and/or police opened fire on them.
The killers remain free.
This list is by no means exhaustive. Many more such incidents have come to
Amnesty International's attention and others must be assumed to go unnoticed and
unreported. The unlawful killings described above all involve a large number of
victims. Almost daily, unlawful killings of one or two individuals are reported
in Jammu and Kashmir as well. Amnesty International recorded 70 deaths in
custody and extrajudicial killings in the period January to August 2000 alone.
The cease-fire in force since 28 November 2000 has not improved the human rights
situation in the state as deaths in custody, extrajudicial executions by state
agents and unlawful killings by armed groups continue unabated. Between the
beginning of the cease-fire and mid-February 2001, some 23 extrajudicial
executions have been reported in the media, in 15 of which the Special
Operations Group have been implicated.(3)
Common to all of these instances is that the perpetrators of unlawful
killings are free. Many of the unlawful killings in Jammu and Kashmir have been
perpetrated by armed opposition groups who have failed to distinguish between
combatants and non-combatants and to spare the physical integrity and lives of
non-combatants as required by international humanitarian standards. Amnesty
International has repeatedly urged armed groups in Jammu and Kashmir to act in
consonance with minimum standards of humanitarian law and today reiterates this
appeal.(4) Other unlawful killings have been carried out by agents of the state,
including state police, central police force and military or paramilitary
forces.
Many reports of unlawful killings in Jammu and Kashmir make it impossible
for observers to decide who the perpetrators were. For instance, in the case of
the killing of 36 Sikhs in Chittisinghpora in March 2000 (see below for
details), observers and investigators have provided widely varying
interpretations, alleging that government agents, former militants or armed
opposition groups carried out or instigated the killings. In the absence of hard
fact resulting from independent inquiries, rumour and speculation about who
might have profited or expected to profit from a killing flourish. Such
speculation may sometimes be taken for fact and result in further violent action
to avenge an assumed action. The uncertainty about the identity of the
perpetrator also gives other people who consider the use of violence the
confidence that they would not be held to account.
Amnesty International calls on the Government of Jammu and Kashmir to take
seriously its obligations under international human rights law to stop the
unlawful killings by anyone, be they state agents or members of armed opposition
groups and to end the impunity with which they are committed. Impunity, the
freedom from punishment, is crucially responsible for further unlawful killings
as past and potential perpetrators assume that they will get away with murder as
did others before them. In the cases listed above, the perpetrators have not
have not been arrested and criminally charged, or if police or members of the
security forces, been suspended from their posts, and may continue to enjoy
impunity for their actions.
Impunity is one of the main contributing factors for the continuing patterns
of human rights violations the world over. By bringing perpetrators to justice,
governments send a clear signal that such violations will not be tolerated and
that those found responsible will be held fully accountable. When there is
failure to investigate human rights violations and those responsible are not
punished, a self-perpetuating cycle of violence is set in motion resulting in
continuing violations of human rights.
Following the fifth anniversary of the killing of Jalil Andrabi and the
first anniversary of the killings at Chittisinghpora, and indeed the daily
anniversary of many other victims' deaths and suffering, Amnesty International
urgently calls on the Government of Jammu and Kashmir to break the cycle of
impunity and further human rights violations by undertaking the following
measures in accordance with the United Nations (UN) Principles on the Prevention
and Investigation of Extra-legal, Summary and Arbitrary Executions:
Amnesty International also calls on the
armed groups in Jammu and Kashmir to abide by international humanitarian
standards which prohibit the killing of civilians and to take action against
those of their members who ignore them.
Amnesty International urges all sides to refrain from using the human rights
of people in Jammu and Kashmir for political ends and from seeking to gain
political advantage through abuses of human rights. The political space provided
by the cease-fire should be used by all sides to the conflict as an opportunity
to reflect on the high cost to human lives of the conflict and to seek ways to
better protect human rights in the state. Amnesty International calls on all
sides to make firm commitments to abide by the international standards by which
they are bound which protect human rights.
2. Impunity in Jammu and Kashmir
Amnesty International is deeply concerned about the disregard for the
lives and physical integrity of people in Jammu and Kashmir shown by all sides
in the state. The right to life is laid down in major international human rights
treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
which India has ratified, and in the Indian Constitution. Article 6(1) of the
ICCPR says: ''Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall
be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.''
Likewise, Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949
strictly forbids the killing of anyone ''taking no active part in hostilities,
including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed
hors de combat by sickness,
wounds, detention or any other cause''.
Amnesty International believes that the language publicly used by state
officials in Jammu and Kashmir both betrays and strengthens disregard for the
most fundamental of all rights, the right to life. Chief Minister Dr Farooq
Abdullah is on record frequently to have called for the 'elimination' of
militants and the 'sanitization' of areas of militants' presence. Responding to
local residents' protest that the five victims of the shooting on 25 March 2000
at Panchalthan were their relatives and not foreign militants, he said in early
April 2000: ''I assure you that if the charge that the victims were ordinary
civilians and not foreign militants, as claimed by the forces, is true, I will
take stern action against those responsible. I will skin them.''(5) On 15
January 20001, following a physical attack on him, the Chief Minister reportedly
said that ''militants should be shot down at any cost'' and directed police to
shoot militants at first sight as ''there is no more room left for them in
jail''.(6) Amnesty International believes that such language incites further
violence and contributes to an atmosphere of impunity in which state agents may
feel entitled to commit extrajudicial executions on the assumption that they
will not be held accountable.(7)
Many of the killings allegedly perpetrated by armed opposition groups in
Jammu and Kashmir have been marked by a failure to distinguish between
legitimate targets and civilians whose lives and physical integrity must be
spared. Frequently women and children and members of minorities have died in
indiscriminate shootings. On 10 February 2001, 15 members of three families in
Kot Chalwal, Budhal tehsil, were reportedly deliberately shot dead by members of
armed groups when they refused to provide food and shelter to them. Among the
dead were three women and seven children. In the same month, leader of the
Hizbul Mujahideen, Syed Salauddin is reported to have said, ''If killings
continue we may be compelled to take the unpleasant step of targeting families
of Indian troops so that they understand the anguish and pain of relatives of
civilians slain by them.''(8) Suicide bombers of armed groups are a new
phenomenon in Jammu and Kashmir; such attacks have cost a large number of
civilian lives.
Impunity in Jammu and Kashmir is not restricted to the commission of
unlawful killings; rape, torture and 'disappearance' in the custody of the state
are also perpetrated with impunity. This report, however, focuses on unlawful
killings as Amnesty International has observed an upsurge of custodial deaths
and extrajudicial killings by agents of the state as well as unlawful killings
by armed groups in recent months and believes that the impunity surrounding this
particularly grave violation of human rights needs to be urgently addressed by
the Government of Jammu and Kashmir.
The general climate of impunity in Jammu and Kashmir may be seen both as
facilitating and encouraging further violations of human rights by security
forces and police in the state. Repeated expressions of concern by Amnesty
International about the rising number of incidents of custodial deaths and
extrajudicial executions and calls for independent inquiries have met with
consistent silence by the state authorities. Government authorities have so far
not allowed Amnesty International or the human rights mechanisms of the United
Nations to visit the state and independently investigate human rights
violations. The denial of access to international scrutiny also feeds the
climate of impunity.
