The findings of the US Congress on the human rights situation in India were indicative of the fact that the Government of India did not cooperate with international human rights organizations in their effort to conduct human rights investigations in the country. It limited their access to areas of conflict such as Punjab and Kashmir.
The Congress called upon the Government of India to take action to promote adherence to international human rights standards and to pursue “discussion and dialogue” with representatives of a broad spectrum of the populations of Punjab, Kashmir and other areas of civil conflict, in order to encourage a better understanding of grievances within those areas and to promote the process of political reconciliation.
Congressmen Dan Burton and Wally Herger were not without vocal supporters on the floor of the house. Democrat Congressman too blamed the Indian Government for resorting to violence to suppress dissent and separatism in Punjab and Kashmir. He quoted a recent report by Congressional Research Service as saying that in Punjab and Kashmir, “the centrally controlled paramilitary forces are generally composed of nonindigenous people who could be said to have little regard for the lives of the local people”.
Respect human rights, Japan tells India
Despite all this, India did not bother to clean up its record in human rights. That was probably the reason why Japan, a political power backed by its newly-acquired economic clout, put up politico-military conditions including the one of respecting human rights before it gave aid to developing countries especially India. The Japan’s aid policy would highlight the importance of human rights.
A document on “Japan’s ODA (Official Development Assistance) in relation to military expenditure and other Matters of developing countries” prepared by the Japanese government says that hereafter no country can take Japanese aid for granted, It may not be denied, but “it has to be earned”.
New world order. Japan’s the largest provider of development funds to India. The PTI report revealed that the Indian government had been informed of the new aid conditions. ; ;
Not only that, even the US State Department, which until recently had been reluctant to speak out against India, took note of the violation of human rights by the Indian security forces in its annual report (1990 Human Rights Reports, February 1, 1991). US State Department indicts Indian security forces the report says: “Over the four decades since India’s independence, control of law and order operations has moved increasingly under the Home Ministry. This tendency stems in part from the rapid growth of the intelligence bureaus, which function with little reference to the state governments, and in part from the increased use of paramilitary forces against armed insurrectionists in disturbed areas. These forces are deployed in Kashmir, Punjab and north eastern States. Both para-military and police forces have been responsible for significant human rights abuses.”
State and individual violence, the report adds, has taken 4,987 lives during the year 1990 in Punjab, where militants are demanding a separate Sikh State, Khalistan. Exact numbers killed by either side cannot be determined. Press statistics showed the breakdown of deaths to be 3,261 civilians, 467 security forces personnel, 1,194 militants, and 65 persons the Government claims crossed into from Pakistan.
According to the U.S. report, Sikh organisations continued to complain about the Government’s failure to prosecute those responsible for deaths of over 3,000 Sikhs after Indira Gandhi’s assassination in 1984. On June 1, 1990, the Home Ministry announced that the Government would expedite the disposition of 118 cases out of 225 pending before the courts. Of the 107 cases tried, 11 ended in convictions, of which ten were for minor offences. Six persons convicted of murder in the 11th case remained at large. Critics charged that the principal instigators of the anti-Sikh violence were protected from prosecution by their high political visibility, and that none of those arrested were major figures in the mass killing of Sikhs.
Security forces are protected by special laws
Torture and cruel treatment or punishments are prohibited by law, and confessions or information extracted by force may not be admitted in court. Significantly, however, under section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), a confession made to a police officer is admissible in evidence. The frequent press accounts of Police brutality in obtaining confessions from detainees under this law have fueled widespread crime the State Department report adds.
Indian press and human rights groups continued to document allegations of torture and abuse of detainees by Police including beatings, burning with cigarettes, suspension by the feet and electric shocks. Under the special powers given to the security forces, they are not liable for prosecution for their actions in civil courts.
