| US
STATE DEPARTMENT COUNTRY REPORT ON HUMAN RIGHTS
PRACTICES 2003 |
Released
by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor,
February 25, 2004
India is a longstanding parliamentary democracy with
a bicameral parliament. Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee,
whose Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leads a multi party
coalition, heads the Government. President A.P.J. Abdul
Kalam, who was elected in 2002 by an electoral college
consisting of Members of Parliament and members of state
assemblies, is Head of State and also has special emergency
powers. State Assembly elections held in December in
Mizoram, Delhi, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh
were considered to be generally free and fair; however,
there were reports of some violence. The judiciary is
independent; however, the judiciary was underfunded,
overburdened, and NGOs alleged that corruption influenced
court decisions.
Although
the 28 state governments have primary responsibility
for maintaining law and order, the central Government
provides guidance and support through the use of paramilitary
forces throughout the country. The Union Ministry
for Home Affairs controls most of the paramilitary
forces, the internal intelligence bureaus, and the
nationwide police service; it provides training for
senior police officers of the state-organized police
forces. The armed forces are under civilian control.
Members of the security forces committed numerous
serious human rights abuses; however, some officers
from the security forces were held accountable for
their actions during the year.
The country was in transition from
a government-controlled to a largely market-oriented
economy. The private sector was predominant in agriculture,
most non-financial services, consumer goods manufacturing,
and some heavy industrial sectors. Economic liberalization
and structural reforms begun in 1991 continued, although
momentum slowed. The country's economic problems were
compounded by a population growth rate of 1.7 percent
annually and a population of more than 1.2 billion.
Income distribution remained very unequal, with the
top 20 percent of the population receiving 46.1 percent
of national income and the bottom 20 percent receiving
8.1 percent. According to a government survey, 16.6
percent of the urban population and 18.6 percent of
the rural population lived below the poverty level.
The Government generally respected
the human rights of its citizens; however, numerous
serious problems remained. Significant human rights
abuses included: Extrajudicial killings, including
faked encounter killings, custodial deaths throughout
the country, and excessive use of force by security
forces combating active insurgencies in Jammu and
Kashmir and several northeastern states; torture and
rape by police and other agents of the Government;
poor prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and incommunicado
detention in Jammu and Kashmir and the northeast;
continued detention throughout the country of thousands
arrested under special security legislation; lengthy
pretrial detention without charge; prolonged detention
while undergoing trial; occasional limits on freedom
of the press and freedom of movement; harassment and
arrest of human rights monitors; extensive societal
violence against women; legal and societal discrimination
against women; forced prostitution; child prostitution
and female infanticide; discrimination against persons
with disabilities; serious discrimination and violence
against indigenous people and scheduled castes and
tribes; widespread intercaste and communal violence;
religiously motivated violence against Muslims and
Christians; widespread exploitation of indentured,
bonded, and child labor; and trafficking in women
and children.
These abuses were generated by a traditionally
hierarchical social structure, deeply rooted tensions
among the country's many ethnic and religious communities,
violent secessionist movements and the authorities'
attempts to repress them, and deficient police methods
and training. These problems were most visible in
Jammu and Kashmir, where judicial tolerance of the
Government's heavy-handed counterinsurgency tactics,
the refusal of security forces to obey court orders,
and terrorist threats have disrupted the judicial
system. In the Northeast, there was no clear decrease
in the number of killings, despite negotiated ceasefires
between the Government and some insurgent forces and
between some tribal groups.
Terrorist attacks remained problems.
The concerted campaign of execution-style killings
of civilians by Kashmiri and foreign-based militant
groups continued and included several killings of
political leaders and party workers. Separatist guerrillas
were responsible for numerous, serious abuses, including
killing of armed forces personnel, police, government
officials, and civilians; torture; rape; and other
forms of brutality. Separatist guerrillas also were
responsible for kidnapping and extortion in Jammu
and Kashmir and the northeastern states. The Government
accused the terrorist organizations Lashkar-e-Tayyiba
(LeT) and Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM) of responsibility
for carrying out many of the attacks on civilians
and military personnel. The Government has also expanded
construction of a security barrier along the International
Border and Line of Control (LoC), causing difficulties
for Kashmiris and Pakistanis. The Government claimed
that the barrier was necessary to prevent terrorism,
but the construction process also affected farming
and other activities of nearby residents.
Tension along the Line of Control
between Pakistan and Indian-held Kashmir was high
during the year, and there was shelling in several
sectors; however, in November, the country and Pakistan
announced a ceasefire. By all accounts, the ceasefire
continued at year's end.
RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Section 1 - Respect for the Integrity of the Person,
Including Freedom From:
a)
Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life
Arbitrary and unlawful deprivations of life by government
forces (including deaths in custody and faked "encounter"
killings) continued to occur frequently in the State
of Jammu and Kashmir and in several northeastern states,
where separatist insurgencies continued. Security
forces offered bounties for wanted militants. Extrajudicial
killings of criminals and suspected criminals by police
or prison officers also occurred in a number of states.