If thorough and independent inquiries are not carried out as required by
international human rights standards, the impression may arise that the
Government condones the abuses described. This would exacerbate the concerns
which Amnesty International has about these unlawful killings. The speedy and
transparent investigation and trial of those responsible for unlawful killings
are not only important because justice always needs to be done and needs to be
seen to be done but also because this would signal that the government is
committed to ending impunity in the state. Residents in Jammu and Kashmir would
regain confidence that human rights protection is a reality to which the
government is committed.
Many of the killings listed above were portrayed by the authorities as
occurring in the context of 'encounters' between the security forces and police
on one hand and militant groups on the other. Witness statements often conflict
with official accounts and judicial investigations have in some cases revealed
that officials of the state were indeed responsible for such killings.
There appears to be a perception on the part of the authorities that
governments may or may not conduct independent inquiries. Following the killings
in Pahalgam and other places in the night of 1 August 2000, Chief Minister
Farooq Abdullah said on 9 August 2000 before the press in Humhuma: ''We have
nothing to hide. If people feel there is need to hold a judicial inquiry, we
will definitely hold it.'' The debate in both Houses of the Indian Parliament
focussed for several days on whether a judicial probe into the killings on 1
August in Anantnag district would be politically advisable, in conformity with
security considerations, or constitutionally possible. When several members of
the Lok Sabha, the
lower house of the Indian parliament insisted on a judicial inquiry, Home
Minister L.K. Advani said, ''a probe at this stage would only create doubt in
the minds of the people at a time when Pakistan has launched a high-pitched
propaganda, accusing the Indian security forces and the Jammu and Kashmir Chief
Minister of masterminding he killings''. Besides, he said, a probe would
demoralize the armed forces.
Prompt, independent and impartial inquiries into grave human rights
violations are, however, not a favour a government may bestow or withhold, nor
dependent on public demand or a matter of political expediency: they are a
matter of legal obligation which governments are bound to uphold. Governments
are under an international obligation to prevent human rights abuses and to
ensure that if allegations are brought that they have been committed, they are
independently and impartially investigated with a view to trying perpetrators in
a court of law in accordance with international standards for fair trial.
Yet, the majority of deaths in custody, extrajudicial executions and deaths
when law enforcement personnel resort to excessive or indiscriminate use of
force are never investigated; they are blatantly ignored by the authorities.
Family members of six young men reportedly unlawfully killed on 15 May 2000 in
Sopore demonstrated for days and blocked roads after the victims' bodies had
been hurriedly buried in Karnah, some 15 km from Sopore, but police reportedly
used teargas to disperse the crowds and imposed and enforced curfew in the area.
The bodies were eventually disinterred and re-buried in their home communities.
Relatives of the six young men stated that they had been arrested by security
forces on 14 May at Tangdar, Sopore while congregating and preparing to preach
their faith. Political leaders who attempted to travel to the area to indicate
their sympathy were placed under house arrest. No inquiry was set up and no
action taken to prevent a recurrence of the killings.
The killing of 36 Sikhs at Chittisinghpora (see below for details) has not
been investigated, despite national and international expressions of concern. On
several occasions, inquiries were publicly announced but in early 2001 the
likelihood of any inquiry into the killings taking place appears remote.
In some of the instances of unlawful killings mentioned above, inquiries
were announced - usually following a public outcry which necessitated some
official response. However, many did not actually take place or if begun, did
not fulfil their objective of revealing the truth.
Following mortar shelling of houses in Arin Bandipora on 18 April 1997, in
which at least 11 people, including women and children were killed, Chief
Minister Dr Farooq Abdullah expressed his shock at the incident and ordered a
magisterial inquiry to be completed within a month. Accordingly the District
Commissioner of Baramulla constituted a single member inquiry commission but to
date, it is not known if it ever began its work and nobody appears to have been
questioned. Local residents blamed the Border Security Force (BSF) for the
incident but BSF officials held the Rashtriya Rifles (RR) responsible.
Similarly following the killing of 17 people, including three women and nine
children at Surankote on 28 June 1999, Chief Minister Abdullah assured the
aggrieved families that no effort would be spared to punish the culprits. A
magisterial inquiry was to probe the incident. Officials claimed the killings
had resulted from group rivalry within the Hizbul Mujahideen. The dead were
relatives of two commanders of that group but local people suspected security
forces' involvement in the killings. The inquiry does not appear to have been
carried out.
Again, on 23 November 2000, the Government of Jammu and Kashmir ordered a
magisterial inquiry into the killing of four Sikh and one Hindu truck drivers
and wounding of six others by unidentified gunmen wearing police uniforms on two
different places on the Srinagar-Jammu highway near Banihal two days earlier.
The official announcement came after days of persistent protests and strikes by
truckers who brought Jammu and adjoining towns to a standstill. The inquiry does
not appear to have begun. According to information from Jammu and Kashmir,
nobody has been questioned in connection with the incident. An earlier killing
of several Hindu truck drivers at Qazigund on 29 February 2000 appears not to
have been investigated either.
When investigations of human rights violations do take place officials have
obstructed the course of the investigation by withholding evidence or refusing
to obey court orders to attend hearings. The process of legal redress sought by
relatives of the five men killed at Panchalthan has ground to a halt as the
government has reportedly refused to pay for DNA tests which are indispensable
in establishing the identity of the victims.
In other instances, key witnesses and complainants have received threats to
their lives if they appear in court. Amnesty International is aware of several
cases in which it has required extraordinary courage by victims and witnesses to
approach police and seek legal redress as their protection is not guaranteed.
Peer Noor-ul Haq, arrested in June 1999 after he lodged a bribery complaint
against police officers was detained for ten days in police custody during which
he was subjected to torture but also became a witness to torture of three other
men who subsequently died. A case was brought against police officers for the
killing of the three men but Peer Noor-ul Haq, the main witness in the case, was
repeatedly threatened by police that he would be killed if he did not withdraw
from the case. Both the State Human Rights Commission and the High Court of
Jammu and Kashmir ordered that protection be given to him and his family but no
action was taken. When renewed threats were issued as the day of the trial on 28
March 2001 approached, Amnesty International again expressed fear for his safety
to the authorities and urged them to take adequate measures to protect his and
his family's lives.
The few inquiries that have taken place have been surrounded by secrecy and
their findings have not been made public. The Pandian Commission of Inquiry into
the shooting incident on 3 April at Brakpora is so far the only inquiry set up
under the Commission of Inquiry Act which has completed its work. The government
summarized its findings; this summary was then presented to the public by the
Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir who posed for cameras showing this report
and that of the inquiry into the unlawful killings at Pahalgam on 1 August (for
details see below). Neither report has been made available to the public.
Secrecy particularly surrounds internal army inquiries. In such cases, it is
not known what their outcome has been and if anyone has been held to account.
According to eye-witnesses, army personnel in the night of 30 January 1998
surrounded a mosque in Kadrana village demanding that the congregation hand over
two suspected members of an armed group allegedly hiding in the mosque. When the
villagers protested, soldiers reportedly opened fire without provocation as
people came out from the mosque, apparently deliberately shooting to kill them.
Nine persons were killed and at least 10 injured. According to some reports, as
many as 17 people died as a result of the shooting. A defence spokesperson
stated that local residents protested against the area being searched and threw
stones at troops and injured three soldiers whereupon soldiers opened fire in
self-defence.