The judicial authorities in Punjab, the report further states, failed to bring to trial certain police offenders. In March, 1990, a Punjab and Haryana High Court judge ordered the release of three young men (Devinder Singh Pujari, Rajinder Singh Pappu and Braj Singh Jago) held in detention for months by the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in Amritsar, Punjab, without repotting their detention to the judicial authorities. A High Court warrant officer was unable to get the judicial order enforced, and youths were removed to another unknown location (India’s Secret Black-holes, a PHRO report).
The US is sensitive to PHRO reports
The US State Department officials acknowledged that the Bush Administration was sensitive to the litany of human rights violations that D. S. Gill of the Punjab Human Rights Organisation (PHRO) had provided at the National Press Club (November 13, 1989) where he was invited by the Club as the morning newsmaker, according to IANS.
Besides the US Congress and the State Department’s concern on the human rights situation in India, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has unofficially recommended India review its anti-terrorist laws
The recommendation, according to New York based India Abroad Newsweekly (April 16, 1991) was made by almost all the members of the committee at the end of a two-day discussion on a report submitted to the committee by India. The report addressed the government’s compliance with the international covenant on civil and political rights, one of the two covenants of the international bill of human rights.
Committee members referred specifically to India’s Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, which, they said, gave the Indian armed forces wide powers to kill without any accountability and violated international covenants.
The 18-member UN Human Rights Committee consists of experts in the field who serve in their private capacity and who are responsible for monitoring the situations in the 93 states that are parties to the rights convention.
Some members of the committee said that the many reservations expressed by India in its report to several articles of the covenant amounted to non-acceptance of the international document.
U N Human Rights Committee chides India
They also expressed concern that under anti-terrorist laws detention without trial is allowed, and they are concerned about reports of torture of prisoners in detention. Committee members also said that the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act was an emergency measure with no time limit.
Rosalyn Higgins, a British expert, said that the special powers act gave security forces the right to use “‘death dealing weapons” but that personnel using such weapons are “not accountable.’”” The Act allows security forces to shoot at sight, conduct summary trials and detain prisoners without a warrant.
Members said the authority given by these laws was all the more worrisome because the Indian Penal Code did not have specific laws protecting citizens against torture but rather depended on a case history of interpretation of a general constitutional guarantee of protection of life and liberty. Bertil Wintergreen of Sweden said that “Such general references are not enough. They must be clearly expressed otherwise it is difficult to see if the covenant really applies.”
Nisuke Ando of Japan said that answers given by Attorney General G. Ramaswamy to the UN committee’s concerns were legally correct, but that “too legalistic an approach may not be productive” and that “too much stress on a _ nation’:
Sovereignty may be counterproductive in the Protection o human rights”.
Indian courts fail to punish the police offenders
Several committee members said that not only did these anti-terrorist laws contradict international covenants on human tights, but also those human rights organisations in India and outside, had documented abuses by security forces and the failure of the government machinery to try them for such abuses.
Christine Chant, a committee member from France noted that special tribunals set up under the laws held hearings in secrecy, with neither the site of the hearings nor the identity of the suspects made public. She said such secrecy violated human rights.
Ramaswamy refused to reply to Amnesty International members’ charges. He said the Organisation took into account only one side of the story and thus was not impartial. If the UN committee requested investigation into some of the cases cited, the government of India might consider the request, he said.
The UN bodies did not Prove to be effective because their recommendations are not binding on the Indian Government. The UN is not a disciplinary Organisation. Similarly voluntary human rights organisations like Amnesty International and Asia Watch so far have failed to move the Indian Government. What is, therefore, needed is a concerted international effort to Pressurize India to see reason.
U K proposes to deport a Sikh
Meanwhile, the PHRO headquarters received an information from its London office that British Home Office panel was considering whether to deport a pro-Khalistan activist Karamjit Singh Chahal alias Bahu (42).
According to PHRO, UK Branch Coordinator, Manjit Singh, a Preliminary decision on the first such case would be taken by three members of an advisory panel formed by the British home office to hear deportation case. In case of an order against Chahal, his supporters are expected to ask ‘for a judicial review on the ground that he is a refugee. He can also appeal to the European Human Rights Commission in Strasburg.