Militant groups active in Jammu and Kashmir, several
northeast states, and parts of Andhra Pradesh, killed
members of rival factions, government security forces,
government officials, and civilians.
There were significantly fewer attacks by militants
in Jammu and Kashmir during the year; however, it
continued at the level of the late 1990s, according
to the Home Ministry (Kashmir has been at the center
of a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan
since the two nations gained their independence in
1947; both claim Kashmir.) In Jammu and Kashmir, according
to the Home Ministry, security forces killed 1,526
militants during the year, compared with 1,747 militants
killed during the same period in 2002. In addition,
human rights groups alleged that during the year security
forces killed a number of captured non-Kashmiri militants
in Jammu and Kashmir. Kashmiri separatist groups claimed
that in many instances "encounters" were
faked and that security forces summarily executed
suspected militants and civilians offering no resistance.
Human rights activists alleged that the security forces
were under instructions to kill foreign militants,
rather than attempt to capture them alive, in the
case of security encounters with non-Kashmiri terrorists
who infiltrated into Jammu and Kashmir illegally.
According to press reports and anecdotal
accounts, persons killed in disputed encounters typically
were detained by security forces, and their bodies,
often bearing multiple bullet wounds and marks of
torture, were returned to relatives or otherwise were
discovered shortly afterwards. For example, in May,
Mohammed Ashraf Malik was taken into custody by the
Rashtriya Rifles (RR) allegedly for assisting the
guerrillas. Several days later, the RR unit advised
Malik's family to collect his remains from the forest,
claiming that he had stepped on a landmine. By year's
end, an inquiry had been ordered in this case.
There reportedly was no action taken
against members of the security forces responsible
for the following killings in Jammu and Kashmir: The
January 2002 "encounter" killing of Ali
Muhammad Bhat, and the March 2002 alleged custody
killing of Mubarak Shah in Dushar Gool.
The National Human Rights Commission
(NHRC) asked the Uttar Pradesh government to pay $10,000
(500,000 Rs) to the family of Dr. Sonali Bose, a graduate
student shot by the police in July 2002 in an alleged
case of mistaken identity.
The Jammu and Kashmir state government
took numerous initiatives to hold violators of human
rights accountable. In June, the Government announced
that 118 of the security forces had been punished
for having committed human rights violations, including
44 Border Security Force (BSF) members, 47 from the
Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), and 27 police
officers. A Senior Superintendent of Police was suspended
by the Jammu and Kashmir government for allegedly
falsifying the DNA samples of five civilians killed
in fake encounters in Chattisingpora, Anantnag District
in March 2000; he was appealing his case at year's
end. A ministerial subcommittee headed by the Deputy
Chief Minister had recommended severe punishment for
three police officers and two doctors for tampering
with the evidence.
According to local press reports,
the number of persons killed in encounter deaths varied
widely throughout the country. In March, the Home
Ministry reported that there were 116 complaints of
alleged encounter deaths in 2000-2001, and 92 complaints
of alleged encounter deaths from 2002 until year's
end. In 2002, the NHRC called for all alleged encounter
deaths to be investigated immediately and asked state
governments to compensate the families of the victims.
The NHRC's call in 2002 for all alleged encounter
deaths to be investigated immediately was not heeded,
and no such body was formed during the year. The NHRC
issued instructions to all state governments to take
appropriate preventive measures and recommended that
compensation of $22,000 (1,600,000 Rs) be paid to
the families of persons killed in such cases from
1993 until year's end. In most cases reported during
the year; however, $7,350 (500,000 Rs) was the amount
awarded.
In
addition, the NHRC issued guidelines to state governments
with the goal of helping to prevent encounter deaths.
However, members of the security forces rarely were
held accountable for these killings. The NHRC may
ask for a report from a state government, but does
not have the statutory power to investigate such allegations.
Human rights activists maintained that the Government
increasingly substituted financial compensation to
victims' families for punishment of those found guilty
of illegal conduct. In some cases, victims or victims'
families distrusted the military judicial system and
petitioned to transfer a particular case from a military
to a civil court. The authorities generally did not
report encounter deaths that occurred in Jammu and
Kashmir to the NHRC.
The security forces also killed many civilians during
military counterinsurgency operations in Jammu and
Kashmir. A December Amnesty International (AI) paper
indicated that security forces had reportedly killed
over 250 civilians during the year. According to the
Home Ministry, security forces killed 28 civilians
from April 1 until June 30, and the NHRC recommended
payment of compensation in 11 of these cases.
The Armed Forces Special Powers Act
and the Disturbed Areas Act remained in effect in
several states in which active secessionist movements
exist, namely, in Jammu and Kashmir, Nagaland, Manipur,
Assam, and parts of Tripura. The Disturbed Areas Act
gives police extraordinary powers of arrest and detention,
which, according to human rights groups, allowed security
forces to operate with virtual impunity in areas under
the act. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act provides
search and arrest powers without warrants (see Section
1.d.).