A senior army spokesperson later expressed ''deep anguish'' over the
''unfortunate incident'' and said an army inquiry had been launched and ''any
official found guilty will be punished strictly by military law''. However,
given the contradictory statements of events by army and eyewitnesses, and the
alleged involvement of army personnel in the possible extrajudicial executions,
Amnesty International does not believe it advisable to entrust such an inquiry
to army personnel as there is a high risk that such inquiry will not be
impartial.
Army sources have on a number of occasions in past years published numbers
of army personnel said to have been demoted, reprimanded or punished following
trial by court martial for human rights violations; however, the nature, place
and date of occurrence of the offences for which they were held to account, and
the names of perpetrators and victims have never been revealed. Court martials
are usually held in camera;
this process, according to human rights observers in Jammu and Kashmir, puts
many people off testifying as they feel exposed to retaliatory action without a
possibility of public support and solidarity.
To restore the confidence of people in Jammu and Kashmir, justice must be
seen to be done. There have been reports that findings of investigations into
unlawful killings were deliberately withheld in the interest of the morale and
image of the security forces. Following a probe into the killing of 19 men at
village More Bachai in Poonch district on 1 April 1999 which apparently
exonerated members of armed groups from the responsibility originally ascribed
to them for the killings, a National Conference legislator reportedly raised the
issue in the Legislative Assembly. The Chief Minister was reported to have told
the House that on account of the security forces bringing great sacrifices while
fighting militants, nobody should raise an accusing finger against them.
Similarly when on 6 March 2000, the Chief Minister was reportedly questioned by
a legislator of his own party about the promised inquiry into the killing of 17
people at Surankote on 28 June 1999, he is reported to have admitted that a
security agency had been responsible for the incident but refused to divulge
details as this would go against the national interest.
The argument that greater transparency and accountability would undermine
the morale of the army does not convince Amnesty International. The obligation
to protect and promote human rights is of overriding importance and cannot be
put on hold for a presumed effect on subjective motivation. Moreover, shielding
an offender from exposure and shame cannot be a means to strengthen morale -- on
the contrary it will send a signal that the military leadership tolerate abuses
and cover them up, irrespective of law, morality and the need for discipline in
the armed forces.(9) Punishment for grave human rights violations can only act
as a deterrent against future human rights violations if it is known to have
been imposed and if the offence has been exposed.
In the few cases where perpetrators have been identified in inquiries, no
consequences have been drawn to punish the perpetrators. The person responsible
for the killing of Jalil Andrabi (see case description below) in March 1996 was
identified in the following year yet five years later he remains free. Again,
the Pandian Commission of Inquiry submitted its findings to the Government of
Jammu and Kashmir in October 2000 in which it identified those responsible for
the killings on 3 April, but they remain free. An investigation into the
killings on 1 August 2000 in Pahalgam by a team headed by the security adviser
to the government, Lt.-Gen. J.R. Mukherjee, submitted its findings identifying
perpetrators but no decisive action appears to have been taken to hold them to
account.
In cases where security personnel are believed to be responsible for human
rights violations, the state needs to give sanction for prosecution.(10) Amnesty
International has described in detail how this requirement forms a serious
impediment to bringing security personnel to justice in the case of
'disappearances'(11). The same obstacle prevails in the case of unlawful
killings. For instance, the person identified in the official inquiry as the key
suspect in the killing of Jalil Andrabi has several charges pending against him
for the killing of ten persons. These allegations emerged in the course of the
investigation of the killing of Jalil Andrabi; in most of the cases sanction to
prosecute was sought in late 1998 but had not been given by March 2001.
Specific laws in force in Jammu and Kashmir also contribute to the
prevalence of impunity. The Jammu and Kashmir Armed Forces Special Powers Act,
1958, in force in the state since December 1990, gives security forces sweeping
powers which facilitate arbitrary arrest and detention and extrajudicial
executions and reinforce the impunity of offenders acting under it. Section 7 of
the Act specifies that ''no prosecution ... shall be instituted, except with
previous sanction of the Central Government against any person in respect of
anything done or purported to have been done in exercise of the powers conferred
by this Act''.
3. Cases
a. The unlawful killing of Jalil Andrabi in March 1996
Jalil Andrabi (36), a prominent lawyer and human rights activist was taken
away on 8 March 1996 by members of a paramilitary Rashtriya Rifles (RR) unit led
by a Sikh major; while a habeas corpus
petition filed by the Jammu and Kashmir Bar Association was pending in the High
Court, his dead body was found on 27 March. A year after his death, Amnesty
International noted in March 1997 that one year of delays in investigating Jalil
Andrabi's death appeared to indicate the administration's intention to consign
his fate to oblivion. That intention appears to persist.
A Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the Deputy Inspector General of
Police set up on High Court orders, first to investigate the ''disappearance'',
then the death of Jalil Andrabi, was subsequently reprimanded by the state's
High Court for not having done enough and for arbitrarily having changed its
composition and lines of reporting. The judge also reminded the state of its
responsibility for the safety of every citizen. In response to the SIT naming
several persons suspected of being involved in the killing, the High Court on 13
August 1996 directed all police and security forces ''to make joint efforts for
the arrest of the persons who according to [the] investigating agency are
suspects in the case and are required by them. The concerned authorities should
ensure the arrest of concerned persons ... within three weeks from today and
hand them over to ... [the SIT] for investigation''. It also directed that the
post mortem report be handed over to the SIT within one week. The names of the
suspects were not made public. In late autumn 1996, the Special Investigation
Team was reported to have complained that neither the Rashtriya Rifles nor the
army was co-operating with it, making its task very difficult. An order of the
Jammu and Kashmir High Court in late 1996 noted the fact ''that the
functionaries of the Union of India have not been cooperating with the
Investigating Team in a proper manner. We are sad to find that after eight
months, [the] post mortem report has not been furnished to [the] Investigating
Team.''
An intervention by the National Human Rights Commission did not contribute
to the resolution of the case. Using its discretionary powers(12) it had sent a
senior officer of its investigation division to Jammu and Kashmir to investigate
the case. Subsequently the Commission decided to make the inquiry report
resulting from the visit available to the High Court in Srinagar.
Amnesty International repeatedly called on the Government of India to ensure
a prompt and impartial investigation into Jalil Andrabi's death with a view to
bringing perpetrators to justice. In September 1996, the Government of India
said(13): ''The allegations of [a] Government hand in the killing of human
rights activists in J&K have been made earlier also. In all incidents of
killings of so-called human rights activists, Government has made available
clinching evidence showing that they were targets of one or other militant
organization, whose ideology did not match with theirs. It is also pertinent to
ask to what extent it would be justified to call them human rights activists,
whose apparent leaning or sympathy with particular terrorist groups have earned
them the wrath of other similar groups.'' It said the SIT was continuing its
task, ''monitored closely and exclusively by the High Court, [so] it is
difficult to make further comments'' but then reiterated its view that ''it is
common practice that these terrorist outfits precipitate a major incident or the
killing of a prominent person just on the eve of international conferences in
order to gain propaganda mileage(14).'' Given the constructive part played by
Jalil Andrabi in securing human rights protection in the state and given the
eye-witness accounts of his arrest, Amnesty International cannot consider this
response to be meaningful.