The Sikh activist was ordered out by the home office fast year for his alleged involvement in gurdwara disputes and was retained under the National Security Act (NSA). The panel and the British government are under pressure from the human rights activists to stop his deportation to India. PHRO took up the matter
It is recalled that the PHRO took up Bhau’s case and sent telegrams on August 19, 1990, to the UN Under Secretary General, Jan Marten son, the British Home Secretary, David Waddington and the Amnesty International for immediate intervention in Chahal’s case of proposed deportation to India.
The telegrams were followed by a 20-page brief to the UN and British home office, which expressed fear that Karamjit Singh was likely to be tortured, maltreated and even liquidated as was the practice here in case he was deported to India. PHRO understood that he was an avid advocate of a separate Sikh State. Khalistan, and was engaged in enlighten other Sikhs in the UK on this issue. He was an active member of the International Sikh Youth Federation (ISYF) and keenly participated in the Sikh gurdwaras affairs.
Khalistan activist’s relatives tortured and killed Close relatives of the Bhau were earlier subjected to humiliation torture and killing in police custody. His married sister Sharan jit Kaur (35) and her husband, Manohar Singh Khaira were badly harassed. Both were picked up by the Jalandhar police on October 18, 1989 from their residence in the city. Manohar Singh was detained under NSA and charged for harbouring and aiding terrorists under sections 212/216 IPC and 3/4 TADA. Both were brutally tortured by the police with a view to extract information. Manohar Singh was sent to jail while his wife was set free after keeping her and brother- in-law were made victims because the police had allegedly arrested Chief
Committee member Nirmal Singh
They were said to be close relatives of the Bahu Kanwar jit Singh and Nirmal from Manohar Singh’s residence neither produced in any court Singh, who were arrested On October 18, 1989, were Or were they set free. They day later the police came near Sutlej Cinema, Nirmal and tried to run away. The did not, so the police fired at In the meantime, Kanwar jit Singh too he was soon apprehended. He combat died while they were being taken away attempted to escape but Sumed cyanide to the hospital. But the PHRO investigation then made by its team tebutted the story. According to the team, both the militants were taken to an undisclosed place by the police immediately after their arrest and were killed in cold blood. Their dead bodies were then carried in a CRPF jeep near Sutlej Cinema, Nirmal Singh’s body was thrown out of the jeep and fired at by the CRPF personnel. Later, the police told the bystanders that he was killed in an ‘encounter’ and the other one consumed cyanide in the jeep itself. According to PHRO information, Manohar Singh was not there when the police raided his house. He was picked up later during the day along with his wife. The aged father & mother not spared
The Jalandhar police also raided the Bhau’s native village, Kaleke in Amritsar district, on October 18 at night and arrested his father Bhagat Singh (80), mother Charan Kaur (78) and his elder brother Shingara Singh’s two sons. Kulbir Singh (25) and Jasbir Singh (21). Shingara Singh himself was not at home at the time of the raid. They were brought to Jalandhar where they were kept in illegal custody for a week. During their detention, they were harassed, maltreated and abused. Karamjit Singh’s father, mother and sister (Sharan jit Kaur) were released after one week and his nephews Kulbir Singh and Jasbir Singh were handed over to the Amritsar police. They were illegally kept at Mall Mandi torture chamber and, according to family information, they were subjected to third degree and most inhuman methods there. Finally they were handed over to Mehta police in Majitha police district on November 9. The Mehta police framed them in a criminal case TADA alleging that both had addressed the meetings of the village folk and were instigating people to organize themselves for forming Khalistan. It was also alleged that they instigated people to kill Hindus of the area to spread terror among them. They were also alleged to have exhorted the villagers to procure arms illegally to fight the Indian State and win the war for Khalistan. His father-in-law Gurmail Singh and brothers-in-law Navnit Singh and Nirbhai Singh were also harassed and prosecuted by the police when Karamjit Singh last visited India in 1984. The Bahu tells his story
The PHRO received a copy of an affidavit of Karamjit Singh sworn at Hounslow Law Centre (UK) on June 18, 1985, in which he had described how he was arrested along with his brothers-in-law and treated by the police.
