[Print Friendly Version]
India
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2002
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
March 31, 2003
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 July 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 earlier in the year in Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Uttaranchal, Manipur, and Goa were conducted generally in a free and transparent manner with little violence. In December elections were held in Gujarat where the BJP won a closely watched election following accusations of government failure to control riots in February to March that killed over 2,000 persons, mostly Muslims. The judiciary is independent.
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.
The country is in transition from a government-controlled to a largely market-oriented economy. The private sector is predominant in agriculture, most nonfinancial 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 34.4 percent of national income and the bottom 20 percent receiving 10 percent. According to a government survey, 23.6 percent of the urban population and 27.1 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, deaths of suspects in police custody 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. India was invited by the Community of Democracies' (CD) Convening Group to attend the November 2002 second CD Ministerial Meeting in Seoul, Republic of Korea, as a participant.
Many of these abuses are 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 are acute 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.
In November State Assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir transferred power to a coalition composed of the People's Democratic Party and the Congress Party. International observers stated that the election took place in a somewhat fair and transparent manner; however, some nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) alleged that there were some flaws in the election, including that all major separatist groups boycotted the elections and there was an widespread fear of attacks by militants. These two parties defeated the National Conference, a political party that has dominated state-level politics since Indian independence in 1947. Violence remained a pervasive feature of politics in Jammu and Kashmir. The fall elections took place in a climate of sporadic violence and isolated irregularities. Election-related violence killed more than 800 persons.
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 militants 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 militants also were responsible for kidnaping and extortion in Jammu and Kashmir and the northeastern states. The Government accused the terrorist groups Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LET) and Jaish-e-Muhammad of responsibility for carrying out many of the attacks on civilians and military personnel.
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.
Official government figures indicated that militant activity increased notably during the year in Jammu and Kashmir. (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.) According to the Kashmir Times, security forces killed 1,606 militants in encounters as of September, compared with 1,520 militants killed during the same period in 2000. In addition, human rights groups alleged that during the year security forces killed a number of captured non-Kashmiri militants in Jammu and Kashmir. During conflicts with armed militants, security forces allegedly responded indiscriminately to gunfire. Kashmiri separatist groups claimed that in many instances "encounters" were faked and that security forces summarily executed suspected militants and civilians offering no resistance. Statements by senior police and army officials confirmed that the security forces were under instructions to kill foreign militants, rather than attempt to capture them alive. Human rights groups alleged that this particularly was true in the case of security force encounters with non-Kashmiri militants who crossed into Jammu and Kashmir illegally. According to one prominent human rights activist, the armed forces were under orders to shoot any person who was within 12 miles of the Line of Control (the ceasefire line delineating parts of India from Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir) or to shoot any person who was unable to quickly justify their presence in the area.
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 often marks of torture, were returned to relatives or otherwise were discovered shortly afterwards. For example, in January Ali Muhammad Bhat was beaten, shot, and killed allegedly in retribution for filing a complaint against the security forces. In March Mubarak Shah and his wife were killed in Dushar Gool. Security forces allegedly detained the pair a few days before they were killed.
In December in Srinigar Mohammad Ahsan Untoo, chairman of the Kashmir Human Rights forum, protested human rights violations by security forces in Kashmir, by dousing himself in kerosene and lighting himself on fire.
There reportedly was no action taken against members of the security forces responsible for the following killings in Jammu and Kashmir: The February 2001 "encounter" killing of Azam Ali in Nalgonda; the May 2001 alleged custody killing of Aijaz Ahmad Kitab; the January 2000 alleged custody killing of Mohammad Tahir Shah; the March 2000 alleged custody killing of Gulab Muhammad Chechi.
According to local press reports, the number of persons killed in encounter deaths varied widely throughout the country. In Delhi there were eight reported encounter deaths; in Chennai there were six; in Gujarat there were three. However, in Uttar Pradesh, there were 260; in Bihar there were 68, and in Mumbai there were 47.
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), called for all alleged encounter deaths to be investigated immediately by an independent agency; however, such an agency was not established during the year. In addition, members of the security forces rarely were held accountable for these killings. The NHRC may inquire into alleged security force abuses in Jammu and Kashmir 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 an overwhelming majority of cases where compensation was recommended, it never was delivered. 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; however, private citizens informed the Commission of various abuses.
The security forces killed many civilians during military counterinsurgency operations in Jammu and Kashmir. For example, in October security forces killed nine persons following a gun battle between militants and security officials in Kashmir.
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 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 order to get greater accountability for abuses committed by security forces members in Jammu and Kashmir, the NHRC recommended that the Government allow the NHRC to investigate complaints of the army and paramilitary forces excesses; however, the Government decided that the paramilitary forces were part of the armed forces. As such, paramilitary forces were protected from investigation by the NHRC and from criminal prosecution for certain acts under various emergency statutes. Under the Human Rights Protection Act, the NHRC cannot directly investigate allegations of human rights abuses by the armed and paramilitary forces.
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 during the election killed more than 800 persons. More than 260 civilians, 250 security personnel, and 370 militants were killed in politically motivated violence during the year. For example, between August and October militants killed 44 persons from the National Conference Party, Congress Party, People's Democratic Party and independent activists and two candidates, Jammu and Kashmir Law Minister Mushtaq Ahmed Lone and Abdul Rehman. Supporters of different political parties, and supporters of different factions within one party, frequently clashed with each other and with police during the election.
There were many 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.). The majority of complaints during the year involved individual cases; while there had been complaints of individual houses being destroyed, there were no reports of entire villages being burned by armed forces or of mass killings, as in past years. Human rights groups alleged that police often faked encounters to cover up the torture and subsequent killing of both militants and noncombatants. For example, in May police arrested Bhujangrao Bhandari in Nerul. Police asserted that Bhandari had hung himself; however, since Bhandari only had one arm, human rights observers said the police version lacked credibility. By year's end, no inquiry had been ordered in Bhandari's case. 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 Kashmir. The Home Ministry reported that during 2001, 107 members of the security forces, 429 civilians, and 517 militants were killed in the northeast. According to India Today, deaths in Mumbai in police encounters from January to July were 39, compared with 92 in 2001. 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. For example, on October 30 in Guwahati two militants allegedly involved in a mortar attack on Dispur on October 27 were killed by state police. An investigation by the Assam Human Rights Commission resulted in the transfer of two senior police officials. In November police shot and killed two men they claimed were Pakistani terrorists. A witness challenged the police account of the shooting, alleged the encounter was fake, and later filed a petition in the Delhi High Court seeking an independent inquiry into the incident. At year's end, the witness claimed that the government put pressure on him to change his statement.
No action reportedly was taken by the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh in the 2001 killing of Azam Ali or Purushotham. The Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Commission (APCLC) believed that the police, not the PWG, were involved in the killings. In 2001 Amnesty International (AI) had asked the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh to order an impartial investigation into the killing of Purushotham and Azam Ali. There were no reports of any action taken against the responsible members of the police who killed six PWG activists and one civilian in June 2001.
The NHRC investigated 285 reported cases of encounter deaths allegedly committed by the Andhra Pradesh police in connection with anti-People's War Group (PWG) operations. According to the Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee, the NHRC had evidence of police culpability in several cases. However, such cases had not been adjudicated in the courts or otherwise acted on by the state government. The Government's failure to act expeditiously on NHRC findings discouraged local human rights groups from filing additional encounter death cases with the NHRC. 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. The trial continued in the 2001 NHRC investigation of 285 reported cases of encounter deaths allegedly committed by the Andhra Pradesh police in connection with anti-PWG operations.
In Andhra Pradesh, the Disturbed Areas Act had been in force in a number of districts for more than 4 years. 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. In November, two alleged LTTE terrorists were killed by the police in Tamil Nadu. Little was known about the size, composition, or activities of this group.
Court action in cases of extrajudicial killings was slow and uncertain. In one case, Army Major Avtar Singh was arrested in 1998 for the 1996 killing of human rights monitor Jalil Andrabi in Kashmir. Singh and 11 countermilitants were charged with Andrabi's killing and 10 other unlawful killings. Criminal charges and a court martial still were pending against Singh at year's end. Human rights workers alleged that the central Government and the Jammu and Kashmir state government both attempted to subvert the judicial process by withholding evidence in the case. There were no developments in the 1996 killing of human rights monitor Parag Kumar Das, who allegedly was killed by a militant who previously had surrendered and was supported by the Government.
Police frequently used excessive force indiscriminately against demonstrators, killing citizens (see Section 2.b.).
In July the Supreme Court ordered regular checks on police stations to ascertain the incidence of custodial violence against persons. The Court directed state human rights commissions and other civic rights protection committees to conduct surprise checks. These checks were conducted in a small number of police stations in the States of 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. Many died from natural causes aggravated by poor prison conditions (see Section 1.c.).
For example, in April Karna Chetri was found dead in the Sardar Police Station in Assam following a reported scuffle and a bullet injury. In May several police officers reportedly beat to death a retired police officer at the Gauripur police station in Guwahati, Assam. The retired police office had entered the station to seek the release of his son who had been arrested for reckless driving. The son was also tortured by the police, but no one was held accountable. In May police detained and beat to death Amit Arora at the police station in Jaipur, Rajasthan. Arora reportedly had planned to expose a corrupt police unit in Jaipur. Citizens protested local police after police denied the death. The police ordered an inquiry into the death, filed charges against some of police responsible, and transferred 37 police officers to another station by year's end. In August the police detained a member of the CPI (ML) in Janashakti under suspicion of Naxalite activities. When he was taken to the hospital one day later, doctors declared that he had died in custody. After an investigation by the police, the Andhra Pradesh Home Minister Goud ordered the installation of video cameras in jails; however, by year's end the order had not been implemented.