Accountability remained a serious
problem in Jammu and Kashmir. Security forces committed
thousands of serious human rights violations over
the course of the 14-year conflict, including extrajudicial
killings, disappearances, and torture (see Sections
1.b. and 1.c.). Despite this record of abuse, only
a few hundred members of the security forces have
been prosecuted and punished since 1990 for human
rights violations or other crimes. Punishments ranged
from reduction in rank to imprisonment for up to 10
years. In a December letter to Jammu and Kashmir Chief
Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, AI wrote "the
state government needs to be seen to make the security
forces more accountable for their actions."
Violence, often resulting in deaths,
was a pervasive element in Jammu and Kashmir politics
(see Section 3). According to the Jammu and Kashmir
Director General of Police, shootings, explosions,
and suicide attacks killed more than 2,714 persons
during the year. More than 836 civilians, 384 security
personnel, and 1,494 militants were killed in politically
motivated violence during the year. Supporters of
different political parties, and supporters of different
factions within one party, frequently clashed with
each other and with police during the election.
Country-wide, there were allegations
that military and paramilitary forces engaged in abduction,
torture, rape, arbitrary detention, and the extrajudicial
killing of militants and noncombatant civilians, particularly
in areas of insurgencies (see Sections 1.b., 1.c.,
1.d., and 1.g.). Human rights groups alleged that
police often faked encounters to cover up the torture
and subsequent killing of both militants and noncombatants.
The number of persons killed and injured
in militant violence in the northeastern states was
significant but was much lower than the numbers killed
in similar violence in Jammu and Kashmir. The Home
Ministry reported that during the first half of the
year, more than 738 militant attacks occurred in the
Northeastern states resulting in 503 casualties and
437 kidnappings, while 271 militants surrendered.
Numerous incidents of encounters involving security
forces and militant organizations such as the United
Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA), the National Democratic
Front of Bodoland (NDFB), and the United People's
Democratic Solidarity (UPDS) continued.
The trial in the case of People's
War Group (PWG) guerrillas charged with the 2001 killing
of human rights activist Purushotham was ongoing at
year's end. During the year, the trial in the case
of persons charged with the 2001 killing of human
rights activist Azam Ali was concluded, and the defendants
were found not guilty.
As evidence that encounters often
were faked by police, human rights groups cited the
refusal of police officials to turn over the bodies
of suspects killed. The bodies often were cremated
before families could view them. In July, the NHRC
reported that an encounter death occurred after the
Andhra Pradesh police detained two suspected PWC members.
No further action was taken by year's end.
During the year, in Andhra Pradesh,
the Disturbed Areas Act was not in force. Human rights
groups alleged that security forces were able to operate
with virtual impunity under the act. They further
alleged that Andhra Pradesh police officers trained
and provided weapons to an armed vigilante group known
as the "Green Tigers," whose mission was
to combat the Naxalite group in the state. Little
was known about the size, composition, or activities
of this group.
Court action in cases of extrajudicial
killings were widely criticized as slow and inconsistent.
For example, there was no action taken, nor was any
likely, for persons responsible for the 1996 killings
of Jalil Andrabi and Parag Kumar Das.
Police frequently used excessive force
indiscriminately against demonstrators, killing citizens
(see Section 2.b.).
Although the Supreme Court in July
2002 ordered regular checks on police stations to
ascertain the incidence of custodial violence against
persons, the government and local authorities failed
to comply in the overwhelming majority of police stations
throughout the country; however, the checks were conducted
in a very small number of police stations in Madhya
Pradesh and West Bengal.
Deaths in custody were common both
for suspected militants and other criminals. According
to the NHRC, there were 1,305 reported deaths in custody
nationwide during 2001, the latest year for which
data were available. In December, the Jammu and Kashmir
Chief Minister reported that there were 8 custodial
deaths in Jammu and Kashmir during the year, compared
to 11 in 2001. Many died from natural causes aggravated
by poor prison conditions (see Section 1.c.).
There were reports of deaths in custody
that resulted from alleged torture or other abuse.
For example, in January, 28-year-old Ramesh died in
police custody in Karnataka, allegedly after having
been tortured. Human rights organizations questioned
the legality and severity of the police actions. Two
policemen were suspended but were not arrested or
charged.
In June, the Jammu and Kashmir state
government dismissed a deputy superintendent of police
for his role in the 1999 custodial deaths of three
persons.
The NHRC focused on torture and deaths
in custody by directing district magistrates to report
all deaths in police and judicial custody to the commission
and stating that failure to do so would be interpreted
as an attempted coverup. Magistrates appeared to be
complying with this directive, although states varied
in their adherence to NHRC directives on custodial
deaths.
During the year, some state governments
took some measures regarding custodial deaths. In
May, the Jammu and Kashmir Human Rights Commission
directed the central government to pay $10,000 (500,000
Rs) to the parents of Hilal Ahmed Nasti who died in
custody. Following NHRC guidelines, the Government
announced plans to address deficiencies in the prison
system and establish a committee to draft a model
prisons manual. The committee circulated its draft
to all state governments/union territories for their
input, but has not given a timeline for final publication.
