Since 1984 the Indian federal government has possessed sweeping powers to detain individuals indefinitely without charging them with any crimes. Under Ordinance Five of a 1984 amendment to India’s National Security Act an arrested individual may be held in detention for no official reason from up to fifteen days. The length of this detention is determined by the detaining authority. After ten days, the detaining authority must show that there are “exceptional circumstances” to continue holding the individual. In practice this is not difficult.

Before Ordinance Five was enacted, the case of an accused was to be referred an advisory board was to submit its report within seven weeks of the detention. But Ordinance Five greatly increased these timeframes: now the case of a person detained before April 3, 1985, must be submitted to the Advisory Board within four months and two weeks and the Board must submit its report within five months and three weeks of detention, Therefore, now an individual covered by these provisions can be detained for nearly six months even if his detention is completely unjustified.

Ordinance Six of the Second Amendment to the Nati Act provides that mag the detention order, an additional order may be issued for up to 12 months.

This means that, if a detention order is held invalid by the court, the detain in, authority can revoke the order was immediately make another detention order not he same §rounds for up to one year. According to the U.S. State Department, this makes it “theoretically possible for a detainee to be held indefinitely without trial.

India’s newspapers are not sanguii about these new regulations. A median Express warned that: “The record of the police does not inspire confidence that they will always use these sweeping provisions with due caution. (It is) a threat to social workers, trade unionists, civil libertarians, political opponents and others”. The Hindustan Times warned “Let us not forget that police officials quest for more and more powers are intrinsically insatiable”.

International concern over India’s judicial system extends beyond the concerns voiced by the U.S. State Department. Indian newspapers and others over Ordinance Five and Six. Another 1984 act, “The Terrorist Affected Areas Act’, extends the investigation period from 15 to 30 days and when necessary from 60 or 90 days and when necessary, from 60 or 90 days to one year, in any area” by the government. In application, this means that in areas deemed “terrorist” affected by the government a detained individual may be held for a whole year without being charged in a court of law. The definition of the word “terrorist” kused by the government is vague: any person who causes “disruption of Services to the community”, if he does so for “coercing or overthrowing the Government established by law”. This extremely vague definition covers anything from a bona fide terrorist in the internationally accepted use of the word to members of striking labor union.

The Terrorist Affected Act further provides that no person held under the act shall be released on bail unless the court is satisfied that he or she is not guilty of the alleged offense and that he or she is unlikely to commit any offense while free on bail. It goes so far as to allow that if a person is suspected of committing an offense under sections of the Indian Penal Code (sedition and related offenses) and if the prosecution shows that the accused person was at a place where firearms or explosives were used in an attack on authorities, the accused will be treated as guilty until proven innocent, As the Indian Express points out, “It is quite possible that (an arrested person) was first caught in the melee; but he is liable to prosecution. It is not necessary that he should be found with weapons; his mere presence will condemn him.” And at this point the detainee must prove his innocence, Also, the Act permits trials “in camera”’ (i.e. without witnesses for the prosecution being identified).

The Hindustan Times has commented: “Under the Terrorist Affected Areas Bill, the onus of proof has shifted from the accuser on to the ‘accused; moreover a “terrorist” is defined so vaguely that an individual need not have necessarily indulged in violence to attract the penalizing eye of the legislation. What is simply adds up to is that if the government, in its unquestionable discretion, declares  any part of the country as terrorist affected any individual in the area can be arrested again and again on the same ground, Furthermore, policy officials are absolved of. The: time honoree suggested obligation of being specific in their charges while detaining an individual”

Most disturbing is the application of these laws to children. Several youngsters as young as four or five years have been arrested, charged as terrorists, and interrogated.

The provisions of the National Security Act have been applied most Strenuously in the Punjab state. Under is provisions authorities can also search and shoot at will with the blessing of the government. At present there are approximately 200,000) federal government troops in the Punjab, which is the size of South Carolina. Although: confirmation of specific details is difficult due to heavy government censorship, reports of brutal atrocities filter out from the region.

CONCLUSION

Rajiv Gandhi has had three years to improve India’s dismal human rights Situation. He has not only succeeded: he has not even made a serious effort.

As I noted previously, Members of Congress of both parties have begun to reexamine the U.S. policy of giving $1.6 billion to India over a nine-year period. These Congressmen are right to review this policy. They should consider how U.S. influence can best be used to encourage the Indian government to begin respecting human rights. American taxpayers should not give huge sums of money to a government that ignores civil liberties on a vast scale.

  1. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I want to first take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Shumway) for organizing this special order on the rapidly deteriorating human rights situation in the Punjab. It is high time the Congress be made aware of the role the Indian government has played in fostering the suppression of the Sikh people in this once peaceful area of this country.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time Have spoken on this subject. Nearly a year ago, I urged the Indian government to lift the ban on the only authoritative text on the bloody aftermath immediately following the Indira Gandhi assassination. During that tragic time, thousands of Sikhs were massacred at government acquiescence and even government instigation. Yet, to this day oppression in the Punjab continues to be banned and no significant punitive action has been taken to bring to justice those held accountable.