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. However, security forces were not required to report custodial deaths in Jammu and Kashmir or the northeastern states to the NHRC and did not do so. The final Criminal Investigation Department report of Uttar Pradesh concluded that the cause of Ram Kishore's 1993 death was natural, due to heart problems. There reportedly was no action taken or formal investigation into the July 2001 death of the Masood in Jammu and Kashmir. In addition, there was no report from the Home Ministry and Defense Ministry regarding media reports of custodial deaths, which the NHRC requested in 2001.
During the year, some state governments took some measures regarding custodial deaths. Following NHRC guidelines, in 2001 the state government of Maharashtra mandated automatic post-mortem examinations and inquiries by a magistrate following all cases of custodial deaths. The district jail in Pune, the state's second largest city, became the first in the country to adopt video-conferencing to help magistrates determine the health and well-being of persons in judicial custody (see Section 1.c.).
In Bihar the NHRC recorded 144 custodial deaths in its 2001-2002 reporting period. According to the NHRC, the Bihar government had not been responsive 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, and 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. The Government also recruited countermilitants into the Special Operations Group of the Jammu and Kashmir police and into the Border Security Force. Countermilitants were known to search persons at roadblocks (see Section 2.d.) and guard large areas of the Kashmir Valley from attacks by militants. The Government, through its sponsoring and condoning of extrajudicial countermilitant activities, was responsible for killings, abductions, and other abuses committed by these militant groups. According to a 2000 estimate, as many as 3,000 countermilitants continued to operate in Jammu and Kashmir, particularly in the countryside, outside major towns.
Insurgency and ethnic violence was a problem in the seven northeastern states. 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 to secede from the country. Their stated grievances against the Government ranged from charges of neglect and indifference to the widespread poverty of the region to allegations of active discrimination against the tribal and nontribal people of the region by the central Government (see Section 5). The oldest of these conflicts, involving the Nagas, dates back to the country’s independence in 1947. During the year, talks continued between various insurgent groups and central and state government officials. In July the Government and the National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Isaac and Muivah (NSCN-IM) announced the extension of the unilateral August 2001 cease-fire, which was extended until August 2003. The talks between the Government and the NSCN-IM continued when representatives of the two met in Malaysia. Subsequently, the talks also led to the withdrawal of arrest warrants against NSCN-IM leaders by the Nagaland Chief Minister. Unlike in previous years, the Government's extended cease-fire was not resisted in Manipur, Assam, and Arunachal Pradesh, and there were no reports of protests as a result of the continued cease-fire.
Surrenders by militants in the northeast, often under government incentive programs, were common in recent years. Surrendered militants usually were given a resettlement and retraining allowance and other assistance. In Andhra Pradesh, the state government offered a financial package to surrendered PWG militants, a program that prompted hundreds of Naxalites to leave the movement in recent years. 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 Tripura a systematic surrender of arms by a faction of NLFT insurgents and NLFT fringe groups was due to the increased security pressure and to infighting within NLFT insurgent ranks. Since 2000 a few hundred militants surrendered in small groups to the security forces, handing in their weapons.
The killings of ULFA leaders' family members during the year renewed concerns about the situation in Assam. On January 4, unidentified assailants shot and killed three relatives of two ULFA militants, including two relatives of ULFA deputy commander in chief Raju Baruah. In addition, ULFA militants killed Avinash Bordoloi and two other surrendered ULFAs in Nalbari district. On June 25, five tribal militants were killed and several were injured during a series of encounters between NLFT and ATTF at Takarjala in Tripura. More than 87,000 persons lived under poor conditions in relief camps in Assam's Kokrajhar, Gosaigaon, and adjoining districts as a result of the ongoing violence between Bodos and Santhals (see Section 2.d.).
Militant groups in Manipur, Tripura, and Assam continued to attack civilians. For example, in April four tribals were killed after they had been abducted by NLFT militants in West Bengal's Takajala area. In June two Gorkha Rifles personnel were killed, and five others were injured by NSCN (IM) militants. In August NLFT killed four CPM activists in Kanchanpur, Tripura. On October 27, NDFB militants killed 22 villagers in Datgiri in Assam's Kokerahjar district.
In Assam 97 civilians, 206 militants, and 25 security force personnel were killed in clashes with militants during 2001.
In Manipur 25 civilians, 72 militants, and 34 security force personnel were killed in clashes with militants during the year. The Manipur government declared a month-long ceasefire with militants in March 2001, but numerous persons were killed in counterinsurgency incidents after the ceasefire went into effect. In Manipur 18 militant groups reportedly were active, including outlawed Meitei organizations.
In Tripura separatist-related violence continued and resulted in the deaths of 73 civilians, 28 militants, and 30 security force personnel.
In Nagaland 2 civilians, 13 militants, and 2 security force personnel were killed in clashes with militants during the year. Throughout the year, talks continued between various Naga separatists and central and state government officials. In November the Government decided now to renew a ban on the Naga group, NSCN-IM, in anticipation of talks with the NSCN-IM. The Government's continued negotiations with Naga separatists over a cease-fire caused significant unrest in Nagaland and in neighboring states.
In the north-central states of Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, and West Bengal, clashes between police officers and PWG continued. For instance, in January PWG members detonated a bomb in Gumla district, which killed 11 persons, including 9 policemen. On November 19, PWG members detonated a bomb on a bus in Andhra Pradesh, which killed 14 persons. On December 26, PWG members attacked a village and killed seven persons, including women and children. The police sometimes responded with violence; for example, in January 2001, an activist of the Communist Party of India Liberation Front was killed and five others injured police fired on a procession of the Naxalite party in Gaya district of Bihar (see Section 2.b.). According to police, 82 Naxalites were killed in armed encounters during the year. 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 increased for the fourth year in a row. According to official statistics, 181 security force personnel were killed in the state during the year.
During the year, militant groups in Jammu and Kashmir targeted civilians, members of the security forces, and politicians. According to the Minister of State for Home, militants had killed 907 civilians as of November 15, compared with 996 in 2001. For example, in two separate attacks in May and November, terrorists entered Hindu Raghunath Temple and killed 25 persons. On May 15, 30 persons were killed and 48 injured by militants in Kaluchak when gunmen opened fire on a bus and stormed an army camp. In May militants killed moderate Kashmiri separatist leader Abdul Gani Lone at a political meeting in Srinagar. The militant group Al-Badr claimed responsibility for the Abdul Gani killing. In June three policemen were killed and several injured by militants in Srinagar. On July 14, militants killed 28 persons in Rajiv Nagar slum area in Jammu. In August 9 Hindu pilgrims were killed and 30 injured by militants in Pahalgam during the annual Amarnath Yatra (see Section 2.c.). In November six members of the India's Central Reserve Police Force were killed and nine injured by two militants in a suicide attack on a police camp in Kashmir. On December 20, Abdul Aziz Mir, a People's Democratic Party member of the state assembly, was killed by militants while returning home from Friday prayers. The militant group Save Kashmir Movement claimed responsibility for the Abdul Aziz Mir killing.
There reportedly was no action taken against the responsible militants in the following cases: The January 2001 killing of two civilians on the Kashmir airport; the January 2001 grenade attack on Farooq Abdullah in Srinagar; the November 2001 killing of four soldiers by LET terrorists in Anantnag District; the August 2000 killing of six Hindu villagers in Jammu. However, in the December 2000 killing of a soldier and two civilians at Delhi's Red Fort, a trial was ongoing and has resulted in one conviction to date.
Nearly 800 persons were killed and 500 civilians were injured in violence related to the October Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly polls (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 Section 5).
Mob lynchings of tribal people occurred in many states (see Section 5).
b. Disappearance
According to human rights groups, unacknowledged, incommunicado detention of suspected militants continued in Jammu and Kashmir. In October 2001, the government of Jammu and Kashmir stated that during the last 6 years, 2,250 persons were reported missing. The state government claimed that most of those who disappeared were young men who crossed into Pakistan-controlled Kashmir for training in terrorist camps.
According to the Kashmir Times, 152 militants were arrested between January and November. In comparison, according to the Ministry of Home Affairs, 645 suspected militants were arrested in 2000. Human rights organizations alleged that the decline in the number of militants arrested was consistent with reports that security forces were killing many militants captured in encounters (see Section 1.a.); that pattern 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 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 right organization credibly reported that more than 1,000 persons remained in detention awaiting prosecution under the law. Several thousand others are held in short-term (1-day to 6 months' duration) confinement in transit and interrogation centers.
In June in Rawalapora numerous persons gathered to protest the alleged custodial disappearance of Manzoor Ahmad Dar. Dar allegedly was detained by Special Operations Group (SOG) of the Jammu and Kashmir police. Later in the year, the police admitted involvement; however, they denied any claim that the disappearance was the work of the security forces.
There were no developments in the case of Chundrakpam Ongabi Sumila's husband, who was abducted in May 2001 by suspected Assam Rifles. In addition, there were no developments in the February 2000 disappearance of M. Akbar Tantray.
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.). In August 2000, AI reported that the disappearances of up to 1,000 persons reported missing in Jammu and Kashmir since 1990 remained unexplained by authorities.