“I was arrested on 30th March, 1984 by Indian Police at Mehta Chowk in the district of Amritsar. The police had no warrants but alleged illegal possession of arms and police confrontation. Two other arrested along with me were Navneet Singh and Nirbhai Singh.
“We were taken from the scene of the arrest to Mehta Police Station. Shortly after the arrest my parents sent a lawyer named Gurmail Singh Gill to meet me after which | was taken to a cell. The Police had said nothing of my rights to see a lawyer. “The conditions in the cell in which | was detained were appalling. It was a room barely 10’ by 7’ in which on an average 14-15 prisoners were kept. There were no lights, no fans and no ventilation, making conditions in the cell stifling. There were no toilet facilities available except for an urn at one end of the room for relieving oneself. Occasionally the Police would take us handcuffed to an old discarded truck kept for toilet purposes.
“No food was provided by the authorities. The only sustenance we received was that food which was occasionally let through from my family.
“Sometimes the cell population would go as high as 20 prisoners resulting in severe overcrowding and making any movement very difficult. During my nine day stay at this prison, not once were we given any bathing or cleaning facilities.
“There were five of us who had been arrested in connection with having links with Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. Only we five were kept handcuffed all the time. “At night, the Police men would come, in a drunken state, to the cell and take one of us outside into the open and lay us face down on the ground and beat us with wooden staves until we were unconscious. Only prisoners suspected of having links with Sant Bhindranwale were subjected to beatings.
Electrification of the organs
“After my ninth day at Mehta Police Station I was transferred to CIA Staff, a special investigations unit at Amritsar. i was kept there for over ten days without the right to visitors, correspondence or medical treatment.
“i was locked in a room approximately 9’ by 9’ which was totally enclosed and had no openings such as windows or ventilations. The conditions there were very hot.
“At night | was subjected to systematic torture by the Police within the confines of this room. This consisted of electrification with alive wire of several parts of my body, the scars of which | still bear. Also was made to lie on a hot plate and bright light was shown in my eyes making any rest or sleep impossible. | was also badly beaten by police using sticks. This torture was carried out each and every night and throughout the night. Whilst beating me, the Police would keep asking me where | got weapons from even though denied possessing any. | felt that they were going to kill me.
“On the seventh night at about 4.00 a.m., | was taken out of my cell and bundled into a jeep which apart from the driver contained one Police Inspector and four policemen, all of them were drunk and armed.
“I was blindfolded before the jeep was driven off and whilst inside the jeep {was subjected to beatings by the policemen using rifle butts.
I was driven 25 miles or so to the edge of the river Beas. There i was taken out of the jeep, still blindfolded, and told to run. I refused to budge since i knew that if Iran i would probably be shot for trying to escape. i was then hit by rifle butts and flung onto the river bank.
“1 lay motionless by the river edge for about five minutes, then i got up and took off my blindfold. One Police Officer again said, “Run, we are going to shoot you”. However, 1 again refused to do so, even had i wanted to run i would have been unable to, so severely had | been beaten. “The Police wanted to kill me”
“Eventually two of the policemen came down the bank and took me up and put me back in the jeep and said that they were sparing me.
“A couple of day’s later, l was transferred to Gurmata Jail where no further torture was carried out. At this point of time | was extremely weak, unable to walk and my eyesight suffered due to the bright lights had been subjected to was eventually released on bail, and my case was still pending when | escaped to Britain.”
The police, having failed to get anything, them under the Arms Act in a case FIR No. 99 dated 18 4.1984. When they came out of jail on bail Karamjit Singh immediately left the country. Navnit Singh and Nirbhai Singh in the meantime, were acquitted by the Designated Court at Amritsar on September 21, 1985.