In April 1997, the SIT presented its findings to the High Court; it
identified a named army Major of 103 unit of the Territorial Army, based at
Ludhiana, Punjab, as prima facie
responsible for the death of Jalil Andrabi. A representative of the army told
the court that the Major had been engaged for a specific period of time and had
been 'disembodied' [sent away after serving his term of contract] on 7 November
1996; moreover he had not committed the offence in his official capacity. The
SIT team further said its investigation was complete and it could submit its
challan - the charge sheet
submitted by police to the court - even in the absence of the accused. The
government subsequently said the Major could not be traced. On 1 January 1999,
the military record of the accused was produced in court; on that occasion, the
lawyers for Jalil Andrabi requested copies of the final charge sheet, the post
mortem report, and other relevant documents which they had not been able to
obtain.
Four and a half years after the killing of Jalil Andrabi, the case was
finally reactivated when on 11 October 2000, the SIT handed in its inquiry
report and the High Court ordered a copy of the report to be handed over to the
lawyers representing Jalil Andrabi. The post mortem report was also made
available then; it detailed the injuries found on Jalil Andrabi's body and gave
the cause and approximate time of his death. On 18 October 2000 the High Court
of Jammu and Kashmir issued orders to the Head of the SIT to place the
challan in case FIR 139/96
under several sections of the Ranbir Penal Code including section 302 [murder]
before the court of competent jurisdiction and to the commanding officer of the
Major to render all possible assistance to produce the accused before the court.
An order issued by the head of SIT, Doda, Udhampur Range of 30 November 2000
addressed to the Commanding Officer 968 RLY Eng. Regt. (TA) Ludhiana where the
Major is reported to be serving, required the unit to bring the accused before
the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Budgam on 11 December 2000 when
the challan would be produced; a further letter of the SIT on 16 December 2000
directed the Commandant of the unit to hand over the suspect to the SIT. An
order of the SIT of the same date, repeated on 22 December, directs the
Additional Director General of the Territorial Army to hand over the Major to
the SIT to produce him before the CJM Budgam.
On 26 December 2000, the challan was presented in the court of the CJM
Budgam in the absence of the accused; the court noted that repeated requests had
been ignored by army authorities to bring the suspect to court. It noted that
since the challan was complete, section 125 of the Army Act(15) and section 549
Code of Criminal Procedure(16), presented army authorities now with the options
to try the suspect by court martial or in a civilian court. On 22 January 2001,
the Chief Judicial Magistrate received a letter from the army stating the
suspect was to be tried under the Army Act, i.e. by court martial. On the same
day, the High Court Bar Association submitted a writ petition seeking court
direction that the accused should be tried in a civilian court. The Bar
Association argued that earlier court orders had not been complied with as the
Major had not been brought before the court as directed, and that the CJM, not
being the trial court, had no jurisdiction to hand over the case to a court
martial; moreover the original habeas corpus
petition was still pending in the Jammu and Kashmir High Court and as such the
case could not be tried. The CJM then suspended the handing over of case
materials to the court martial till 31 January 2001. On that date the CJM
granted the request of the High Court Bar Association for adjournment up to 26
February 2001, then 15 March as the petitioner had not obtained the requested
high court direction yet. Meanwhile the High Court has taken cognizance of the
petition and the court martial has been stayed pending a High Court decision.
Meanwhile the army officer is reportedly free and does not appear to have
been suspended from service.
b. The unlawful killings at Chittisinghpora on 20
March 2000 and connected killings
In the evening of 20 March 2000, some 15 to 17 unidentified gunmen, some in
army uniforms, shot dead 36 Sikh men at Chittisinghpora in Anantnag district.
The Indian government held two armed groups, the
Lashkar-e-Taiba and the
Hizb-ul Mujahideen responsible
but their spokesmen denied any involvement. Shortly after assertions of the
Government of Jammu and Kashmir that every effort would be made to find the men
responsible for the killing on 20 March, a joint unit of army personnel and the
Special Operations Group (SOG) of the state police killed five men in
Panchalthan village, Anantnag district, claiming that the men were foreign
militants responsible for the earlier killings at Chittisinghpora. Despite high
level praise for the elimination of the ''butchers responsible for the
Chittisinghpora massacre''(17) and a Zonal Police Headquarters statement on 25
March that ''the militants killed were involved in the Chittisinghpora
killings'', local observers doubted the official account claiming that the five
men were local villagers picked up between 21 and 24 March and deliberately
killed.
The local administration offered to have DNA tests done to identify the dead
men. The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) ordered an investigation of the
killings to be conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anantnag.
During the hearings that followed, the SSP Anantnag who had initially welcomed
the inquiry, said that he had nothing to do with the operation which had been
carried out by the army. He asserted that he had announced that the men killed
in the incident were foreign militants involved in the Chittisinghpora killings
only after the army had suggested he provide that explanation. The police
inquiry submitted its three-page report to the CJM on 2 May 2000, describing the
exhumation and identification of victims of the shooting at Panchalthan.
Earlier, in late March, when the promised exhumations of the five men killed
at Panchalthan were delayed, public protests grew daily more strident. On 3
April, several thousand demonstrators marched to Anantnag to present a petition
to the Deputy Commissioner to speed up the exhumation. When the agitated
demonstrators reached Brakpora, members of the SOG and the Central Reserve
Police Force (CRPF) opened fire, apparently indiscriminately, killing seven
people outright and injuring at least 15 others, one or two of whom died later.
On 4 April, amidst angry demands of legislators for a probe, Chief Minister
Farooq Abdullah ordered the setting up of a judicial inquiry into the shooting
incident and also announced an inquiry into the Chittisinghpora incident. It
appears that an additional magistrate was eventually entrusted with the inquiry
into the Chittisinghpora killings. Nothing has been heard of any findings by it.
The Commission of Inquiry under Justice S.R. Pandian was notified on 20 May
2000; it was entrusted solely with the inquiry of the Brakpora shooting
incident. State police officers present at the site of the shooting and senior
police officers had been suspended after the incident.
The Commission under Justice Pandian submitted its inquiry report on 27
October 2000 to the Government of Jammu and Kashmir.
Following a cabinet meeting on 31 October 2000 which accepted the Pandian
Commission report, Chief Minister Dr Farooq Abdullah presented the government's
summary of its findings saying that the Pandian Commission had held three men of
the SOG and four Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel responsible for
using excessive force in 'unprovoked' and 'unjustified' firing at Brakpora. At
the same time he presented the findings of the report of the three member
commission under Lt.-Gen. J.R. Mukherjee which inquired into the incident at
Pahalgam on 1 August 2000 (see below) in which at least 33 people, including 23
pilgrims had been killed. It held 17 SOG and CRPF personnel responsible for
using excessive force in the face of assault by two militants.
The Chief Minister said that the cases relating to the CRPF would be
referred to the central government for appropriate action. Murder charges would
be brought against the three SOG personnel identified by the Pandian Inquiry
Commission and those identified by Lt.-Gen. J.R. Mukherjee's investigation, and
a special team would be set up to prepare cases against them.
On 19 March 2001 he said before the Legislative Assembly that the three SOG
officers has been placed under suspension 'for their negligence' and that
criminal charges had been brought against them.
Dr Farooq Abdullah said on 30 October 2000 that the Government of Jammu and
Kashmir had decided to order a judicial inquiry into the Chittisinghpora and the
Panchalthan incidents which the Pandian inquiry had linked to the Brakpora
shooting incident. ''We are requesting Justice Pandian to head the judicial
probe into those killings as well. My Law Minister is proceeding to Madras to
request Justice Pandian to accept the request''. Justice Pandian meanwhile said
before the press that he had not been approached.