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 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.).
In Punjab the pattern of disappearances prevalent in the early 1990s appeared to have ended. Hundreds of police and security officials were not held accountable for serious human rights abuses committed there during the counterinsurgency of 1984-94. 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. During the year, the NHRC examined the cases of 585 fully identified bodies to ascertain whether police officers had been responsible for the deaths or for any human rights violation; however, the Government continued to challenge the NHRC’s jurisdiction in the cases. By year's end, no significant progress was made in identifying the cremated bodies or bringing to justice those responsible for the killings. These numbers demonstrated the extent of the violence during those years and, given the pattern of police abuses prevalent during the period, credibly included many persons killed in extrajudicial executions. In 1998 former Justice Singh announced that the Committee for the Coordination on Disappearances in Punjab (CCDP) would form a three-member commission to investigate the mass cremations. The Commission met with inaction on the part of the authorities and made little progress during the year (see Section 4).
AI expressed concern that Punjab police officials continued to obstruct the judicial inquiry into the death of human rights monitor Jaswant Singh Khalra. During the year, the case was scheduled for recording evidence in a Session court; however, by the time evidence started to be recorded in November, a key witness denied having been witness to Khalra's disappearance into police custody. Before his death, Khalra was investigating the cremation of unidentified bodies by Tarn Taran police. These and other events prompted extended public debate over the accountability of Punjab police for abuses committed while suppressing a violent insurgency. According to human rights monitors in Punjab, approximately 100 police officials either faced charges, were prosecuted, or were under investigation for human rights abuses at year's end.
There were credible reports that police throughout the country often did not file 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. There were no developments in the 2001 cases of the four persons arrested without an arrest memo and held by Border Security Force (BSF) officers in Churachandpur district.
In Manipur 14-year-old Yumlembam Sanamacha has been missing ever since soldiers arrested him in 1998. During the year, there was a judicial review into the Sanamacha case, and the family was awarded compensation from the state government of $6,250 (RS 300,000); however, by year's end, the award had not been given to the family.
Militants in Jammu and Kashmir and the northeastern states continued to use kidnapings to terrorize the population, seek the release of detained comrades, and extort funds. Sometimes kidnaped persons later were killed (see Sections 1.a. and 1.g.). There were 211 reported kidnapings in the northeastern states during the year. For example, on September 1, suspected NLFT militants abducted an 8-year-old boy from a village in Dhalai district, Tripura. On December 19, NLFT militants abducted three sons of a local level leader in the same district.
During the year, there were no developments in the following 2001 cases of kidnapings by militants: The January kidnaping of a CPM worker from Dhalai district; the July kidnaping of Parthapratim Roy Burman; the August kidnaping of Sambhu Nath and Ram Avtar Chakravarty in south Assam; the August kidnaping of six persons from Rangrung tea estate in North Tripura; the August kidnaping of seven Hindu youths in the Rajouri district of the Kashmir valley in Jammu and Kashmir; and the August kidnaping of a group of Hindu shepherds in Doda district.
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 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. Information was not made public regarding any instances of action taken against security force personnel in Jammu and Kashmir for acts of torture.
In June members of the security forces tortured and killed the brother of an alleged terrorist from Kupwara. Police alleged the victim died in a skirmish while he was leading them to a terrorist hideout. There were no reports of an investigations by year's end. There were no developments in the following 2001 cases: The February torture of a man from Surankot; the torture of Gulzar Ahmad Ganie; or the death of students Shiraz Ahmad Khan and Syed Malik.
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. Unlike in the previous year, the Home Ministry did not extend an invitation to the U.N. Special Rapporteurs on Torture and on Extrajudicial Killings or the Special Rapporteur 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 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 contexts: In the course of regular criminal investigations and following unlawful and arbitrary arrests. For example, during criminal investigation police frequently resorted to torture to extract information from suspects while in custody, and legislation was reported to be misused during which torture frequently took place. There were no developments in the 2001 case of the torture of prisoner Yunus Fakir Mohammad Shaikh.
Police also tortured other citizens. In November a 37-year-old man was arrested by the police in Chennai on charges of belonging to an extremist political organization. According to a local NGO, he was kept in custody for 4 days and tortured. At year's end, charges had not been filed. In April 2001 a 14-year-old girl allegedly was abducted, tortured with electric shocks, and raped for 6 days by the Patiala police (see Sections 1.g. and 5). At year's end, no police officer had been charged.
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. Although evidence was lacking, 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, limits placed on the arrest, search, and police custody of women appeared effectively to limit the frequency of rape in custody. In January 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.
There reportedly was no action taken against members of the security forces responsible for the following 2001 cases of rape of persons in custody: The October rape of a tribal woman and the rape of Mary Lushai in Dhalai, Tripura. At year's end, the Government had not disciplined or charged the police officers involved in the September 2000 rape of a 16-year-old girl arrested on suspicion of petty theft, despite repeated requests from the court. There were no developments in the July 2000 case of the rape of a tribal housewife in Lamdam village, Manipur by Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel. The CRPF alleged that the rape was committed in retaliation for an attack carried out on a CRPF patrol by People's Liberation Army militants the previous day (see Section 1.g.).
In April a 17-year-old girl alleged three BSF force personnel in Pahalgam raped her. She stated that the BSF forces forced their way into her home and raped her at gunpoint. In April the state ordered an inquiry into the rape.
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.), but it was not included in NHRC statistics because it involved the military forces. According to an NGO in Kashmir, there were 200 rapes by paramilitary personnel in 2000. Another NGO reported 10 cases of rape during the year.
The NHRC had not released the statistics of its actions against police during the year.
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 (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act 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.
The Government occasionally used excessive force in putting down demonstrations (see Section 2.b.). For example, AI reported that on July 20 police officers beat villagers who resisted police efforts to forcibly evict the villagers from their homes in Madhya Pradesh. AI recounted that approximately 400 police officers reportedly entered Khedi Balwadi and started pulling and dragging persons into vans. If persons tried to resist this police action, they were beaten severely. The villagers were taken to a resettlement site.
The Government also occasionally used excessive force against tribal people. For example, in October police shot at three tribal persons in Orissa. In response to this incident, the Chief Minister suspended the District Superintendent of Police and the Additional District Magistrate. In addition, a three-member ministerial committee was ordered to inquire into the incident. There reportedly were no developments in the investigation of the April 2001 killing of 5 tribal persons in Madhya Pradesh or the March 2001 shooting of a Naxalite in Maraknar.
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 Sections 1.a., 1.g., and 5).
Prison conditions were very poor. Prisons were severely overcrowded, and the provision of food and medical care frequently was inadequate.
After a March 30 revolt by inmates in Bihar, the NHRC visited the Chhapra jail to study the circumstances that led to the revolt and subsequently to the Government entering the prison. During and after the government intervention, six inmates were killed. The result of the study was a NHRC report critical of the jail authorities for continued poor prison conditions.
In April hundreds of prisoners at the Divisional Jail in Bihar went on hunger strike to protest the assault on two of their colleagues by prison staff. The Government held talks with the prisoners. The prisoners demanded action against the officials involved in the assault.
Overcrowding in prisons was common. For example, the Divisional Jail in Bihar had a planned capacity of 212 prisoners but held 750 inmates. Prisons operated above capacity because more than 60 percent of the prison population were persons awaiting hearings (see Section 1.d.). In Kashmir persons awaiting hearings made up 90 percent of prison population and in Bihar 80 percent. For example, New Delhi’s Tihar jail, with a designed capacity of 3,300 persons, housed 9,000 prisoners. The Chennai Central Prison in Tamil Nadu, designed to hold 1,419 persons, housed more than 3,121 inmates. According to the SAHRDC, in the poorest states, such as Bihar, where 265 police stations had no lockup facilities, the lack of prisons led police to shackle prisoners to trees. The Prison Act remained unamended at year's end.
The 1,140 deaths in judicial custody reported to the NHRC during the year 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 conducted by the NHRC found that tuberculosis was the cause of death in most deaths in judicial custody. 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 September two transgender persons alleged that the Bandra railway police stripped them, locked them with alleged criminals, and encouraged the criminals to molest them. They reportedly were arrested for traveling without a train ticket, which normally merits a cash fine.
In prison, women were housed separately from men in similar conditions. 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 the general prison population.
With the exception of an agreement with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) for visits to detention facilities in Jammu and Kashmir, the Government did not allow NGOs to monitor prison conditions in those regions (see Section 4). However, 15 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 ensure that medical check-ups were performed on all inmates.
d. Arbitrary Arrest, Detention, or Exile
The Government implemented a variety of special security laws intended to help law enforcement authorities fight separatist insurgencies, and there were credible reports of widespread arbitrary arrest and detention under these laws during the year.
According to AI, the authorities continued to use the TADA, although it lapsed in 1995, to detain persons in Jammu and Kashmir. Human rights sources estimated that approximately 1,000 persons remained in custody under TADA or related charges at year’s end. A small number of arrests under the TADA continued for crimes allegedly committed before the law lapsed. In November the Jammu and Kashmir governments established a committee to review detainees' cases; however, the committee had not met at year's end. 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. The special task force established by the state police forces of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu to capture a bandit hiding in forests in the border area between the 2 states had arrested some 121 persons under the TADA prior to the law's lapse; 51 of these persons still were in custody at year’s end.