The Indian government desires American public officials to be aware that there are two views of observing what is happening there, but still refuses to allow foreign journalists, diplomats, human rights monitoring organizations, private citizens or United States Congressmen to visit the area. The only information coming out of the Punjab, aside from clandestine reports, is from the government controlled Press Trust of India. Although no official charges have been made against them, 360 Sikhs continue to be held in Jodhpur jail, where they have been detained since 1984. Stories of fake “encounters” between police and Sikh youth and arbitrary arrest and confinement continue to abound. In short, since becoming aware of the Sikh plight, I have seen no positive movements by the Indian government to deal effectively and judiciously with Sikh people.

If anything, dialogue between the: Indian government and the Punjab have worsened. Less than a month ago, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi instituted direct rule over the area, ousting Punjabi Chief Minister Sujit Singh Barnala. What makes this move particularly ominous is the fact that many Sikhs regarded Barnala as a mere extension of the central rule in the Punjab. He had been excommunicated from the Sikh religion and is now considered a top candidate for the Vice-presidency of India. Now, even that veil has been removed. Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in recent weeks has vowed to use “an iron fist” to put down Sikh secessionists in Punjab. As evidence of this, a man known. For his brutality, Police Chief Robeiro, has been given control over the region with little or no accountability. The BBC reported a few days ago that Indian paramilitary troops surrounded villages in the Amritsar district and conducted arbitrary house to house searches for Sikh youth. While seeking out these so-called secessionists, the Indian government has set in motion a suppressive force by which many innocent people will be endangered.

 

The fact that aid was reduced to India in the foreign aid bill by $15 million is evidence that Congress is slowly becoming aware of not only the human rights situation but India’s heavy dependence on the Soviet Union for much of its military strength. India has just recently received two squadrons of the most sophisticated fighter, the Mig29, in the Soviet arsenal — an accomplishment that not even Warsaw Pact countries can claim. An estimated 80% of India’s arms come from the Soviet Union.

I believe that Congress’ growing awareness of the tense state of affairs if the Punjab is a healthy development. Although the Indian government regards the Sikh problem as an internal issue, I feel the legitimate longing for freedom of the Sikh people is an issue that concerns us all. In my opinion, it is not too late for the Indian government to at least show its good faith, in lessening tensions in the Punjab. The Economist in a recent article makes, among others, two suggestions which could lead to such an outcome: releasing the 360 Sikhs, and punishing those including cabinet minister, police officials, and functionaries in the ruling Congress (I) Party, if necessary who organized the 1984 Delhi riots in the wake of the Gandhi assassination. As the largest democracy on Earth, India has a special position in making certain that all of its people enjoy the rights and privileges inherent in democratic society.

  1. FEIGHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to express my concern, once again, about the state of unrest ‘still surrounding the Sikh community in India, especially in the Punjab where most of India’s 14 million Sikhs live.

Over the past 4 years, thousands of lives have been lost as a result of violent conflict between Sikh and Hindu. In June of 1984, Indian army troops entered the holiest shrine of the Sikh community, the Golden Temple in Amritsar, to capture Sikh separatists who reportedly had found sanctuary there. Several hundred Sikhs and 50 soldiers died at that time, and thousands of Sikhs were massacred the following week. In October of that year, India’s leader Indira Gandhi was shot to death by her Sikh bodyguards in retaliation for the assault on the Golden Temple. Tragically, the violence still continues. Over 600 people were killed last year, and 300 have died already in 1987, most of them since March of this year, as Sikh extremists campaign for an independent homeland.

Last month, India’s Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, imposed “presidents” or direct rule on the Punjab which allow Mr. Gandhi to control the Punjab’s government and police, as well as the army, from New Delhi for the next six months. During this time, I respectfully urge Mr. Gandhi to protect the human and civil rights of the Sikh community living in India, while he deals with the unrest in his country. It is my strong hope that Mr. Gandhi and the Sikh community will begin to plan and work together toward peaceful resolutions of their differences in order to help strengthen the territorial integrity of democratic India rather than to continue fanning the flames of violence.

  1. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to make a few remarks regarding the relationship between the United States of America and India, with particular emphasis on the difficulties that nation is facing in the Punjab State.

As the world’s greatest democracy, the United States should encourage and strengthen democratic governments and institutions elsewhere. India is a democracy, a rare status in South Asia. In fact, it’s the most populous democracy in the entire world. As the leader among the nonaligned nations, it can hold itself up as a model to show other third world countries that democratic institution are successful in nonwestern nations.