Earlier Karamjit Singh’s father-in-law Gurvail Singh, too, was prosecuted under TADA by the Jandiala (Amritsar) police.
Of late, Nirbhai Singh (31) was picked up by the Mehta police on November 18, 1990 when he was coming to his village on scooter near Jalal Usman village. He was shifted to the Mall Mandi, Amritsar the same day. His father Gurvail Singh sent registered letters on 19-11-90 to Punjab Home Secretary, Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and PHRO seeking their intervention in the matter as he feared liquidation of his son at the hands of the police. The PHRO received no information after that.
Nirbhai Singh was, perhaps, picked up by the police as he had been helping the PHRO in its task of sending representations abroad opposing the proposed deportation of Karamjit Singh. U K urged not to deport Karamjit Singh
So, given the liquidation of Sikh youths in faked encounters by the Indian armed forces, especially those considered “‘terrorists’” and those targetted for their peaceful political Activites, Karamjit Singh’s deportation to India would make him vulnerable to such risk of elimination. Even the marked supporters and protagonists of Khalistan were shot dead in cold blood inside jail. PHRO, in its report, The Killing in Sangrur Jail (The Fascist Offensive in Punjab, pp. 57—61), has given a detailed account of how three under trials were killed as a result of police firing in the jail on October 14, 1987.
In light of these happenings, the PHRO tried to impress upon the UK government in its representation that Karamjit Singh should not be deported to India and be tried in the UK court if he had violated any law of the land.
A monthly watch by PHRO During May, 1991, the security forces in Punjab, according to PHRO information, liquidated 243 active Sikhs in different ways. Of them, 164 were killed in alleged armed clashes with the police and para-military forces, 32 were laminated allegedly in inter-group rivalry, 38 others were killed by either police “cats” or state sponsored vigilante groups. 104 Sikhs connected with the ongoing Punjab struggle were arrested by the police, 44 Sikh activists disappeared at the hands of the security forces and the whereabouts of a number of others earlier abducted by the police remained unknown.
Militant violence on the other hand, took 231 lives security forces personnel and others during the month of May. 48 security men were killed and 72 injured as 3 result of armed clashes with militants. Over three dozen civilians, both Hindu and Sikh, became target of militants’ wrath. They were shot dead by militants allegedly being traitors, police informers of “eats” etc. Eleven persons including police officials and their relatives were abducted by militants to counter the kidnapping of militants’ relatives by the police.
The militants killed in the alleged encounters included Panthic Committee member Amrik Singh Harchowal, SSF (Daljit Singh) activists Baldev Singh Bhakumajra and Gurmit Singh Ropar, KLF (Budhsinghwala) Lt Gen Ravinder Singh Kaleke, KCF activists Balvinder Singh, Rajbir Singh, Gurmit Singh and his wife Balwinder Kaur, Charan Singh and Manjit Kaur, BTKF activist Prabh Singh Canadian and Babbar Khalsa International activists Jaswinder Singh Kala, Nishan Singh Saifdipur, Harjit Singh Jauhgrian, Devinder Singh and Jaitsar Singh. A number of Sikhs were killed in the “encounters” as unidentified militants.
The systematic liquidation of Sikh youths
A systematic elimination of Sikh youths, after they were picked up from their homes or from their relatives’ houses, was carried out unabated. Out of 32 killed in “inter-group warfare” included KCF activists Lakhbir Singh Lakha, Karnail Singh Babbar Kundan Singh, Bhupinder Singh Bhinda, Gurnam Singh, Rajwinder Singh Gora, Tarlok Singh Kotla Sadar, Darshan Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Sikander Singh and Paramjit Singh, 21 other youths were also killed in the same fashion. They were shown as unidentified terrorists. The police claimed to have recovered their bullet-ridden bodies from different places.