In March the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO) was enacted into law and changed to the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA). The POTA allows detention without charge for 3 months, deems not disclosing information to the authorities about terrorist activities an offense, and provides extensive new powers to ban organizations and seize their assets. This ordinance is similar to the TADA in that it permits detention for 30 days without trial, summary trials, and the use of testimony exacted under duress. In addition, the bill provides for special courts to try offenses, place the burden of proof at the bail stage on the accused, make confessions to a police officer of the rank of superintendent of police admissible as evidence, extend the period of remand from 15 to 60 days, and set mandatory sentences for terrorism-related offenses. Since the POTO and POTA were enacted, the Jammu and Kashmir police have arrested approximately 426 people, 50 percent of whom were charged with sheltering terrorists. In March Yasin Malik, Hurriyat leader and the Chairman of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, was arrested under POTA. He was released on bail in June; however, he was re-arrested the same day under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safely Act (PSA), which does not require a charge. In November he was released again; however, he still faced charges under the POTA. In July in Madhya Pradesh, police invoked POTA against the Naxalites PWG.
In addition, the POTA was used to arrest members of various organizations and opposition political parties on charges of publicly expressing support of the banned LTTE terrorist group. For example, on July 11, police arrested Marumalachi Dravida Munnetra Kazahagam leader Vaiko for speaking in support of the LTTE at a public meeting. On August 1, Tamil Nationalist Movement leader Pazha Nedumaran was arrested for convening a conference in support of the LTTE in Chennai. In August police arrested P. Nedumaran under POTA for being a supporter of the Tamil terrorist group. At year's end, 15 persons had been arrested under the POTA.
In December a special court in New Delhi issued the first conviction under the POTA and ruled that four accomplices of the militants who attacked the Indian Parliament in December 2001 were guilty (see Section 1.g.). Three of the defendants were sentenced to death and the fourth was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and fined $200 (RS 10,000).
Preventive detention laws in the event of threats to public order and national security exist. An individual may be detained--without charge or trial--for up to 3 months, and detainees were denied their rights or compensation for unlawful arrest or detention. In addition to providing for limits on the length of detention, the preventive detention laws provide for judicial review. Several laws of this type remain in effect.
The National Security Act (NSA) permits the detention of persons considered to be security risks; police anywhere in the country (except for Jammu and Kashmir) may detain suspects under NSA provisions. Under these provisions, the authorities may detain a suspect without charge or trial for as long as 1 year on loosely defined security grounds. The NSA does not define "security risk." The state government must confirm the detention order, which is reviewed by an advisory board of three High Court judges within 7 weeks of the arrest. NSA detainees are permitted visits by family members and lawyers, and must be informed of the grounds for their detention within 5 days (10 to 15 days in exceptional circumstances). The Government was not able to provide figures on how many persons were detained nationwide under the NSA, but in 1997 there were 1,163 such persons. According to press accounts during the year, there were no cases of persons detained under NSA in the northeast. Human rights groups alleged that preventive detention may be ordered and extended under the act purely on the opinion of the detaining authority and after advisory board review. No court may overturn such a decision.
The PSA covers corresponding procedures for that state. More than half of the detainees in Jammu and Kashmir were held under the PSA. Under these provisions, the authorities may detain a suspect for detention without charge and without judicial review for up to 2 years; suspects do not have access to family members or legal council. For example, in June Syed Ali Shah Geelani, a senior Hurriyat leader, and his two sons-in-law were detained under the PSA and the Officials Secrets Act (see Section 2.a.). The Government charged Geelani with money laundering and possession of armed forces documents and charged his sons-in-law with possession of classified materials. At year's end, Geelani and one son-in-law remained in jail in Ranchi, Jharkand. The second son-in-law was released in November.
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). In a representation made to the NHRC, the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Center (SAHRDC) asserted that the act's powers were "too vast and sweeping and posed a grave threat to the fundamental rights and liberties of the citizenry of the (disturbed) areas covered by the act." The SAHRDC also asserted that the powers granted to authorities to declare any area to be a "disturbed area," and thus subject to the other provisions of the act, were too broad. Moreover, the SAHRDC noted that the act empowered any commissioned officer, warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or any other person of equivalent rank in the armed forces to fire upon and otherwise use force, even to the point of death, if he believed that it was necessary for the maintenance of law and order. Further, the act states that "no prosecution, suit, or other legal proceedings shall be instituted, except with the previous sanction of the central Government against any person in respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise of powers" conferred by the act. The SAHRDC believed that many custodial deaths and extrajudicial killings had been committed as a result of the power granted to the armed forces under AFSPA.
In June 2001, the police placed 23,000 opposition party leaders and workers, mostly from the DMK party, into preventive detention for 4 days in Tamil Nadu. Police organized the arrests to forestall civil disorder after the arrest of former DMK Chief Minister Karunanidhi on criminal conspiracy charges. Opposition leaders and human rights activists alleged that the roundup was unprecedented in scale and was intended to intimidate the opposition. The arrests led to the overcrowding of already congested jails. In July 2001, the NHRC asked the Tamil Nadu state government to justify the arrests and explain apparent human rights violations. According to the NGO People's Watch, the state government responded to the inquiry by questioning the validity of the NHRC, and by year's end, the matter had been referred to the Supreme Court.
In 2001 in Madurai Central prison, 3,008 opposition figures joined 1,900 inmates in a facility designed for only 1,200 persons. Some of the opposition leaders taken into preventive detention were released after 4 to 5 days with no charges filed against them.
Human rights groups alleged that between June and August, police detained 30 members of teachers' unions and other activist groups in Warangel and Mahboobnagar on suspicion of PWG membership. Police allegedly tortured some of the detainees and the teachers reportedly were ordered to resign from their jobs.
The Constitution provides that detainees have the right to be informed of the grounds for their arrest, to be represented by counsel, and, unless held under a preventive detention law, to appear before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. At this initial appearance, the accused either must be remanded for further investigation or released. The Supreme Court has upheld these provisions. The accused must be informed of the right to bail at the time of arrest and may, unless held on a nonbailable offense, apply for bail at any time. 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.
A program of prison visits by the ICRC was designed in part to help assure communications between detainees and their families. During the year, the ICRC visited hundreds of detainees in approximately 20 places of detention, including all acknowledged detention centers in Jammu and Kashmir, and also visited Kashmiri detainees elsewhere in the country. However, the ICRC was not authorized to visit interrogation centers or transit centers, nor did it have access to regular detention centers in the northeastern states (see Sections 1.c. and 4). During the year, the ICRC stated that it encountered increasing difficulties in maintaining systematic access to people detained in connection with the situation in Jammu and Kashmir.
The court system was extremely overloaded, resulting in the detention of thousands of persons awaiting trial for periods longer than they would receive if convicted. Prisoners were held for months or even years before obtaining a trial date. According to a report by the Home Affairs, there were 24 million cases pending during the year, and some cases had been pending since 1950. In July the Law Minister told Parliament that more than 500,000 cases were pending for more than one decade. In 1999 the chairman of the NHRC stated that 60 percent of all police arrests were "unnecessary and unjustifiable" and that the incarceration of those wrongly arrested accounted for 43 percent of the total annual expenditure on prisons. The commission found that 90 percent of the 780 inmates that it studied were unconvicted prisoners awaiting completion of trial.
In March 2001, the NHRC reported that it had directed the West Bengal Government to pay $1,044 (RS 50,000) in compensation to the court guardian of a 12-year-old girl who was in the custody of the West Bengal police for nearly a decade because she was the sole witness to her parents' murder. The case against then-Bihar Minister of State for Cooperatives Lalit Yadav, his cousin, and four others still was pending at year's end for the alleged illegal detention and torture of a truck driver and cleaner at the minister's residence.
In 2000 the Government announced that it was allocating $108.15 million (RS 5.03 billion) to state governments for the creation of 1,734 additional courts during 2000-2005 to hear more cases and reduce the number of remand prisoners. At year's end, 706 of these courts had been set up.
There were political detainees reported during the year.
The Government did not use forced exile.
e. Denial of Fair Public Trial
The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary, and the Government generally respected this provision in practice; however, serious problems remained. The judiciary was backlogged and understaffed in most parts of the country, and in Jammu and Kashmir, the judiciary barely functioned due to threats by militants and to frequent refusal by security forces to obey court orders.
Courts of first resort exist at the subdistrict and district levels. More serious cases and appeals are heard in state-level high courts and by the national-level Supreme Court, which also rules on constitutional questions. State governments appoint subdistrict and district judicial magistrates. High court judges are appointed on the recommendation of the federal Law Ministry, with the advice of the Supreme Court, the High Court Chief Justice, and the chief minister of the State, usually from among district judges or lawyers practicing before the same courts. Supreme Court judges are appointed similarly from among High Court judges. The Chief Justice is selected on the basis of seniority. Under a Supreme Court ruling, the Chief Justice, in consultation with his colleagues, has a decisive voice in selecting judicial candidates. The President appoints judges, and they may serve up to the age of 62 on the state high courts and up to the age of 65 on the Supreme Court.
When legal procedures functioned normally, they generally assured a fair trial, but the process often was drawn out and inaccessible to poor persons. The Criminal Procedure Code provides for an open trial in most cases, but it allows exceptions in proceedings involving official secrets, trials in which statements prejudicial to the safety of the State might be made, or under provisions of special security legislation. Sentences must be announced in public. Defendants have the right to choose counsel from attorneys who are fully independent of the Government. There were effective channels for appeal at most levels of the judicial system, and the State provides free legal counsel to the indigent. Defendants are allowed to question witnesses against them, present their own witnesses and evidence, and have access to government evidence held against them.