This is not to say, however, that India’s system of democracy encounters no strains, indeed, no nation in the world is immune from domestic tensions. We in the United States have periodically confronted threats to our own national unity, tranquility, and system of government. India encounters similar difficulties. In fet, given the multiple of ethnic and religious groups which make up the nation of India, it is not surprising that tensions arise on occasion. Unfortunately, such an occasion has now arisen in the Punjab State.

The Punjab is the home area for many of India’s Sikhs. Unfortunately, a minority of people in the Punjab have chosen to pursue their political objectives through lawlessness and terrorism. Efforts to combat this terrorism have been largely unsuccessful. This has resulted in the recent action of the Federal authorities taking over the reigns of government in the Punjab State. This action followed a request by the president of the Punjab to the President of India. The President of the Punjab concluded that law and order had broken down and that the State government had failed to curb the activities of religious fundamentalists and terrorists. This “President’s tule” is an emergency and temporary action but is permitted under India’s Constitution.

We all deplore the violence that has disrupted peaceful life in Punjab. We hope that the federal authorities and those Sikh leaders who renounce terrorism will speedily reach a political accommodation. lam not in a position to say specifically how either the Sikh leaders or the federal authorities should proceed. I do want to emphasize, however, that the United States has consistently rejected the idea of the establishment of a separate Sikh nation in the Punjab.

Let us in the United States express our concern for the wellbeing of all people in the Punjab and our hope that the traditional political institutions can soon be resumed. We should be careful, however, that our expressions of interest are not interpreted by others as stepping over the line of interfering with the domestic political arrangements of a friendly and foreign power.

Last November, I had the privilege to lead a congressional delegation to India. The highlight of our visit was a 45 minute session with the Honorable Rajiv Gandhi, the Prime Minister of India. I was most impressed with the Prime Minister’s demeanor and sincerity. Today, I offer to him as well as the other leaders of India and its Punjab State my hope that the political differences there can be addressed and prosperity can soon return to the Punjab. I am confident that this is the earnest goal of official in India.

  1. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the violence in the Punjab State of India continues today and the Sikh population continues to bear the brunt of the conflict between the Indian government and Sikh extremists.

As we approach the second anniversary of the Punjab accord negotiated by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, we can call on the Indian government to demonstrate its commitment to that agreement. Unfortunately, the peace that was imposed with the accord has not come forth.

India’s Sikhs are living under conditions which, according to reports, approach martial law. The police and the military have been granted widespread powers, which have created a climate of repression and political persecution. Arrests and detention are commonplace. Sikh deaths number in the thousands and the toll is rising.

 

The prime responsibility of all democracies is to ensure the protection of the civil and political rights of the citizens. I hope that our government will convey this message to Prime Minister Gandhi. I urge the Indian government to place the highest priority on the human and political nights of Sikhs in order to unite the nation in peace.

  1. TORRICELLE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleagues in expressing concern for the civil and human rights of Sikhs in the Punjab State of India. Recent events in that region have made such concern particularly timely.

Sikhs in the Punjab have had a long history of peaceful relations with the Hindus in the region. The Hindus, who are the majority throughout the rest of India, have lived peacefully as a minority in the Punjab. Since the attack on the Sikhs’ Golden Temple in 1984, however, tensions between the two groups have been rising. Now, it appears that tensions have reached a new level. Recently, the New Delhi imposed direct rule on the Punjab, a region that had, until that time, been run by a locally elected government. Such an action raises questions about the treatment of the Sikh community.

Although Sikhs comprise only 2 percent of the Indian population, numbering 16 million in a country whose total population numbers 750 million, they are a vibrant minority. kthey have been highly successful in agriculture, and have turned the Punjab into the most agriculturally productive State in India. Moreover, their religious practices and traditions are an important part of the cultural diversity of India. Since the Sikhs are a small minority in a large country, it is especially imperative that their rights be fully protected.

Unfortunately, it appears that the civil and human rights of Sikhs in India may now be seriously threatened House to House searches without clear cause has been reported in Punjab. Numerous human rights organizations, including Amnesty International have received credible reports of Sikhs being mistreated while in detention both in Punjab and in other parts of India. Some of these instances of mistreatment have resulted in permanent injury or even death.

As a country founded on the notion that all people are entitled to basic rights, we have a legitimate concern for the rights of Sikhs in the Punjab and through India. Our concern is heightened by the fact that the United States has a significant and active Sikh community who have contributed much to our country and who are now deeply disturbed by the threat posed to their fellow Sikhs in India.

As a sister democracy, India should be as concern as we are about the rights of all her citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs or cultural traditions. India’s claim to be the world’s largest democracy must be backed up by democratic actions. The rights of Sikhs should be fully protected by the Indian government.

  1. SHUMWAY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all those who have taken part in this special order, either by speaking or by filling their written statements.

Article extracted from this publication >>  June 26, 1987