In February 2001, newspapers in the state said the promised probe of the
Chittisinghpora and Panchalthan incidents had been ''finally buried''.(18) The
Kashmir Times said that
''According to the grapevine in New Delhi, the decision to order the probe was
reversed after a meeting between the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister at
New Delhi in the middle of November 2000.''(19) However, on 19 March 2001, Chief
Minister Dr. Farooq Abdullah told the Legislative Assembly that his government
was approaching the central government for instituting a probe into the
Chittisinghpora incident.
Meanwhile, the results of DNA tests of the bodies of victims of the unlawful
killing at Panchalthan remain unknown. According to information received from
Jammu and Kashmir, the DNA analysis was completed but has not been delivered as
the government has failed to pay the expenses for carrying out the tests.
Clearly such medical analysis is indispensable to establishing the identity of
the victims and subsequently to establishing the truth about their deaths.
Despite local demands to make the Pandian Inquiry Commission report public,
it remains inaccessible to the public except in the form of a summary
presentation by the government. To Amnesty International's knowledge, none of
those identified in the Pandian Commission of Inquiry have been formally charged
with criminal offences and arrested.
c. The unlawful killings at Pahalgam and other places
on 1 August 2000
One week after an unconditional three-month unilateral cease-fire offer by
the largest armed group in Jammu and Kashmir, the Hizbul Mujahideen, some 105
civilians were killed by unidentified attackers within 24 hours in the night of
1 August 2000 in seven separate incidents. In village Pogal Peristan in Doda
district, 14 Hindus were shot dead in the evening as they were called to come
out of their homes by armed attackers. Eight members of a village defence
committee were shot dead in Dachan area of Doda district; a former militant and
six members of his family, including women and children were shot dead in
Baramulla district. Five Hindu labourers were shot dead in village Sund Achabal.
In the largest of the incidents, 33 people, including 23 Hindu pilgrims were
shot dead in Pahalgam when armed men swooped on a market and threw hand grenades
and opened automatic fire. In the early hours of 2 August, 19 migrant Hindu
labourers, mostly from Bihar and Madhya Pradesh, were shot dead in a brick kiln
making community in Mir Bazaar village in Anantnag district; the men were asked
to come out of their dormitory to help with a truck stuck on the road. As they
came out, they were gunned down. Shortly afterwards, some six miles from Mir
Bazaar, seven labourers form Madhya Pradesh were shot dead. More than 60 people
are reported to have been injured in the attacks, some critically and some
subsequently died of their injuries.
Several of the eyewitnesses of the firing at Pahalgam stated that security
personnel may have panicked after an initial attack by two armed men and
indiscriminately fired into the crowd. A delegation of local people told the
Prime Minister visiting the scene on 3 August that the two gunmen who started
firing at the pilgrims were shot dead within 15 minutes by security personnel
but that the shooting continued for another half hour leading to more deaths and
injuries. Many of the victims were apparently fired upon from positions where
the attackers could not have been. Post mortem reports confirm these
allegations. At least 20 of the victims died of injuries caused by bullets only
used by the CRPF.
An indefinite curfew was imposed in several areas including Pahalgam and
Hindu majority areas in the south of the state. Some of the families of the
victims were reportedly given relief. On 9 August 2000 the Government of Jammu
and Kashmir reportedly released 60,000 rupees as
ex-gratia relief to be disbursed to the next of
kin of victims killed at Pahalgam, Mir Bazaar and Sund-Achabal.
Several armed groups which had rejected the earlier unilateral cease-fire
offer denied responsibility for the killings. A three-member inquiry committee
set up by the state government and headed by Security Adviser to the state
government, Lt. Gen. J.R. Mukherjee investigated the killings at Pahalgam. It
identified 17 personnel, including four of the SOG and 13 of the CRPF as
responsible for the killings when they used excessive force in retaliation
against assault by two militants in a community kitchen for the pilgrims. The
inquiry also identified lapses in communication between police and the other
agencies which led to CRPF resorting to excessive firing. It said the CRPF men
had fired blindly into the crowd after the militants had stormed the kitchen. In
March 2001, Chief Minister Dr. Farooq Abdullah said before the Legislative
Assembly that action had been initiated against the state police officers
identified in the report 'for dereliction of duty'.
Despite popular demand, the report was not made public.(20) No criminal
charges are known to have been brought against any of those identified in the
inquiry and no one appears to have been arrested. To Amnesty International's
knowledge none of the other killings of 1 August have been subjected to an
inquiry.
d. The unlawful killings at Haigam on 15 February 2001
Amnesty International's latest call for an inquiry addressed to the
Government of Jammu and Kashmir relates to the killing of six people at Haigam.
On 15 February 2001, over a thousand protesters blocked the Baramulla-Srinagar
highway accusing the security forces of arbitrarily detaining and killing a
resident of the village, Jalil Ahmad Shah, the day before. According to local
residents, he had been arrested from his home in the night of 13 February by men
of the 22 Rashtriya Rifles, 8 JAK Rifles and members of the Special Operations
Group (SOG). His dead body was found 14 hours later near Jahama village. Police
described Jalil Ahmad Shah as a commander of the
Harkat-ul Jehad Islami and said that he had been
shot dead in an encounter with security forces at Jahama near Sopore. A
spokesperson of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front denied this, saying that
Jalil Ahmad Shah had been the district secretary of his party which since 1994
has advocated non-violent political struggle.
Demanding that the dead body of Jalil Ahmad Shah be handed over to the
relatives for burial and protesting against his death, local demonstrators
blocking the highway reportedly threw stones at an army convey. Soldiers then
reportedly opened fire without warning, killing two people on the spot and
injuring at least 26 others. Two of the injured, a teenaged girl and her mother,
died on the way to the hospital, another injured person died later that night.
During further protests on 16 February at the killings in Haigam,
15-year-old Javid Ahmad Nath was shot dead in Maisuma, Srinagar. According to
police statements, an identified army intelligence officer sitting in a car
which young men threw stones at, opened the window and shot at the crowd at
random, killing Nath and injuring several others. According to some reports,
three of the army men were arrested and handed over on the following day to the
army for further investigation after a First Information Report (FIR) was
lodged; the Director General of Police A.K. Suri publicly denied this. Several
political activists were arrested when they protested against the shootings at
Haigam and Maisuma.
Following initial confusion about who had initiated the shooting at Haigam,
Commander of 15 Corps, Lt.-Gen. J.R. Mukherjee, who is also Security Adviser to
the government, on 18 February told a news conference that the army had opened
fire in both Haigam and Maisuma and regretted the loss of seven lives in these
incidents. He said that police had helped clear the road of protesters for an
army convoy; as it began to move, the demonstrators turned violent and threw
stones. The commander then exercised his right to protect the convoy and in
self-defence ordered five men to open controlled fire in the air so the convoy
could move on. At Maisuma, intelligence personnel of 15 Corps had run into an
unruly mob; their car was attacked and the driver opened fire in self defence.
Lt.-Gen. J.R. Mukherjee said those responsible for the deaths would be held
accountable and that an internal army inquiry would be undertaken: ''I give you
my solemn word that those of my men who are blameworthy will be brought to book
and be dealt with according to law.'' He said he hoped that the two incidents
would not present a setback for the peace process but that the army's
accountability would restore the faith of the people.