Muslim personal status law governs many noncriminal matters involving Muslims, including family law, inheritance, and divorce. The Government does not interfere in the personal status laws of the minority communities, and as a result personal status laws that discriminate against women are upheld.
In Jammu and Kashmir, the judicial system barely functioned due to threats by militants against judges, witnesses, and their family members; because of judicial tolerance of the Government's heavy-handed antimilitant actions; and because of the frequent refusal by security forces to obey court orders. Courts in Jammu and Kashmir were reluctant to hear cases involving terrorist crimes and failed to act expeditiously on habeas corpus cases, if they acted at all. There were a few convictions of alleged terrorists in the Jammu High Court during the year; many more accused militants had been in pretrial detention for years.
Criminal gangs in all four southern states were known to attack rivals and scare off complainants and witnesses from court premises, denying free access to justice. In some cases, accused persons were attacked while being escorted by police to the courts.
The U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Independence of the Judiciary was not invited to visit the country during the year.
There were no reports of political prisoners.
f. Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence
The police must obtain warrants for searches and seizures. In a criminal investigation, the police may conduct searches without warrants to avoid undue delay, but they must justify the searches in writing to the nearest magistrate with jurisdiction over the offense. The authorities in Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, and Assam have special powers to search and arrest without a warrant.
The Government Enforcement Directorate (ED), which was mandated to investigate foreign exchange and currency violations, searched, interrogated, and arrested thousands of business and management professionals annually, often without search warrants. However, the ED ultimately convicted very few persons. According to official figures, in 1999, the latest year for which figures are available, there were 387 searches or raids by the ED, resulting in 107 prosecutions and 29 convictions.
The Telegraph Act authorizes the surveillance of communications, including monitoring telephone conversations and intercepting personal mail, in case of public emergency or "in the interest of the public safety or tranquillity." Every state government has used these powers, as has the central Government.
The Information Technology Act includes provisions that grant the police powers to search premises and arrest individuals without a warrant. Under the Act, the maximum sentences for failing to provide information to the Government on request and transmitting "lascivious" material were 1 year and 5 years respectively. The Act also requires Internet cafes to monitor Internet use and inform the authorities (see Section 2.a.). At year's end, one person had been arrested under the Act, but he was released after some confusion about the nature of the alleged offense. NGOs criticized the Act, stating that its provisions were Draconian.
The Government did not restrict citizens' personal appearance; however, in Kashmir and Manipur dress codes were announced. The Kanglei Yawon Kanna Lup in Manipur announced a dress code for the state's women that bans the wearing of saris, salwar kameez, and trousers. The group threatened to punish with death women who violated the code, and it urged women to wear the traditional Phanek and Chador on all occasions but allowed girls to wear salwars as school uniforms. In Kashmir the militant group Lashkar-e-Jabbar ordered Muslim women to dress in burqas, Hindu women to wear bindis, and Sikh women to wear identifying saffron headscarves (see Sections 2.c. and 5).
g. Use of Excessive Force and Violations of Humanitarian Law in Internal Conflicts
Government forces committed numerous serious violations of humanitarian law in the disputed State of Jammu and Kashmir. Between 350,000 and 450,000 army and paramilitary forces were deployed in Jammu and Kashmir, although the Government did not release official figures. The Muslim majority population in the Kashmir Valley suffered from the repressive tactics of the security forces. Under the Jammu and Kashmir Disturbed Areas Act, and the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, security force personnel had extraordinary powers, including authority to shoot suspected lawbreakers and those persons disturbing the peace, and to destroy structures suspected of harboring militants or arms.
The Union Home Ministry was unable to estimate how many civilians were killed in crossfire by security forces in Jammu and Kashmir during the year. The security forces continued to abduct and kill suspected terrorists, but they did not accept accountability for these abuses. Many commanders’ inclination not to participate in such practices led to a reduced number of cases, and as a result government-supported countermilitants often committed these abuses.
According to credible reports, in addition to harassment during searches and arbitrary arrests (see Section 1.d.), security forces abducted and sometimes used civilians as human shields in night patrolling and searching for landmines; the abuses occurred mostly in the Kupwara and Doda districts. Because of Doda's inaccessibility, the abuses there allegedly were underreported.
The continued incursion of Pakistani-backed armed insurgents into territory on the Indian side of the line of control (LOC) in the State of Jammu and Kashmir resulted in an increased counterinsurgency campaign, accompanied by repressive offensive measures. Mortar and small arms fire across the LOC killed an unknown number of civilians during the year. For example, on May 30, 14 persons, including 3 army soldiers and 11 civilians, were killed in overnight artillery shelling and mortar fire. According to a government official, security forces killed 1,471 militants during the year. On January 19, three militants and a soldier were killed in gunfights in Jammu and Kashmir.
Kashmiri militant groups also committed serious abuses, including numerous execution-style mass killings of Hindu (Pandit), Sikh, and Buddhist villagers in Jammu and Kashmir (see Sections 1.a. and 5). Militant groups also killed police officers and members of the security forces. In February militants killed eight Hindus, including six children in the Rajouri district. On May 21, militants shot and killed prominent Hurriyat leader Abdul Ghani Lone during a memorial rally in Srinagar. Between August and October, 44 political workers were killed in Udhanipus, Pulwamma, Srinigar, Kupwara, and Baramulla by militants during the fall election campaign.
In addition to political killings, kidnapings, and rapes of politicians and civilians (see Sections 1.a., 1.b., and 1.c.), insurgents engaged in extortion and carried out acts of random terror that killed hundreds of Kashmiris. Many of the militants were Afghani, Pakistani, and other nationals. The militants used time-delayed explosives, landmines, hand grenades, and snipers. There was a significant upsurge in militant violence against security forces and a tendency to use heavy weapons such as hand grenades and rockets. Militants killed and injured numerous security personnel and destroyed a great deal of security force property; many civilians also were killed. For example, in January militants killed a Muslim family of 11, including 8 children, in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In December a Delhi court found three Kashmiris guilty under the anti-terrorism law of helping militants plan and carry out the 2001 Parliament attack and sentenced them to death (see Section 1.d.).
Extremist and terrorist activities in the northeast also claimed many lives. In addition to ambushes, terrorists increasingly resorted to destroying bridges and laying time bombs on roads, on railway tracks, and in trains. For example, in May the Kuki Revolutionary Army killed 11 Assam Rifles personnel at Lepan area in Manipur. In June the insurgent group United Liberation Front of Asom killed one person in an attack on a police battalion in Bongaigaon in Assam. In April 2001, week-long fighting between 2 Naga insurgent groups left more than 45 persons dead; 4,500 persons were forced to flee 15 villages in Mon district.
During the year, police arrested numerous persons suspected of involvement in previous terrorist attacks and brought charges against some suspects. Charges also were brought against persons accused of involvement with human suicide bomb attacks to advance Sikh separatism, as well as against dozens of captured separatist insurgents in Jammu and Kashmir for bombings, killings, and acts of sabotage.
Landmines were a problem in Jammu and Kashmir and to some extent in Punjab. Landmines, booby traps, and unexploded ordnance posed a problem to resettlement of displaced persons and rebuilding. For example, in January 11 persons were killed in a landmine blast in Gumla district. In June two persons were killed and five injured in a landmine blast in Palamu district, Jharkhand. Militants previously restricted landmine use to army convoys traveling outside of major cities, but during the year they used command-detonated landmines in Srinagar city.
Section 2 Respect for Civil Liberties, Including:
a. Freedom of Speech and Press
The Constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press, and the Government generally respected these rights in practice; however, there were some limitations. A vigorous and growing press reflected a wide variety of political, social, and economic beliefs. Newspapers and magazines regularly published investigative reports and allegations of government wrongdoing, and the press generally promoted human rights and criticized perceived government lapses.
Under the Official Secrets Act, the Government may restrict publication of sensitive stories or suppress criticism of its politics. For example, on June 9, Syed Iftikhar Gilani, the New Delhi bureau chief of the Kashmir Times, was imprisoned for allegedly possessing classified documents in violation of this act. Gilani alleged that the only evidence the Government presented to substantiate this charge was a 1995 public document that referred to human rights abuses committed by Indian security forces in Kashmir. At year's end, Gilani remained in detention.
In December Parliament passed a Right to Information law; at year's end, this bill was pending the President's approval. This act allows citizens to request and receive documents from the Government that are considered to be in the public domain.
In the print media, all publications were privately owned. In the electronic media, 80 percent of the channels were privately owned, and 20 percent were operated by Doordarshan, a semi-autonomous body controlled by the Government. Both wire services were semi-autonomous.
The Newspapers Incitements to Offenses Act remained in effect in Jammu and Kashmir. Under the Act, a district magistrate may prohibit the press from publishing material likely to incite murder or any act of violence. As punishment the Act stipulates that the authorities may seize newspaper premises and printing presses. Despite these restrictions, newspapers in Srinagar, the capital of Jammu and Kashmir, reported in detail on alleged human rights abuses by the Government and regularly published press releases of Islamic separatist Kashmiri groups. The authorities generally allowed foreign journalists to travel freely in Jammu and Kashmir, where they regularly spoke with separatist leaders and filed reports on government abuses.