In Bihar, the NHRC recorded 144 custodial
deaths in its 2001-2002 reporting period. According
to the NHRC, the Bihar government had not adequately
responded to NHRC directives and reports addressing
police training and accountability. However, the Bihar
Inspector General of Prisons reportedly stated that
of the 144 cases, only 15 were "unnatural deaths."
Human rights sources claimed that the number was higher.
The NHRC Chairperson stated that Bihar had the second
highest number of human rights violations in the country,
but it had not yet formed a State Human Rights Commission.
Killings and abductions of suspected
militants and other persons by progovernment countermilitants
continued to be a significant problem in Jammu and
Kashmir. Countermilitants were members of police auxiliary
units consisting of former separatists who surrendered
to government forces, but who retained their weapons
and paramilitary organization. Government agencies
funded, exchanged intelligence with, and directed
the operations of countermilitants as part of the
counterinsurgency effort. Allegations of violations
by the Special Operations Group (SOG), special anti-insurgency
police units which in the past have operated outside
the law, continued throughout the year. For example,
on November 12, the SOG entered the home of Bashir
Ahmad Sheikh, who was allegedly killed in an "encounter"
in July, and beat his mother and sisters. In March,
Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mufti Muhammed Sayeed
told the Legislative Assembly that the SOG was disbanded;
however, at year's end, there has been no sign that
disbandment of the SOG had taken place. SOG members
who earlier acted independently had been subordinated
to regular police units. Fifty-three members of the
SOG had been charged with human rights violations
and 25 were removed from duty but have not been arrested
or charged with any crime. In December, there were
reports of protests in several districts in Jammu
and Kashmir after former SOG members were appointed
to positions in the uniformed police. Countermilitants
searched persons at roadblocks (see Section 2.d.)
and guarded large areas of the Kashmir Valley. The
Government, through its sponsoring and condoning of
extrajudicial countermilitant activities, was responsible
for killings, abductions, and other abuses committed
by these groups. According to journalists in Srinagar,
as many as 1,200 countermilitants continued to operate
in Jammu and Kashmir, particularly in the countryside.
In
the seven northeastern states, insurgency and ethnic
violence was a problem. The main insurgent groups
in the northeast included two factions of the National
Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) in Nagaland;
Meitei extremists in Manipur; the ULFA and the Bodo
security forces in Assam; and the All Tripura Tiger
Force (ATTF) and the National Liberation Front of
Tripura (NLFT) in Tripura. The proclaimed objective
of many of these groups was secession. Their stated
grievances against the Government ranged from charges
of neglect and indifference to the widespread poverty
of the region and to allegations of active discrimination
against the tribal and nontribal people of the region
by the central Government (see Section 5). During
the year, talks continued between various insurgent
groups and central and state government officials.
In January, the Government and the National Socialist
Council of Nagaland Isaac and Muivah (NSCN-IM) continued
talks extending the unilateral August 2001 cease-fire.
In February, the Assamese government, the Bodo Liberation
Tigers (BLT) and the Government signed a tripartite
agreement to create the Bodoland Territorial Council,
an autonomous self-governing body. Further talks were
held in December between NSCN-IM leaders and the Government
to discuss integration of Northeastern states into
"greater Nagaland."
Surrenders by militants in the northeast, often under
government incentive programs, continued during the
year. Surrendered militants usually were given a resettlement
and retraining allowance and other assistance. According
to human rights activists and journalists, a few surrendered
militants were allowed to retain their weapons and
were working for the police as anti-PWG officers,
residing in police camps and barracks. Human rights
groups alleged that police used former militants to
kill Naxalites and human rights activists with close
links to the PWG, although police attributed such
killings to internal feuds within the PWG. Several
hundred PWG militants surrendered during the year.
In February, the Home Ministry held several rounds
of talks with the state government of Andhra Pradesh
and a representative of the PWG Group. In June 2002,
the group withdrew from those talks following a police
encounter.
In Tripura, the systematic surrender
of arms by a faction of NLFT insurgents and NLFT fringe
groups continued, due to the increased security pressure
and to infighting within NLFT insurgent ranks.
The killings of ULFA leaders' family
members by unknown persons during the year renewed
concerns about the situation in Assam. For example,
In January 2002, unidentified assailants shot and
killed three relatives of two ULFA militants, including
two relatives of ULFA deputy commander in chief Raju
Baruah. More than 87,000 persons lived under poor
conditions in relief camps in Assam as a result of
the ongoing violence (see Section 2.d.).
Militant groups continued to attack
civilians. For example, in August unknown persons
killed 52 persons by detonation of a car bomb in Bombay.
In Manipur 15 civilians, 34 militants
and 15 security force personnel were killed in clashes
with the militants during the year. In January, one
child was killed and one person was injured when the
border security forces allegedly fired into a home.
In July, two security force members were killed and
Chief Minister O. Ibibi Singh was shot allegedly by
the People's Liberation Army in Manipur. Nobody was
arrested in connection with this incident. In Manipur,
18 militant groups reportedly were active, including
outlawed Meitei organizations.