A judicial probe into both incidents to be headed by the District and
Sessions Judge Baramulla was set up by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir on 15
February; an FIR was registered with Sopore police station under section 302 RPC
[murder] naming Rashtriya Rifle personnel as suspects. To Amnesty
International's knowledge, the inquiry has yet to begin its work. There is no
official commitment to have the inquiry report made public.
On 20 February 2001, the government appointed Justice O.P. Sharma of the
Jammu and Kashmir High Court as a one-man commission of inquiry to investigate
the firing on the procession of inhabitants at Haigam and to ascertain the
causes and circumstances which led to the firing, to inquire if the firing was
justified and to fix responsibility for possible excessive use of force. It is
to submit its report in two months. The commission was notified under section 3
Jammu and Kashmir Commission of Inquiry Act, 1962. There is no official
commitment to publish the findings of the inquiry.
4. Human rights obligations of the Government of Jammu
and Kashmir
Amnesty International believes that the Government of
Jammu and Kashmir has not lived up to its obligations under international human
rights law with regard to the prevention of unlawful killings and has not taken
adequate measures to prevent impunity for these acts.
The UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of
Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (the Principles), adopted by the
United Nations Economic and Social Council in resolution 1989/65 of 24 May 1989
clearly state that ''Exceptional circumstances including a state of war or
threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency may
not be invoked as a justification of such executions. Such executions shall not
be carried under any circumstances including, but not limited to, situations of
internal armed conflict, excessive or illegal use of force by a public official
or other person acting in an official capacity ...'' (Principle 1) The
Principles list a range of preventative measures including the establishment of
clear chains of command and the prohibition of orders authorizing or inciting
others to carry out such acts.
Amnesty International calls on the Government of Jammu
and Kashmir to take all appropriate measures to prevent unlawful killings in the
state and effectively protect the right to life. It should also to inform all
security personnel that violations of human rights will not be tolerated in the
state.
Many unlawful killings in Jammu and Kashmir are not investigated at all or
subjected to internal inquiries which may not be fully impartial or to inquiries
whose composition and terms of reference are not made known. This conflicts with
requirements of the Principles and other international human rights standards.
The Principles define the obligation on states to carry out prompt and
impartial inquiries of all extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions and
explains their objective. Principle 9 says: ''There shall be a thorough, prompt
and impartial investigation of all suspected cases of extra-judicial, arbitrary
and summary executions, including cases where complaints by relatives or other
reliable reports suggest unnatural death in the above circumstances. ... The
purpose of the investigation shall be to determine the cause, manner and time of
death, the person responsible, and any pattern or practice which may have
brought about the death. It shall include an adequate autopsy, collection and
analysis of all physical and documentary evidence, and statements from
witnesses...'' Principle 11 states that in cases in which established
investigative procedures are inadequate, ''Governments shall pursue
investigations through an independent commission of inquiry or similar
procedure. Members of such commission shall be chosen for their recognized
impartiality, competence and independence as individuals. In particular, they
shall be independent of any institution, agency or person that may be the
subject of inquiry...''
Amnesty International urges the Government of Jammu
and Kashmir to ensure that security concerns in Jammu and Kashmir never override
its obligation to respect fundamental rights, particularly the right to life and
the security of the person. International standards have declared these rights
to be non-derogable under any circumstances. Amnesty International urges the
Government of Jammu and Kashmir to ensure that all allegations of unlawful
killings are investigated promptly by fully independent and impartial inquiries
and that these inquires fully conform to the requirements of the Principles on
the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary
Executions.
Both complainants and witnesses have not been adequately protected against
threats and the use of force by those connected with the perpetrators under
investigation. This contradicts the requirements of Principle 15 which says:
''Complainants, witnesses, those conducting the investigation and their families
shall be protected from violence, threats of violence or any other form of
intimidation. Those implicated in extra-legal, arbitrary or summary executions
shall be removed from any position of control or power, whether direct or
indirect, over complainants, witnesses and their families, as well as over those
conducting investigations.''
Amnesty International calls on the Government of Jammu
and Kashmir to ensure that complainants and witnesses can contribute to the
finding of the truth about unlawful killings without fear and harassment.
The findings of inquires that have taken place in Jammu and Kashmir have not
been made public. This contravenes Principle 17: ''A written report shall be
made within a reasonable period of time on the methods and findings of such
investigation. The report shall be made public immediately and shall include the
scope of the inquiry, procedures and methods used to evaluate evidence as well
as conclusions and recommendations based on findings of fact and on applicable
law. The report shall also describe in detail specific events that were found to
have occurred and the evidence upon which such findings were based, and list the
names of witnesses who testified, with the exception of those whose identities
have been withheld for their own protection. The Government shall, within a
reasonable period of time, either reply to the report of the investigation, or
indicate the steps to be taken in response to it.''
Amnesty International urges the Government of Jammu
and Kashmir to make all findings of inquiries public without delay.
Inquiries are but a first step towards ending impunity and must be followed
by criminal prosecution of those identified by the inquiry as the perpetrators
of a human rights violation. Amnesty International has long been concerned about
the fact that enquiries into so-called 'encounter' killings and firing incidents
in Jammu and Kashmir have not been followed by action taken against the
perpetrators. This contravenes Principle 18 of the Principles on the Effective
Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions,
which says that governments shall ensure that persons identified by the
investigation as having participated in such unlawful killings are brought to
justice.
Amnesty International urges the Government of Jammu
and Kashmir to publicly commit itself to bringing to justice all those involved
in human rights violations, by actively participating in them, ordering or
inciting them or permitting the truth to be covered up.
Payment of compensation for loss of a family member who was unlawfully
killed has been sporadic in Jammu and Kashmir. Amnesty International believes
that adequate compensation should be given to the relatives of all victims of
unlawful killings in accordance with the recommendations of the National Human
Rights Commission as also in accordance with Principle 20 which requires such
compensation to be paid ''in a reasonable period of time''.
Amnesty International urges the Government of Jammu
and Kashmir to ensure that relatives of all victims of unlawful killings are
given compensation within a reasonable period of time.
Several of the instances in which people were unlawfully killed appear to
have occurred when police and security forces resorted to excessive use of force
in dealing with protesters. The United Nations Basic
Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials state
that force may only be used in exceptional circumstances, only when strictly
necessary if non-violent means remain ineffective, and for the purpose of
prevention of crime and effecting or assisting lawful arrest. Principle 5 states
that whenever the lawful use of force and firearms is unavoidable, officers
shall:
(a) Exercise restraint in such use and act in proportion to the seriousness
of the offence and the legitimate objective to be achieved;
(b) Minimize damage and injury, and respect and preserve human life.
Amnesty International is concerned that existing practices in Jammu and
Kashmir appear to fall far short of international standards as set out in the
Basic Principles which are underpinned by the principle that the absolute
minimum force should be used and that there be full accountability for any
action taken resulting in the loss of life. Principle 9 strictly prohibits the
use of firearms:
"...except in self-defense or defense of others against the imminent threat
of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly
serious crime involving grave threat to life... and only when less extreme means
are insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any event, intentional lethal
use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect
life."
In addition, Article 22 of the Basic Principles requires that "...In cases
of death or serious injury or other grave consequences, a detailed report shall
be sent promptly to the competent authorities responsible for administrative
review and judicial control."