In Assam the state government attempted to impede criticism by filing a number of criminal defamation charges against journalists.
The Press Council is a statutory body of journalists, publishers, academics, and politicians, with a chairman appointed by the Government. Designed to be a self-regulating mechanism for the press, it investigates complaints of irresponsible journalism and sets a code of conduct for publishers. This code includes a commitment not to publish articles or details that might incite caste or communal violence. The Council publicly criticized newspapers or journalists it believed had broken the code of conduct, but its findings, while noted by the press community, carried no legal weight.
At the state level, regional political parties have the ability to influence regional media. The Indian Express, an independent newspaper, was unable to get advertising from the state government after its reporting on the Gujarat violence. In addition, a number of journalists who worked for English newspapers and the electronic media, who had criticized the Modi government and its political supporters, reportedly were subjected to "strong-arm" tactics by VHP and Bajrang Dal activists. These alleged "strong-arm" tactics included anonymous threatening phone calls and a "whispering campaign."
Authorities occasionally beat, detained, and harassed journalists, particularly in Jammu and Kashmir, which resulted in significant self-censorship. For example, on April 7, the police used excessive force against more than 20 reporters and photographers in Ahmedabad at the Gandhi Ashram. The journalists were covering two peace demonstrations that were disrupted by members of the youth section of the BJP. On April 8, an official communiqué stated that a commission of inquiry was being set up and would be chaired by a retired judge of the High Court and the Commission was to issue a report 3 weeks after the incident; however, at year's end, no report had been filed or made public. In May members of the BSF assaulted 17 journalists. In August, an editor and three employees of the weekly Chattan were beaten in their offices by members of the security forces. In June Alex Perry, the bureau chief for a magazine, was detained and questioned for several hours concerning alleged irregularities with his passport. His detention followed the publication of a June 19 article critical of the Prime Minister. On November 19, Farooq Javed Khan, photographer for the Hindustan Times and Kashmir Images was beaten by police officers as he walked home from his office in Srinigar. At year's end, the police had not investigated these incidents.
In September government employees beat several journalists in Assam, three of whom required hospitalization. At year's end, a departmental inquiry was conducted and the government suspended several state employees.
In some instances, allegations of violence against journalists were made against state governments. No action reportedly was taken against the town magistrate who used excessive force against journalist Parag Saikia in July 2000.
In Calcutta the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI (M)) often threatened journalists; however, as the power of the party diminished, journalists criticized the Government more frequently.
Nonviolent pressure on journalists comes from official sources as well: Kumar Badal, journalist of the vernacular daily newspaper Naharolgi Thoudang was arrested in 2000 on charges of indulging in antinational activities. He was released after a court ruled that the allegation was baseless. Some newspapers received more than $1.29 million (RS 60 million) annually in advertising revenue from the state government. The threat of losing this revenue contributed to self-censorship by smaller media outlets, which heavily relied on government advertising.
There were no developments in the investigation of the attack by BSF in 2001 that left 11 persons dead, 8 of them civilians, and 3 journalists hospitalized. There were no developments in the 2001 case of Aajir Asam.
During the year, the government of Tamil Nadu and the Press Council of India completed an investigation into the 2001 case of police charging 12 members of the press and injuring them during a DMK rally; however, the commission's report was not released to the public. On February 5, Suresh, a Sun Television reporter was granted bail. He was arrested on in June 2001.
The Government maintains a list of banned books that may not be imported or sold in the country; some--such as Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses"--because they contain material government censors have deemed inflammatory.
Intimidation by militant groups caused significant self-censorship by journalists. The local press continued to face pressure from militant groups attempting to influence coverage. For example, militants fired rockets at the All India Radio Station and the Doordashan complex in Srinigar in November. No one was injured in these incidents.
On April 14, unknown assailants killed Paritosh Pandey, a crime reporter of the Jansatta Express in Lucknow. Many observers believed that Pandey's death was in response to his reporting of criminal gangs. On April 15, dozens of journalists staged a demonstration to complain that police were slow to respond to news of Pandey's murder. During this demonstration, a security official hit a reporter with a rifle butt and caused serious injuries (see Section 2.b.). The police had not arrested anyone in connection with the killing by year's end.
On May 29, unknown assailants shot Zafar Iqbal, a reporter for the Kashmir Images in Srinagar. Local journalists believed Igbal may have been targeted because the publication is known for supporting the Government. The police had not arrested anyone in connection with the killing by year's end.
During the year, as in 2001, 2000, and 1999, Kashmiri militant groups threatened journalists and editors and even imposed temporary bans on some publications that were critical of their activities.
The trial continued in the 2000 killing of V. Selvaraj, a journalist with the biweekly Nakkeeran.
Television no longer was a government monopoly, but this was due more to technological changes than to government policy. Private satellite television was distributed widely by cable or satellite dish in throughout the country. These channels provided substantial competition for DDTV, the national broadcaster, in both presentation and credibility. DDTV frequently was accused of manipulating the news for the benefit of the Government; however, cable operators were not free from criticism. In some parts of the country, to varying degrees, satellite channel owners used their medium to promote the platforms of the political parties that they supported.
In March police sealed the offices of a local news television channel, and four media persons were arrested in Vadodara. The police claimed that the television channels were "fueling divisive feelings among the populace, and causing communal disharmony under the provisions of the Penal Code." The four media persons were released on bail, and the police reopened the offices later that evening. The owner of the television channel said that the authorities seized his offices in retaliation for his expose of police inaction during the riots in Gujarat.
Government measures to control objectionable content on satellite channel --specifically, tobacco and alcohol advertisements -- still were in effect, which held cable distributors liable under civil law. The (often foreign) satellite broadcasters, rather than the domestic cable operators, fall within the scope of the regulation.
AM radio broadcasting remained a government monopoly. Private FM radio station ownership was legalized during 2000, but licenses only authorized entertainment and educational content. Licenses did not permit independent news broadcasting.
A government censorship board reviewed films before licensing them for distribution. The board censored material it deemed offensive to public morals or communal sentiment. This led to self-censorship among producers, who often avoided subjects perceived as critical of the Government. Producers of video newsmagazines that appeared on national television were required to submit their programs to DDTV, which occasionally censored stories that portrayed the Government in an unfavorable light.
The Government limited access to the Internet. The Informational Technology Act provides for censoring information on the Internet on public morality grounds, and it considers "unauthorized access to electronic information" a crime. According to Reporters Without Borders, this law allows police officers to search the homes or offices of Internet users, at any time and without a warrant. On July 4, Kumar Badal, a reporter with the on line newspaper Tehelka.com, was arrested and charged with asking poachers to kill wild animals in a national park. In June the CBI searched the head office of Tehelka.com and the home of a Tehelka.com employee hours before the site's editor in chief was to give testimony about a corruption scandal that led to the resignations of Defense Minister and the president of the Hindu nationalist party. Anyone running an "anti-Indian" site risked up to 5 years in prison.
The Government did not restrict academic freedom, and students and faculty espoused a wide range of views. In addition to approximately 16 national universities and 259 state universities, states were empowered to accredit locally run private institutions.
b. Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association
The Constitution provides for the right of peaceful assembly, and the Government generally respected this right in practice. The authorities sometimes required permits and notification prior to holding parades or demonstrations, but local governments ordinarily respected the right to protest peacefully, except in Jammu and Kashmir, where separatist parties routinely were denied permits for public gatherings. During periods of civil tension, the authorities may ban public assemblies or impose a curfew under the Criminal Procedure Code.
Parts of Srinagar and other parts of Jammu and Kashmir occasionally came under curfew, but more often were affected by strikes called by separatists. From November until year's end, the country's independent election authorities banned all religious processions in Gujarat. The ruling came in response to a demonstration planned by the hardline Hindu group, VHP. The commission said that the VHP march should not be allowed to go ahead because there was a likelihood that "provocative and intemperate" speeches being made during the procession. In response, the Gujarat VHP attempted to organize a procession from Ahmedabad to Godhra in contravention of the Election Commission guidelines. The Gujarat police prevented the procession and arrested the leaders; however, later that day they were released.
In January police fired upon a demonstration in Bihar, and 2 students were killed and 10 were injured. The students were protesting a hike in university fees; however, the Government alleged that police fired only after stones were hurled at them. For example, in May members of the BSF fired on demonstrators in Safakadal to protest the BSF beating of a Muslim clergyman who used a loudspeaker in a mosque. The shooting killed one person and injured numerous others. In June one laborer was killed, and five were injured when police opened fire on protesters at a tea plantation in West Bengal. Police claimed that the laborers attacked representatives from a property company who tried to take back the land. On August 29, several persons, including the CPI state council members were injured when police charged CPI activists who were demonstrating against the Government's increase in power rates. On September 20, several persons were injured when police fired on a group of persons distributing pamphlets outside Srinagar's largest mosque.
There were no reports of any action taken against the responsible members of the police who fired into a crowd of villagers in 2001. The army apologized for the incident and promised an official inquiry; however, no security force members have been charged in the incident. No action reportedly was taken against members of the police who used excessive force to disperse demonstrations on the following dates of 2001: August 6; June 18; August 12; and the November riot in Guwahati, Assam. Reportedly no action was taken against the members of the SOG who used excessive force to disperse demonstrations in the April 2000 killing of eight persons in Jammu and Kashmir.
The Constitution provides for the right to form associations, and the Government generally respected this right in practice.