In Tripura, the Chief Minister reported
1150 separatist-related deaths from 1999 until 2003.
Of the 1150 killings, 193 took place during the year.
For example, on May 7, 19 non-tribal villagers were
killed by tribal militants in Tripura. NGOs speculated
that the All India Tripura Tiger Force was responsible.
The South Asia Terrorism Portal reported
that 17 persons were killed in clashes with militants
in Nagaland during the year. Throughout the year,
talks continued between various Naga separatists and
central and state government officials, and human
rights groups observed that violence had decreased;
however, violent clashes between NSCN-IM and police
officers continued. For example, in April security
forces shot and killed one NSCN-IM member and arrested
two others. On July 31, the Government extended for
an additional year the ceasefire with militants; however,
the Government's continued negotiations with Naga
separatists over a cease-fire caused significant unrest
in neighboring states.
In the north-central states of Bihar,
Jharkhand, Orissa, and West Bengal, clashes between
police officers and the PWG continued. The police
sometimes responded with violence. For example, on
September 8, 11 police personnel and a civilian were
killed in a landmine explosion allegedly set by the
PWG in Bihar. Twenty years of guerrilla-style conflict
between state authorities and Naxalites led to serious
human rights abuses committed by both sides.
Killings of security force members
by militants in Jammu and Kashmir declined to 381
during the year, according to the Home Ministry.
During the year, militant groups in
Jammu and Kashmir targeted civilians, members of the
security forces, and politicians. According to the
Home Ministry, militants had killed 808 civilians
during the year, compared with 967 in 2002. For example,
in April several soldiers were killed by militants
in Srinagar when a bomb detonated at the entrance
of the state-run television and radio station.
Authorities prosecuted militants engaged
in violence. For instance, in January, one person
was convicted for the December 2000 killing of a soldier
and two civilians at Delhi's Red Fort. The trial of
seven others continued at year's end. In October,
the Delhi High Court acquitted two Kashmiri defendants,
S.A.R. Geelani and Afsan Guru, of complicity in the
December 2001 terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament.
At the same time, the court upheld the death sentence
for two additional defendants charged in connection
with this attack.
Nearly 41 persons were killed in violence
related to the February Nagaland elections (see Sections
1.g. and 4).
Religious and ethnically motivated
violence caused numerous deaths, and there were reports
that Government agents encouraged this behavior (see
Sections 2.c. and 5).
Mob lynchings of tribal people occurred
in many states (see Section 5).
b)
Disappearance
There were no confirmed reports of politically motivated
disappearances due to action by government forces;
however, there were numerous disappearances during
the year.
According to a December AI report, unexplained disappearances
continued during the year. According to an AI report
released in 2000, there have been between 700 and
800 unsolved disappearances in Kashmir since 1990.
In June, the Jammu and Kashmir state government announced
that 3,931 persons remained missing in the state since
1990. This figure contrasts with that given by the
Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons, which
puts the number at more than 8,000. In April, the
Jammu and Kashmir judiciary established that 500 of
these were disappearances in custody.
According to AI, in May, the NHRC
asked the Chief Secretary of Jammu and Kashmir for
specific information on the systems used by the state
government to record and investigate allegations of
enforced or involuntary disappearances. In addition,
the Commission requested the number of such allegations
recorded and the measures taken to prevent their occurrence.
It recommended compensation relief for 719 persons
who disappeared, and relief was paid for 61.
In the northeastern states, the Government
was unable to provide complete statistics for the
number of persons held under special security laws,
but acknowledged that 43 persons were in detention
under the National Security Act as of 1998. Although
the Government allowed the Terrorist and Disruptive
Practices (Prevention) Act (TADA) to lapse in 1995,
one human rights organization credibly reported in
2002 that more than 1,000 persons remained in detention
awaiting prosecution under the law, and cases opened
under TADA continued through the judicial system.
Several thousand others are held in short-term (1-day
to 6 months' duration) confinement in transit and
interrogation centers.
There were no developments in the
June 2002 custodial disappearance of Manzoor Ahmad
Dar.
Human rights groups maintained that
in Jammu and Kashmir and in the northeastern states,
several hundred persons were held by the military
and paramilitary forces in long term unacknowledged
detention in interrogation centers and transit camps
that nominally were intended only for short term confinement.
Human rights groups feared that many of these unacknowledged
prisoners were subjected to torture and extrajudicial
killing (see Sections 1.a. and 1.c.).
The Government maintained that screening
committees administered by the state governments provided
information about detainees to their families. However,
other sources indicated that families were able to
confirm the detention of their relatives only by bribing
prison guards. In November 2002 the state government
of Jammu and Kashmir responded to this problem by
installing a screening system to review old detention
cases and released numerous detainees (see Section
1.d.). For example, after the Joint Screening Committee
in Jammu and Kashmir recommended the release of 24
persons, 17 persons were released. In June, 92 persons
were released under the state's 1978 Public Safety
Act.