Indiscriminate shooting by security personnel also contravenes international
standards governing the lawful use of force as for example laid down in the
United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials. Article 3 of the
Code of Conduct says that force may only be used 'when strictly necessary'. The
official Commentary to the Code of Conduct says that the use of force should be
'exceptional', that force should only be used 'as it is reasonably necessary
under the circumstances', and that it should only be used for two purposes, viz.
'the prevention of crime' and 'effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of
offenders or suspected offenders'. The Code of Conduct says that the force used
should be proportional to the objective, i.e. it should only be used 'to the
extent required' for the performance of law enforcement officials duties.
Amnesty International urges the Government of Jammu
and Kashmir to ensure that law enforcement personnel are fully trained in the
lawful use of force in accordance with international standards and that those
who breach international standards are held to account.
5. Obligations of armed groups to abide by minimum
standards of humanitarian law
Armed opposition groups have an international legal
obligation to respect fundamental rights. All parties to a conflict, including
armed groups, are bound by the provisions of Article 3 common to the four Geneva
Conventions of 1949 which states:
''In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character,
occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to
the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of
armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed
hors de combat by sickness,
wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated
humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or
faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time
and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,
mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading
treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of execution without
previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all
judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable to civilized peoples
...''
A fundamental principle of the law of armed conflict is the principle of
distinction. Parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between the
civilian population and combatants and spare civilian populations. Amnesty
International now reiterates its call made many times before to armed groups in
Jammu and Kashmir to abide at all times by the minimum standards set down in the
provisions of Common Article 3 reproduced above. To this end, all those
exercising command are called upon to convey the obligation to respect the basic
principles of humanitarian law to all their subordinates and to ensure full
adherence to these principles.
Amnesty International urges the armed groups operating
in Jammu and Kashmir to ensure that all their members are made fully aware of
the principles of international humanitarian law and are properly supervised in
meticulously applying them. In case of any lapses armed groups should take
action against those of their members who are responsible for them.
Earlier relevant publications by Amnesty International include:
India: Torture continues in Jammu and Kashmir, AI Index: ASA 20/33/95;
India: Torture and deaths in custody in Jammu and Kashmir, AI Index: ASA
20/01/95;
India: Human rights abuses in the election period in Jammu and Kashmir, AI
Index: ASA 20/39/96;
India: Jammu and Kashmir: Remembering Jalil Andrabi, AI Index; ASA 20/10/97;
India: A trail of unlawful killings: Chittisinghpora and its aftermath, AI
Index: ASA 20/24/00;
India: Open letter to Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Dr. Farooq
Abdullah. AI Index; ASA 20/42/00.
****
(1) For details, see: India: Jammu and
Kashmir: Remembering Jalil Andrabi, AI
Index: ASA 20/10/97.
(2) For details see: India: Human
rights abuses in the election period in Jammu and Kashmir,
AI Index: ASA 20/39/96.
(3) According to official sources, 133 encounters took place between the
beginning of the cease-fire and mid-February 2001; in these, 119 civilians,
including surrendered militants, and 78 militants were killed.
(4) India: Appeal to armed opposition
groups in Jammu and Kashmir to abide by humanitarian law,
AI Index: ASA 20/38/97.
(5) Outlook,
17 April 2000
(6) The Hindu,
16 January 2001.
(7) Amnesty International cannot judge if the quotes mentioned here
represent state policy. Some observers believe this to be the case and some
media reports convey the same message. For instance, a
Times of India
article quoted unnamed sources as saying: "'As for the BJP's call for giving us
a free hand', said an officer, 'we are doing fine.' He said that with foreign
mujahids and even with local militants caught in cordon-and-search operations,
the security forces are ruthless. 'Please don't quote me', he said, 'but the
unwritten policy is that we avoid taking prisoners.'" Siddharth Varadarajan, "No
hot pursuit, we'll wait in ambush: Army", in:
Times of India,
18 August 2000.
(8) Kashmir Times,
19 February 2001.
(9) "Although it sometimes raises political temperatures to get to the
truth, it has its dividends. Terrorism cannot be fought by the Army and police
indulging in excesses but by a system that is seen to be scrupulously fair
because fighting the terrorists also involves winning the local people to the
cause." in: The Indian Express,
2 November 2000.
(10) Public servants are protected from criminal prosecution for acts 'done
in good faith'; relevant provisions are contained in sections 45 and 197 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure which require that the state explicitly provides
permission or 'sanction' for prosecution.
(11) India: "If they are dead, tell
us" - "Disappearances" in Jammu and Kashmir,
AI Index: ASA 20/02/99.
(12) The Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 does not mandate the NHRC to
investigate allegations of human rights violations by the armed forces.
(13) The letter of September 1996 was in response to Amnesty International's
report India: Human rights abuses in the
election period in Jammu and Kashmir, AI
Index: ASA 20/39/96 which inter alia expressed the organization's concern about
the killing of several human rights activists, including Jalil Andrabi and
Ghulam Rasool Sheikh.
(15)
(14) Jalil Andrabi was to have represented the Kashmir Commission of Jurists
before the United Nations Human Right Commission in Geneva on 18 March 1996; in
January 1996, Andrabi had told newsmen that he knew he was on the government hit
list since attending the Commission in Geneva the year before. "When a criminal
court and a court martial have each jurisdiction in respect of an offence, it
shall be within the discretion of the officer commanding the army, army corps
... in which the accused person is serving ... to decide before which court the
proceedings shall be instituted, and if that officer decides that they should be
instituted before a court martial, to direct that the accused person shall be
detained in military custody."
(16) If a person who is to be tried by court martial, is brought before a
magistrate, the "magistrate ... shall deliver him, together with a statement of
the offence of which he is accused, to the commanding officer of the regiment
... to which he belongs ... for the purpose of being tried by court marital."
(17) Union Home Minister L.K. Advani during his visit to the state in March
2000.
(18) Kashmir Times,
7 February 2001.
(19) It added, "while details of what transpired at this meeting are not
available, Vajpayee was reportedly furious at Farooq's pronouncement. He is
understood to have told the Chief Minister that his action has embarrassed the
Union Government." ibid. This analysis is also found in Praveen Swami,
"Massacres and mysteries", in: Frontline,
8 December 2000.
(20) See Praveen Swami: "A dubious document", in:
Frontline, 8
December 2000, for an analysis of contents of some of the three volume materials
and his speculation about the political context of the report.
Torture of Iranians by
CIA supported regime of Shah-e-Iran
Source: The Man in the Mirror
Author: Carole Jerome - a Canadian woman Journalist
The Hotel Asia is typical of the small, cramped establishments that cater to the
denizens of
Two men hunched over papers spread an a
lumpy bed under a bare lightbulb in one small room of the
Bani Sadr, the student-lecturer at the
From the beginning Sadegh and Bani Sadr were two mismatched donkeys in harness
together - Sadegh, bigger and brasher, snorting and yanking; Bani Sadr,
smaller and scholarly, checking all the buckles first - but both intent on
getting the cart moving. Sadegh was a doer, Bani Sadr a maker of lists with
points and objectives.
And there were others. Shin, no longer a
student, but an engineer with a job in Switzerland; Hassan Habibi, a
mild-mannered, auburn-haired friend from their student days in Iran; Ibrahim
Yazdi, whom Sadegh had known in the United States; Karim Khodapanahi, a tall
dour hanger-on; and a brilliant young student of economics named AIi Reza Nobari.
Some of these men would later betray Sadegh, farming part of the web that
encircled him after the revolution.