A requirement exists that NGOs secure the prior approval of the Ministry of Home Affairs before organizing international conferences. Human rights groups contended that the requirement provides the Government with substantial political control over the work of NGOs and their freedom of assembly and association. Some NGOs alleged that some of their members were denied visas to enter the country.
c. Freedom of Religion
The Constitution provides for secular government and the protection of religious freedom, and the central Government generally respected these provisions in practice; however, it sometimes did not act effectively to counter societal attacks against religious minorities and attempts by state and local governments to limit religious freedom. This failure resulted in part from the legal constraints inherent in the country’s federal structure and in part from the law enforcement and justice systems, which at times were ineffective. The ineffective investigation and prosecution of attacks on religious minorities was interpreted by some extremist elements as a signal that such violence likely would go unpunished. Tension between Muslims and Hindus, and to an increasing extent between Hindus and Christians, continued to pose a challenge to the secular foundation of the State.
Although the law provides for religious freedom, enforcement of the law was poor, particularly at the state and local levels, where the failure to deal adequately with intragroup and intergroup conflict and with local disturbances abridged the right to religious freedom. There was significant Hindu-Muslim violence during the year. In many cases, the Government response was inadequate, consisting largely of statements criticizing the violence against Muslims, with few efforts to hold accountable those persons responsible or to prevent such incidents from occurring (see Section 5). For example, in September Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi allegedly made disrespectful remarks about Muslims in an election rally speech. In the speech, Modi allegedly blamed Muslims living in refugee camps for the state's population boom, although he denied insulting Muslims. Throughout the year, the Government generally described the violence and attacks as a series of isolated local events.
The leading party in the government coalition is the BJP, a Hindu nationalist political party with links to Hindu extremist groups that were implicated in violent acts against Christians and Muslims. The BJP also leads state governments in Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, and Goa. Many BJP leaders and party workers were members of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) and share some of its ideology. The RSS espouses a return to Hindu values and cultural norms. However, the BJP is an independent political party, and the degree of RSS influence over its policy making was not clear. Members of the BJP, the RSS, and other affiliated organizations were implicated in incidents of violence and discrimination against Christians and Muslims. The BJP and RSS officially express respect and tolerance for other religions; however, the RSS in particular opposes conversions from Hinduism and believes that all citizens should adhere to Hindu cultural values. The BJP officially agrees that the caste system should be eliminated, but many of its members are ambivalent about this. The BJP's traditional cultural agenda includes calls for construction of a new Hindu temple to replace an ancient Hindu temple that was believed to have stood on the site of a mosque in Ayodhya that a Hindu mob destroyed in 1992; for the repeal of Article 370 of the Constitution, which grants special rights to the state of Jammu and Kashmir, the country's only Muslim majority state; and for the enactment of a uniform civil code that would apply to members of all religions.
No registration is required for religions. Legally mandated benefits are assigned to certain groups, including some groups defined by their religion. For example, some states reserve jobs and educational enrollment slots for Muslims, who do not benefit from reservations designed to help lower-caste Hindus.
In May 2001, the Government banned Deendar Anjuman, a Muslim group whose members were arrested in connection with a series of church bombings in Karnataka in 2000. The Government banned the group for "fomenting communal tension" and actions "prejudicial to India's security." During the year, the Government arrested, and tried 20 members of Deendar Anjuman implicated in the Karnataka church bombing.
The Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act makes it a criminal offense to use any religious site for political purposes or to use temples for harboring persons accused or convicted of crimes. While specifically designed to deal with Sikh places of worship in Punjab, the law applies to all religious sites. The Religious Buildings and Places Act requires a state government-endorsed permit before construction of any religious building may commence in the state. The Act's supporters claimed that its aim was to curb the use of Muslim institutions by Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups, but the measure became a controversial political issue among religious groups in the northern part of the country. In West Bengal, legislation in force requires any person desiring to construct a place of worship to obtain permission from the district magistrate.
On March 13, the Supreme Court ruled that Hindu activists could not perform a March 15 religious ceremony on the land surrounding the site of the demolished mosque in Ayodhya. Thousands of police and paramilitary troops were deployed in and around Ayodhya, and most Hindu militants were stopped from entering the town.
On October 31, the controversial Prohibition of Forcible Conversion of Religion Bill that bans "forced" religious conversions, passed in the State of Tamil Nadu. Human rights advocates believed that the law made it more difficult for poor persons, mistreated minorities, and others ostracized under the caste system, to convert from Hinduism to another religion.
There is no national law that bars proselytizing by Christian citizens. Foreign missionaries generally may renew their visas, but the Government refused to admit new resident foreign missionaries. New arrivals entered as tourists on short-term visas. During the year, state officials continued to refuse to issue permits for foreign Christian missionaries, as well as other persons, to enter some northeastern states, on the grounds of political instability in the region. Missionaries and religious organizations must comply with the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), which restricts funding from abroad and, therefore, the ability of certain groups to finance their activities. The Government was empowered to ban a religious organization if it has violated the FCRA, has provoked intercommunity friction, or has been involved in terrorism or sedition.
The legal system accommodated minority religions' personal status laws; there were different personal laws for different religious communities. Religion-specific laws pertain in matters of marriage, divorce, adoption, and inheritance. For example, Muslim personal status law governed many noncriminal matters involving Muslims, including family law, inheritance, and divorce. The personal status laws of the religious communities sometimes discriminated against women (see Section 5).
Tensions between Muslims and Hindus, and between Hindus and Christians, continued during the year. Attacks on religious minorities occurred in several states, which brought into question the Government's ability to prevent sectarian and religious violence. The worst religious violence during the year was directed against Muslims by Hindus in Gujarat. It was alleged widely that the police and state government in Gujarat did little to stop the violence promptly and at times even encouraged or assisted the Hindu fundamentalists in perpetrating violent acts (see Section 5).
In February after an attack by Muslims on a train in Godhra that resulted in the deaths of 58 Hindus, an estimated 2,000 Muslims were killed in rioting in Gujarat. Beginning on February 28, Hindus attacked and looted Muslim homes, business, and places of worship. The rioting continued from March to mid-May. NGOs reported that police were implicated directly in many of the attacks against Muslims in Gujarat, and in some cases, NGOs contended, police officials encouraged the mob. The Gujarat state government and the police were criticized for failing to stop the violence and in some cases for participating in or encouraging it. Muslim women and girls were raped, and an estimated 850 to 2,000 Muslims were killed. Human rights activists reported that the Gujarat police received specific instructions not to take action to prevent a possible violent reaction to the February 27 attack by Muslims on a train in Godhra carrying Hindus. These observers asserted that Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi personally told Ahmedabad police officials on February 27 to allow Hindus 2 days to react "peacefully" to the Godhra incident. The police reportedly told Muslim victims, "we don't have orders to help you." It was reported that assailants frequently chanted "the police are with us," according to eyewitness accounts. HRW reported that much of the violence was planned well in advance of the Godhra attack and was carried out with state approval and orchestration.
According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), the worst violence occurred in the city of Ahmedabad. HRW reported that, "Between February 28 and March 2 the attackers descended with militia-like precision on Ahmedabad by the thousands, arriving in trucks, clad in saffron scarves, and khaki shorts, the signature uniform of Hindu nationalist groups. Chanting slogans of incitement to kill, they came armed with swords, trishuls, sophisticated explosives and gas cylinders. They were guided by computer printouts listing the addresses of Muslim families and their properties…and embarked on a murderous rampage confident that the police was with them. In many cases, the police led the charge, using gunfire to kill Muslims who got in the mob's way." In addition, there were reports that "most bodies that had arrived…were burned and butchered beyond recognition. Many were missing body parts - arms, legs, and even heads. The elderly and the handicapped were not spared. In some cases, pregnant women had their bellies cut open and their fetuses pulled out and hacked or burned before the women were killed."
On March 24, a report that the government of Gujarat transferred police officials who allegedly had taken action against Hindu rioters drew further media and NHRC criticism of perceived government partisanship. In its final report on Gujarat, released on June 1, the NHRC held the Gujarat government responsible for the riots and accused it of "a complicity that was tacit if not explicit." The report concluded that "there is no doubt, in the opinion of this Commission, that there was a comprehensive failure on the part of the state government to control the persistent violation of rights of life, liberty, equality, and dignity of the people of the state." The report recommended a CBI inquiry into the communal riots, which the state government subsequently refused to allow.
The destruction caused the forcible displacement of more than 100,000 Muslims into makeshift camps throughout Gujarat. The Government disbanded the camps by mid-June.
Some Christian groups also claimed that BJP officials at state and local levels became increasingly uncooperative. The Government also has been criticized for not attempting to restrain the country’s radical Hindu groups.
Christian leaders noted a slight decrease in the incidents of violence against their community and also a change in the type of incidents; however, attacks against Christians continued. On February 17, a church in Karnataka was attacked during morning mass. According to HRW, 70 men, draped in the Hindu nationalist signature saffron flags, descended on the church and hurled bricks and stones at the congregation.