In Punjab, the pattern of disappearances
prevalent in the early 1990s has ended; however, hundreds
of police and security officials were not held accountable
for serious human rights abuses committed during the
counterinsurgency of 1984-94. In June, the Committee
for Coordination of Disappearances in Punjab (CCDP),
a Punjab-based human rights organization, completed
its 634-page report documenting 672 of the "disappearance"
cases currently pending before the NHRC. The Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI) claimed to be pursuing
actively charges against dozens of police officials
implicated in the "mass cremations" in which
police in Amritsar, Patti, and Tarn Taran district
secretly disposed of approximately 2,000 bodies of
suspected militants. The militants were believed to
have been abducted, extrajudicially executed, and
cremated without the knowledge or consent of their
families. Although 6 years have passed since the Supreme
Court ordered the NHRC to investigate 2,097 cases
of illegal cremation in Punjab's Amritsar district,
by year's end, no significant progress was made in
identifying the cremated bodies or bringing to justice
those responsible for the killings.
In
July, a key witness in the trial of Punjab police
officials who killed human rights monitor Jaswant
Singh Khalra was arrested and charged with alleged
rape.
No action has been taken against the approximately
100 police officials who were under investigation
for abuses committed while suppressing the violent
insurgency in Punjab.
There were credible reports that police
throughout the country often did not file legally
required arrest reports. As a result, there were hundreds
of unsolved disappearances in which relatives claimed
that an individual was taken into police custody and
never heard from again. Police usually denied these
claims, countering that there were no records of arrest.
Militants in Jammu and Kashmir and
the northeastern states continued to use kidnappings
to terrorize the population, seek the release of detained
comrades, and extort funds. Sometimes kidnapped persons
later were killed (see Sections 1.a. and 1.g.). In
February, militants beheaded two civilians they had
kidnapped. There were 211 reported kidnappings in
the northeastern states during 2002. For example,
on February 24, unknown assailants abducted and killed
Kishore Reang, the elder brother of a candidate in
Kanchanpur. In July, unknown assailants abducted Rafiqul
Islam in Tahirpur. He was subsequently freed from
a hotel in Dimapur in September after his father refused
to pay a ransom.
c)
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment
The
law prohibits torture, and confessions extracted by
force generally are inadmissible in court; however,
authorities often used torture during interrogations.
In other instances, authorities tortured detainees
to extort money and sometimes as summary punishment.
The U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture has reported
that the security forces systematically tortured persons
in Jammu and Kashmir to coerce confessions to militant
activity, to reveal information about suspected militants,
or to inflict punishment for suspected support or
sympathy with militants.
In a 1996 report, the U.N. Special
Rapporteur on Torture noted that methods of torture
included beating, rape, crushing the leg muscles with
a wooden roller, burning with heated objects, and
electric shocks. Because many alleged torture victims
died in custody, and others were afraid to speak out,
there were few firsthand accounts, although marks
of torture often were found on the bodies of deceased
detainees. For example, in February, there were protests
in the villages of Handwara and Tral, after a Rashtriya
Rifles unit detained two villagers, allegedly tortured
them for 2 days and then released them. There were
no reports of action taken in any of these cases.
Unlike in 2001, the Home Ministry again did not extend
an invitation to the U.N. Special Rapporteurs on Torture
and on Extrajudicial Killings.
The prevalence of torture by police
in detention facilities throughout the country was
reflected in the number of cases of deaths in police
custody (see Section 1.a.). New Delhi's Tihar jail
was notorious for the mistreatment of prisoners, with
approximately 10 percent of custodial deaths nationwide
occurring there. Police and jailers typically assaulted
new prisoners for money and personal articles. In
addition, police commonly tortured detainees during
custodial interrogation. Although police officers
were subject to prosecution for such offenses under
the Penal Code, the Government often failed to hold
them accountable. According to AI, torture usually
takes place under two scenarios: In the course of
regular criminal investigations, and following unlawful
and arbitrary arrests. For example, during criminal
investigations, police frequently resorted to torture
to extract information from suspects while in custody.
There was no action taken, nor was
any action likely to be taken, against the police
officers responsible for the 2002 torture of a 37-year-old
man from Chennai.
The family of the 14-year-old girl
allegedly abducted, tortured, and raped for 6 days
by Patiala police in Punjab in 2001 filed a report
with the state authorities to press for prosecution
of the responsible police officer. No action was taken
by the state government at year’s end.
There also were incidents in which
police beat journalists (see Section 2.a.), demonstrators
(see Section 2.b.), and Muslim students (see Section
2.c.). Police also committed abuses against tribal
people (see Section 5).
The rape of persons in custody was
part of the broader pattern of custodial abuse. NGOs
asserted that rape by police, including custodial
rape, was more common than NHRC figures indicated.
A higher incidence of abuse appeared credible, given
other evidence of abusive behavior by police and the
likelihood that many rapes were unreported due to
a sense of shame and a fear of retribution among victims.
However, legal limits placed on the arrest, search,
and police custody of women appeared effectively to
limit the frequency of rape in custody. In January
2002, a tribal woman alleged that she was raped by
the head constable in Vaniyyambadi Police Station
in Tamil Nadu after being arrested on theft charges.