Then,
however, they were allies, their aim to rid
Shin
returned to
Everyday SAVAK scooped up more and more of the Shah's detractors. Flung in prison cells in Evin, Qasr or Ghezelghaleh, the state's accused enemies were beaten, scorched and boiled in oil. Their feet were whipped into swollen stumps, their legs broken with steel bars. They were suspended on the Horseman or hung upside down on the Parrot’s Perch; they were electrocuted and violated with bottles and cattle prods; their spines were seared raw and their genitals mutilated with electrodes and weights. Women were raped and men sodomized. And when their tormentors were finished, the broken bodies where shut into dark cells to lie in agony and to wait for death from bleeding, infection or sheer pain. Sometimes the bodies healed and were taken to the firing squad or noose. Food came mixed with filth and broken glass. In Bandar Abbas, a city in the south, the victims expired in suffocating heat. The ones who escaped from SAVAK's prisons were not always. glad they survived: They had to live with the knowledge of human savagery, hearing the screams of their fellow prisoners forever. Sadegh's hatred for the Shah grew with every arrest and every outrage.
Iran was labelled '
ROGUE STATE' as it abolished CIA backed torture cells
Source: The Man in the Mirror
Author: William Blum - an American Journalist
"Physical
abuse or other degrading treatment was rejected, not only
because it is wrong, but because it has historically proven to be
ineffective," said Richard Stolz, Deputy Director of Operations of the
Central Intelligence Agency in 1988.5
The CIA likes to say things like this because they think it sounds like
good plausible denial. But, who can believe that torture does not loosen up
tongues, that for such purpose it is not exceedingly effective? Richard Stolz
and the CIA would have us believe that Medine, in the above example, if denied
the opportunity to kill herself, would not talk under torture, Torture's
effectiveness extends yet further, for its purpose is frequently not so much to
elicit information as it is to punish, to coerce the victims from any further
dissident activity by gouging out the idealism from their very being, and as a
warning to their comrades.
For these ends, the CIA, has co-existed with torture for decades. (
Greece
During the late 1940s, the CIA was instrumental in the creation of a new
internal security agency, KYP. Before long, KYP was carrying out all the
endearing practices of secret police everywhere, including systematic torture.
It was most active during the regime of the military junta, 1967-74, a period of
routine horrific torture. Amnesty International later reported that
"American policy on the torture question as expressed in official statements and
official testimony has been to deny it where possible and minimize it where
denial was not possible. This policy flowed naturally from general support far
the military regime."
James Becket, an American attorney sent to
Hundreds
of prisoners have listened m the little speech given by Inspector Basil Lambrou,
who sits behind his deak which displays the red, white, and blue clasped-hand
symbol of American aid. He tries to show
the prisoner the absolute futility of resistance: 'You
make yourself ridiculous by thinking you
can do anything. The world is divided
in two. "Mere are the communists on that side end on this side the free
world. The Russians and the Americans, no one else What are wet
Iran
The notorious Iranian security service, SAVAK, which employed torture
routinely, was created under the guidance of the CA and
Germany
In the 1950s, in
Vietnam
The Green Berets taught its members who were slated for duty in
Clinging to a torched
village - India talks of terrorism and the world listens
Source: NewStatesMan - 3 June 2002
Author: Kamila
Shamsie
At a
conference in
"Of course it is," I replied. "But how is the hypocrisy of
The
problem for the Kashmiris is that
The
transparency of the Pakistani government's lies regarding rnilitancy in Kashmir
makes it easy for
Governments
appear to be able to carry out any kind of atrocities within their borders under
the auspices of "maintaining peace" and "combating terrorism",
Governments carn also restrict the entry of journalists and international
observers into parts of the country where state forces are brutalizing the
populace- But when groups or individuals respond by attacking the government,
the Terminology that is used is not of self-defense but of fanaticism; the
cameras rrollout to take pictures of the dead, and the government is quick to
assert its right to retaliate against the "terrorists" and
those who support them, in no uncertain terms (even if this means risking
nuclear war).
That
militants who espouse extremist forms of Islam have carved out. a space for
themselves within the Kashmiri struggle is a great tragedy for the people.
Enter Pakistani-trained militants, brandishing guns and religious Slogans. The
opiate effect of religion is not lost on the SSI, which indoctrinates
reactionary young men with the misguided belief that the Kashmiri struggle is an
Islamic struggle. These men enter Kashmir, use terrorist tactics, and provide
PR is
what this is all about, really.
And
CLINGING TO A TORCHED VILLAGE - INDIA TALKS OF TERRORISM AND THE WORLD LISTENS
Source: NewStatesMan - 3 June 2002
Author: Kamila
Shamsie
At a
conference in
"Of course it is," I replied. "But how is the hypocrisy of
The
problem for the Kashmiris is that
The
transparency of the Pakistani government's lies regarding rnilitancy in Kashmir
makes it easy for
Governments
appear to be able to carry out any kind of atrocities within their borders under
the auspices of "maintaining peace" and "combating terrorism",
Governments can also restrict the entry of journalists and international
observers into parts of the country where state forces are brutalizing the
populace- But when groups or individuals respond by attacking the government,
the Terminology that is used is not of self-defense but of fanaticism; the
cameras rrollout to take pictures of the dead, and the government is quick to
assert its right to retaliate against the "terrorists" and
those who support them, in no uncertain terms (even if this means risking
nuclear war).
That
militants who espouse extremist forms of Islam have carved out. a space for
themselves within the Kashmiri struggle is a great tragedy for the people.
Enter Pakistani-trained militants, brandishing guns and religious Slogans. The
opiate effect of religion is not lost on the SSI, which indoctrinates
reactionary young men with the misguided belief that the Kashmiri struggle is an
Islamic struggle. These men enter Kashmir, use terrorist tactics, and provide
PR is
what this is all about, really.
And
There is
no easy solution to the
You do
not have to like
What we
need above all is to hear Kashmiri voices. The late Kashmiri poet Agha Shahid
Ali is perhaps the most powerful voice I know. His poem I Dream I Am the Only
Passenger on Flight 423 to Srinagar invokes both the incredible beauty and the
unbearable suffering of
The landing gear roars, we touch the ashen Tarmac.
He holds my hand speechless to tell me if
Those smashed golds flying past those
petrified
Reds are autumn's last crimsoned spillage
Rushing with wings down the mountainside
Or flames clinging to a torched village.
ed that it is an opportune time to go on
the offensive with accusations of cross-border terrorism. Thus al-Qaeda,
Pakistan and Kashmiri separatists are banded together, even though they are
three distinct (though occasionally overlapping) entities which can be united
only through wily rhetorical maneuvering and by obscuring important facts (not least
the truth about those tens of thousands killed by the Indian security forces).
Add to all this a threat of nuclear war, and the world is thrown into a frenzy
that, yet again, focuses on
There is
no easy solution to the
You do
not have to like
What we
need above all is to hear Kashmiri voices. The late Kashmiri poet Agha Shahid
Ali is perhaps the most powerful voice I know. His poem I Dream I Am the Only
Passenger on Flight 423 to Srinagar invokes both the incredible beauty and the
unbearable suffering of
The landing gear roars, we touch the ashen Tarmac.
He holds my hand speechless to tell me if
Those smashed golds flying past those
petrified
Reds are autumn's last crimsoned spillage
Rushing with wings down the mountainside
Or flames clinging to a torched village.