The U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights John Shattuck has said that his government condemns human rights violations in Kashmir (by India) and that militancy is no excuse for such violations. The Clinton administration’s point man on human rights further maintains that his government’s agenda would emphasize the elimination of torture by 2000. These are welcome statements. Indian authorities have defended the security forces’ extrajudicial actions against militants not only in Kashmir but also in Punjab and many other states.

Leaders of public opinion in the U.S. and other western countries must take note of the vital fact that the violations in India are not done merely at lower levels of security forces. As such, it is pointless to plead that a better system of training for the forces should be introduced. The question of training is utterly irrelevant when: the Indian state at its highest level sanctions the violations. The forces are immunized by law from prosecution against the rights violations. This is done under cover of fighting “terrorism.” Another notable fact about India is that the central Indian government itself deals with militancy of all descriptions notwithstanding the claims that the law and order is a subject in the jurisdiction of states which may have been ruled by parties other than the one controlling the Indian central government. Such a stand often taken by India at international for a is plain hypocrisy. Yet another facet of the Indian policy is that the government practically takes no action against any kind of wrongdoing by security forces even in the widely reported cases. It is also worth noting that contrary to Indian official claims, the judiciary takes no interest in an overwhelming majority of violations. Equines are ordered in rare cases and that does not necessarily lead to action against the culprits. True, the Kashmir high court in several cases has taken notice of the violations but more often than not the Indian Supreme Court has reversed such orders at the instance of the Indian authorities. On the other hand, the high count for Punjab has virtually connived with the violations in an overwhelming majority of complaints so much so that in the case of murders of Ropar advocate Kulwant Singh Saini, his wife and a minor son, even the Indian Supreme Court had to condemn the Punjab high court’s silence. The point is that the Indian judiciary by and large is of no help to the victims of the Indian state. India recently constituted with much fanfare a human rights commission to look into complaints of rights violations but the commission is hamstrung for want of adequate powers against the main violators the Indian security forces. It is universally acknowledged in India that the Indian human rights commission is a mere piece of ornament. No wonder, it has not taken up even one case of rights violations in the past two months of its existence.

An interesting fact about the human rights situation in India, unlike in many other countries, is that the victims in almost 100% cases are members of ‘communities like Muslim, Sikh or Dalits. The executions or tortures are ordered secretly by Brahman and other upper castes officers and the fixable hangmen are officers belonging to the communities of the victims like KP.S.Gill. There are a few Gills posted in Kashmir, too, to take care of the Muslims. This kind of trick is played to prevent communal reactions from Sikh or Muslim population, as the case may be. Additionally, the Indian State is paraded as a secular, non-communal entity and claiming support from “all communities.” Only in the recent State Assembly elections, this hypocritical posture of the Indian state has received a well-deserved drubbing. There is a belief in the West that the rights violations in India is an aberration and that, otherwise, that country is essentially a democratic republic, Nothing could be more misleading. As discussed above, the violations are sanctioned by the highest authorities in India and that no organ of India’s so called democracy protects the victims. In fact, the authorities have support from influential sections of middle and upper middle classes in the matter of rights violations which are done consciously and as a matter of state policy. In India’s contest, these middle and upper classes essentially mean the upper or higher castes, of the society. It is widely acknowledged that India has perfected a system of torture and other forms of violations and that these are inevitable to protect India’s unity and integrity. The only conclusion one can draw is that the Indian state has all the ingredients of a fascist state and that it will continue to resort to the violations whatever wishful thinking one may indulge in about a change in India’s policy of permitting international rights groups for enquiries.

There is nothing new about these gestures. These are the old, known tricks of a wily state, Four years ago, the then Indian foreign minister, Inder Kumar Gujral, had offered to invite Amnesty International to India. But, in practice nothing came off. When an A. team did go to India, it was told to stay put in Delhi and not visit the states “where maximum violations take place namely Kashmir and Punjab. In other words, any talk of international investigation was a mere excuse by the Indian state, only the naive or the conscious collaborators are taken in by such tricks. But, the Clinton Administration, one justifiably hopes, is neither naive nor a collaborator with Indian designs. And the statement by John Shattuck is the latest welcome assurance.

Article extracted from this publication >>  December 17, 1993