The case was pending in the Chennai High Court at
year's end.
During the year, the state government
arrested three BSF members and ordered an inquiry
into the 2002 case of the 17-year-old girl allegedly
raped by three BSF force personnel in Pahalgam. The
three accused were arrested, and the BSF commenced
a Staff Court of Inquiry. The inquiry continued at
year's end.
There was a pattern of rape by paramilitary
personnel in Jammu and Kashmir and the northeast as
a means of instilling fear among noncombatants in
insurgency-affected areas (see Section 1.g.). It was
not included in NHRC statistics because it involved
the military forces, over which the NHRC does not
have direct investigative authority.
Human rights training for new recruits,
middle ranks, and long-serving officers continued
at the National Police Academy. The training has raised
police awareness of human rights, and there was some
decrease in police use of physical force. According
to the NHRC, complaints of police harassment and abuse
generally declined over a 3 year period. In April,
the Home Ministry reported that from 2002 until April,
there were 28,765 complaints lodged against police,
compared with 29,964 in 2001-2002, and 32,123 in 2000-2001.
Some militant groups in the northeast used rape as
a tactic to terrorize the populace; however, no cases
were known to be reported during the year.
According to press reports, prison
officials used prisoners as domestic servants and
sold female prisoners to brothels (see Sections 5,
6.c., and 6.f.).
In Jammu and Kashmir, torture victims
or their relatives reportedly had difficulty in filing
complaints because local police were issued instructions
not to open a case without permission from higher
authorities. In addition, the Armed Forces (Jammu
and Kashmir) Special Powers Act of 1990 provides that
unless approval is obtained from the central Government,
no "prosecution, suit, or other legal proceeding
shall be instituted...against any person in respect
of anything done or purported to be done in exercise
of the powers of the act." This provision allowed
the security forces to act with virtual impunity.
In Punjab, cases of torture were inadequately
prosecuted, and victims frequently refused to accept
compensation out of fear of retribution. Allegations
by human rights activists that victims were hounded
and harassed by government agents were common.
The Government occasionally used excessive
force in putting down demonstrations (see Section
2.b.). There was no known action during the year,
nor was any action likely to be taken, against the
police officers responsible for the July 2002 beating
of villagers who were forcibly evicted from their
homes in Madhya Pradesh.
The Government also occasionally used
excessive force against tribal people. There reportedly
were no developments in the investigation of the October
2002 shooting of three tribal persons in Orissa.
Police corruption undermined efforts
to combat trafficking in women and children (see Section
6.f.).
Religiously motivated violence led
to a number of deaths and injuries as well as damage
to property (see Section 2.c.).
Prison conditions were harsh and life
threatening. Prisons were severely overcrowded, and
the provision of food and medical care frequently
was inadequate. In July, hundreds of prisoners at
the Gopalgary District Jail in Bihar went on hunger
strike to protest the poor sanitation, meager food
supply, and severe overcrowding.
Severe overcrowding in prisons was
common. For example, the Divisional Jail in Bihar
had a planned capacity of 55 prisoners but held 753
inmates. Prisons operated above capacity because more
than 60 percent of the prison population were persons
awaiting hearings (see Section 1.d.). For example,
the Government reported that New Delhi's Tihar jail
held four times as many prisoners as its capacity
at year's end. The Government announced plans to address
the overcrowding in prisons by building four additional
prisons; however, no further action had been taken
by year's end.
The 1,157 deaths in judicial custody
reported to the NHRC in March included a large proportion
of deaths from natural causes that in some cases were
aggravated by poor prison conditions (see Section
1.a.). A study in 2002 conducted by the NHRC found
that tuberculosis was the cause of death in most deaths
in judicial custody. With the country's high incident
of HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, prison overcrowding
was a serious health threat. There were reports that
some prisoners died in custody from HIV-AIDS related
illnesses.
Deaths in police custody, which typically
occurred within hours or days of initial detention,
more clearly implied violent abuse and torture. However,
in January 2001, the NHRC requested that the Commission
be informed of any custodial death within 2 months
and that a post-mortem report, magisterial inquest,
and a video of the post-mortem be provided to the
NHRC.
NGOs
were allowed to work in prisons, within specific governmental
guidelines. In Kerala and Karnataka, the state governments
selectively cleared NGOs to visit prisons. Although
custodial abuse is deeply rooted in police practices,
increased press reporting and parliamentary questioning
provided evidence of growing public awareness of the
problem. The NHRC identified torture and deaths in
detention as one of its priority concerns. In February,
the Government disclosed plans to supplement state
funds to effect prison reforms. Noting that Orissa
demonstrated a particular need for assistance, the
Home Ministry reported that it had provided $5,000
(233,078 Rs) for the modernization of the prison administration
between 1993 and 2002.
Women were housed separately from men. By law, juveniles
must be detained in rehabilitative facilities; however,
at times they were detained in prison, especially
in rural areas. Pretrial detainees were not separated
from convicted prisoners.