On April 29, a church in Orissa was attacked and set on fire with 20 worshippers inside. No injuries were reported. A spokesman for the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India said that fewer physical attacks occurred against Christians; however, Hindu nationalists began an ideological campaign to limit access to Christian institutions and discourage or, in some cases, prohibit conversions to Christianity. For example, on July 18, Sister Brishi Ekka was sentenced to 6 months in jail by a court in Chhattisgarh for not reporting the 1996 conversion of 95 families to Christianity. This was the first conviction under the state's anti-conversion law, which has been in force since the 1970s. Sister Ekka appealed the decision in the Chhattisgarh High Court and later was released on bail. The Government found that 80 percent of attacks on minorities were motivated by local incidents, economic arguments, or intradenominational feuds. In August a new cable television station, promoting Catholic values, was launched in Kerala; however, several cable television station operators in Kerala and the neighboring states reportedly refused to make the stations' programing available to viewers. In November 2001, newspapers reported that Muslim terrorist groups, including Al-Qaida, targeted the Missionaries of Charity in Calcutta. Press reports stated that extremist groups targeted the nuns because they received economic aid from the United States to convert Muslims to Christianity. The fear of conversion of Hindus and Muslims by Christians was highlighted in an August 15 statement by Prime Minister Vajpayee. He stated "There is a conversion motive behind the welfare activities being carried out by some Christian missionaries in the country's backward areas, and it is not proper, although conversion is permissible under the law."
In May 2001, a Christian priest, Father Jaideep, was attacked in Jatni town, Orissa. Local citizens, who were enraged by the priest’s distribution of pamphlets to propagate Christianity in a Hindu-dominated area, allegedly participated in the attack.
Citizens often referred to schools, hospitals, and other institutions as "missionary" even when they were owned and run entirely by indigenous Christian citizens. By using the adjective "missionary," the RSS tapped into a longstanding fear of foreign religious domination.
By year's end, the trial continued in Orissa of Dara Singh, a member of the Hindu extremist Bajrang Dal, who was arrested in 2000 for the Staines' murders.
In Christian majority areas, Christians sometimes were the oppressors. In Tripura there were several cases of harassment of non-Christians by Christian members of the National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT), a militant tribal group with an evangelical bent. For example, NLFT tribal insurgents have prohibited Hindu and Muslim festivals in areas that they control, cautioned women not to wear traditional Hindu tribal attire, and prohibited indigenous forms of worship. In Assam, the issue of Bangladeshi migrants (who generally were Muslim) has become very sensitive among the Assamese (predominantly Hindu) population, which considers itself increasingly to be outnumbered.
Hindus have been victims of violence. For example, on September 24, an attack on the Swaminarayan Hindu Temple in Gujarat left 40 persons dead before security forces stormed the temple. The Government responded swiftly by deploying approximately 3,000 army personnel to dispel a strike and protest march called by the VHP to protest the attack. Critics of the Government noted that had the Government acted quickly following the Gujarat violence, many deaths could have been prevented.
Throughout the year, pan-Islamic militants continued to try to drive all non-Muslims out of Kashmir. In August militants unlawfully entered a house in Jammu and killed four members of a Hindu family. There was no reported progress regarding any investigation of the 2001 killing of six Sikhs in Srinagar. These mass killings in Kashmir, targeted against the Sikh community, increased fears that the remainder of Kashmir’s minorities may try or be forced to leave. There was an exodus of many from the Sikh community, particularly the young, during 2001.
There was no reported progress regarding any investigation of the March 2000 killings of 35 Sikh men in the village of Chatti Singhpora, near Anantnag in south Kashmir.
The degree to which the BJP's nationalist Hindu agenda was felt throughout the country with respect to religious minorities varied depending on the region. In some states, governments made efforts to reaffirm their commitment to secularism. In others, mainly in the south, religious groups alleged that since the BJP’s rise to power in the national Government, some government bureaucrats began to enforce laws selectively to the detriment of religious minorities. For example, this revivalist campaign included the "Hinduization" of education, including the revision of history books to include hate propaganda against Islamic and Christian communities. The situation in the east varied. For example, the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act contains a provision requiring a monthly government report on the number of conversions and requiring a police inquiry into conversions, but this provision was not enforced.
For a more detailed discussion see the 2002 International Religious Freedom Report.
d. Freedom of Movement Within the Country, Foreign Travel, Emigration, and Repatriation
The Constitution grants citizens the freedom of movement, and the Government generally respected this in practice; citizens enjoyed freedom of movement within the country except in certain border areas where, for security reasons, special permits were required.
Vehicle checkpoints, at which BSF routinely searched and questioned occupants, were a common feature throughout most of Jammu and Kashmir. It also was common for police to block entry and exit points in preparation for gathering young males for police lineups. These searches tended to focus on troubled areas, as opposed to the mass searches that were common in the past. According to a credible source, such search operations seldom yielded any results. There were frequent curfews in areas of conflict, including in New Delhi in recent years.
Under the Passports Act, the Government may deny a passport to any applicant who "may or is likely to engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India." The Government used this provision to prohibit the foreign travel of some government critics, especially those advocating Sikh independence and members of the violent separatist movement in Jammu and Kashmir. For example, in November the Government denied Yasin Malik, a Kashmiri separatist, a passport to travel outside the county.
During the year, there were reports that Bodo-Santhal ethnic clashes continued. In April NDFB militants killed five Adivasis in Hatiphuli Relief Camp in Kokrajhar. In July suspected NDFB militants killed nine Adivasis in a village relief camp in the same district. In December four Santhal woodcutters were killed by Bodo militants. More than 87,000 persons lived under poor conditions in relief camps in Assam's Kokrajhar, Gosaigaon, and adjoining districts as a result of the ongoing violence between Bodos and Santhals.
The incursions of Pakistani-backed armed forces into territory on the Indian side of the LOC in Jammu and Kashmir and the Indian military campaign to repel the intrusion continued during the year and allegedly forced many residents of Jammu and Kashmir from their homes, a number of whom took refuge on the Pakistani side of the LOC. Many homes were destroyed. In 2000 Jammu and Kashmir home minister Mustaq Ahmad Lone told the state assembly that 43,510 persons remained displaced since 1999 (see Sections 1.a., 1.c., and 1.g.).
Since 1990 more than 235,000 Bangladeshis have been deported, many from Maharashtra and West Bengal. The occasional deportation of Bangladeshis judged to have entered the country illegally continued during the year, but there was no repetition of the systematic roundup of Bangladeshis for mass deportation that had been conducted by the Maharashtra government in the past. The Government estimated that there were 10 million Bangladeshis living illegally in the country. By year's end, the Illegal Migrants Determination by Tribunal law (IMDT), which largely was aimed at illegal Bangladeshi immigrants, had not been implemented. The central Government acknowledged that the law was aimed at Bangladeshis, but claimed that it was unable to repeal the act due to a lack of consensus in Parliament.
The law does not provide for the granting of asylum or refugee status in accordance with the 1951 U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. The Government has not formulated a policy regarding refugees, asylees, or first asylum. The office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had no formal status, but the Government permitted the UNHCR to assist certain groups of refugees (notably Afghans, Iranians, Somalis, Burmese, and Sudanese). The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees visited the country in May.
The Government provided first asylum to some refugees, most notably in recent years to Tibetan and Sri Lankan Tamil refugees. However, this policy was applied inconsistently. For example, the insistence of some border authorities on the presentation of passport and visas by those claiming refugee status occasionally resulted in individuals or groups being refused admittance. This occurred in recent years in cases involving Chin and Rakhine refugees from Burma and Afghans who entered the country through Pakistan. The UNHCR reported that the country continued to host a large urban refugee population, roughly 90 percent of whom were from Afghanistan. Refugees were not required to make claims in other countries. In April the UNHCR announced that it would help Burmese refugees be self-sufficient and end their monthly subsistence allowances. However, the UNHCR continued to assist extremely needy refugees including women and children.
The Government recognized certain groups, including Chakmas from Bangladesh, Tamils from Sri Lanka, and Tibetans as refugees and provided them with assistance in refugee camps or in resettlement areas. According to UNHCR and government statistics, there were approximately 110,000 Tibetans, approximately 64,990 Sri Lankan Tamils in 131 camps, and perhaps as many as 80,000 Sri Lankan Tamils outside of the camps living in the country at year’s end. According to the Tamil Nadu government, there were 60,000 refugees residing in 108 refugee camps and as many as 80,000 residing outside the camps. The refugees in the camps were permitted to work, and the state and central governments paid to educate refugee children and provided limited welfare benefits. Some 80,000 Chakma permanent residents remained in Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram; the Supreme Court has upheld their right to citizenship. However, the Supreme Court's order to extend citizenship to this group still was not enforced by year's end. The UNHCR reported that 11,642 Afghans, 857 Burmese, and approximately 350 others were receiving assistance from the UNHCR in the country as of August 2001. The Government also assisted an unknown number of persons from Tibet and Sri Lanka. Although the Government formally did not recognize these persons as refugees, it did not deport them. Instead, they received renewable residence permits, or their status was ignored. Increasingly during the year, some of these groups--Afghans, Iraqis, and Iranians in particular--were not granted renewal of their residence permits by the authorities on the grounds that they were not in possession of valid national passports. Due to financial and other reasons, many refugees were unable or unwilling to obtain or renew their national passports and therefore were unable to regularize their status in the country.
The Tamil Nadu government provided educational facilities to Sri Lankan Tamil refugee children, and the central Government provided some assistance and channeled assistance from NGO and church groups. The central Government generally denied NGOs and the UNHCR direct access to the camps. NGOs reported refugee complaints about deteriorated housing, poor sanitation, delayed assistance payments, and inadequate medical care in the Tamil refugee camps. The Government used some of these "special camp |