Human rights NGOs, family members,
and lawyers were allowed access to some detention
facilities; however, International Committee of the
Red Cross (ICRC) visited detention facilities in Jammu
and Kashmir (see Section 4). Fifteen states and union
territories have authorized the NHRC to conduct surprise
check-ups on jails. The NHRC's "Special Rapporteur
and Chief Coordinator of Custodial Justice" helped
implement its directive to state prison authorities
to perform medical check-ups on all inmates.
d)
Arbitrary Arrest, Detention, or Exile
The Constitution prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention;
however, in areas where there are separatist insurgencies,
the Government did not observe these prohibitions.
NGOs and human rights activists alleged that the police
often committed human rights violations with impunity
and that corruption was pervasive. The NHRC reported
that the majority of complaints received were against
the police. The Malimuth Committee on Judicial Reform
issued a report during the year that proposed some
police reform, which has yet to be implemented.
The Constitution provides that detainees
have the right to be informed of the grounds for their
arrest, to be represented by legal counsel, and, unless
held under a preventive detention law, to be arraigned
within 24 hours of arrest, at which time the accused
must either be remanded for further investigation
or released. However, thousands of criminal suspects
remained in detention without charge. Detention conditions
remained poor.
The Constitution provides that arrested
persons have the right to be released on bail. The
police must file charges within 60 to 90 days of arrest;
if they fail to do so, court approval of a bail application
becomes mandatory. In most cases, bail was set between
$11.00 ($500 Rs) and $4,000 ($200,000 Rs).
Authorities in Jammu and Kashmir continued
to keep in detention persons who had been arrested
under TADA in the past, despite the fact that the
Act lapsed in 1995. In February, the Jammu and Kashmir
state Supreme Court overturned the controversial ruling
of a TADA court that had acquitted three militants
in the murder of Kashmiri Pandit human rights activist
H.N. Wanchoo in 1992. Human rights activists estimated
that 351 persons remained in custody under the TADA
at year's end. In 2002, the Jammu and Kashmir governments
established a committee to review detainees' cases
and by year's end, the committee released approximately
17 persons. TADA courts used abridged procedures.
For example, defense counsel was not permitted to
see witnesses for the prosecution, who were kept behind
screens while testifying in court. Also, confessions
extracted under duress were admissible as evidence.
However, authorities continue certain
cases of persons arrested under TADA before the law
lapsed in 1995. For example, in February, government
agents detained Simranjit Singh Mann under TADA in
New Delhi on making "an inflammatory speech in
April 1991 appealing for a separate state of Khalistan."
No further information was available. In September,
a special court in New Delhi acquitted Kashmiri separatist
Yasim Malik of charges filed in 1992 under the TADA
for allegedly "aiding and abetting terrorist
activities in the [Kashmir] Valley."
The Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA),
enacted in March 2002, replaced the Prevention of
Terrorism Ordinance (POTO) in 2001. POTA allows for
the detention without charge for 3 months, and 3 more
months if allowed by a special judge, deems not disclosing
information to the authorities about terrorist activities
an offense, and provides extensive new powers to ban
organizations and seize their assets. The act is similar
to TADA in its provisions for detentions, summary
trials, and the use of testimony obtained under duress.
In addition, POTA provides for special courts to try
offenses, places the burden of proof at the bail stage
on the accused, allows confessions made to a police
officer admissible as evidence, extends the period
of remand from 15 to 60 days, and sets mandatory sentences
for terrorism-related offenses. Human Rights Front,
a local Jammu and Kashmir NGO, reported that over
106 cases were registered under POTA by the end of
March, 3 of whom were women and an undisclosed number
of children. In July, the Government disclosed that
702 persons had been arrested under POTA since its
enactment. Human rights groups alleged that the governments
have invoked POTA selectively and on dubious grounds
against the political opponents of the ruling parties
and persons belonging to the minority communities.
For example, in January, police arrested Imran Rehman
Khan under POTA for a bus attack in December 2002.
Authorities claimed that he was linked to LeT terrorist
group. In March and June 2002, Yasin Malik was arrested
under POTA and the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safely
Act (PSA). He was released in November 2002; however,
he still faced charges under POTA at year's end.
In December, the Supreme Court upheld
the constitutional validity of the POTA and held that
journalists and lawyers have no right to withhold
information regarding a crime under the pretext of
professional ethics. The court also ruled that under
POTA mere "moral support" for a terrorist
organization did not constitute an offence under the
Act. Despite this ruling, POTA was used to arrest
members of various organizations and opposition political
parties on charges of publicly expressing support
for the banned LTTE terrorist group. For example,
in March the Tamil Nadu government reported that 42
persons were detained under the POTA, four of whom
were arrested for expressing support for the LTTE.
In October, the Delhi High Court upheld
the death sentence for two of the militants who attacked
the Indian Parliament in December 2001. The court
also acquitted two of the defendants for their role
in the attack (see Section 1.d.).
In March, the Government issued a
directive to form a POTA review committee to examine
the use of the law in various states and prepare a
report of findings and recommendations. In October,
