Saturday 29 March 2008

Armed together Against Civil Liberties and Human Rights



Although there is no existence of a single worth-mention indigenous Armed Opposition Group operating in Barak Valley, the southern part of the North Eastern state of Assam in India comprising of Cachar, Karimganj and Hailakandi districts with a population of about four million, it has been notified as ‘disturbed area’ under the infamous Armed Forces (Special Power) Act, 1958. It May not be denied that some members of the AOGs based in neighbouring states of Manipur, Nagaland or other parts of Assam try to use the area as a rest house, however, in most cases in vain mainly due to the fact that people of the area are peace loving and unsympathetic towards violent way of life. 80% of the people depending basically on agriculture are just struggling to survive the odds of weather and fate. They do not nurture any great expectations or exacting demands against the State or God. Are these the reasons why Indira Gandhi dubbed the valley as ‘Island of Peace’?
This ‘island of peace’ has been disturbed now for quite some time as much by the ‘disturbed area’ of the AFSPA as by activities of members of groups believing in Freedom of Assuming Special Powers with Arms. Many a family gets sandwiched between AFSPA and FASPA. This double victimization happens when some members of an AOG in the dead of night come to a house and ask for food, bed and other luxuries at gun points. There is no way out to escape the bullets even in case of hesitance, leave alone the option of denial. In the morning well after they had gone away the state security forces arrive and in the name of search and interrogation they virtually wreak havoc on the lives of the people present in the house. Severe beatings with gun butts and bayonets, destruction of household goods, sexual assault on women and children, humiliation and every other type of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are meted out. State security forces wear shield of legal impunity by virtue of ASFPA and members of AOG are stripped off any legal garb under the FASPA and no law can touch them. How many of such cases constitute a fit case for application of international humanitarian law?
There is a more terrific development in the situation now. A rapport has been developed, of late, between the members of state security forces and members of certain AOGs. They hatched a conspiracy to cut all tongues and fingers which would move in protest or rise to point the fact respectively and started acting to translate it in reality.
Such a collective effort of Assam Police, Central Reserve Police Force and an AOG come into light with death of Jamir Uddin Laskar, 35 years, of village Boincherra (also known as as Bhaicherra) under the Katlicherra Police Station in the district of Hailakandi in Barak Valley of Assam on 22 October, 2007 at about 10am caused by bullet wound fired upon by five CRPF personnel belonging to E-147 company camping at Gharmura, Hailakandi. According to the eye witness account of the incident the deceased was collecting grass for his cattle from a nearby paddy field when the jawans came accompanied by a villager known as CRPF informer who identified the deceased by pointing his finger and the jawans shot several rounds of bullets at him. The report of Barak Human Rights Protection Committee fact-finding team cites two possible causes of this murder: (i) Jamir Uddin’s elder brother was earlier killed by some members of an AOG and since then he was working actively against the AOG and was vocal against the rapport between the CRPF and that AOG and (ii) there was a family feud between the supposed CRPF informer and the deceased.

This is a case of blatant violation of the inviolable right to life recognized in Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which India is a party and has the obligation under Article 2 of that Covenant “to ensure that any person whose rights and freedoms as herein recognized are violated and shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity”. This right is also guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the right to remedies also flows from this Article. Moreover, in Indian ordinary criminal law this act of murder falls squarely under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). These sections of law impose a mandatory duty on the police and magistrate to register a First Information Report of the case and hold inquest and other preliminary inquiry. But the CRPF and Assam Police defying the authority of law and slapping on the face of logic registered an FIR against the deceased in Katlicherra police station.

It is a practice followed by the security forces in independent India established by the British police to suppress the freedom movement that if a person is in the hit-list simply go to his home, call him and shoot him to death. Thereafter file an FIR charging the deceased of attempt to murder under section 307 of the IPC and put on record that he was died in an encounter in your exercise of power either conferred by section 100 of the IPC which gives the right to self defence or 46(3) of the CrPC which empowers police to use force necessary to effect an arrest. The question whether the practice has any legality in it came for consideration before National Human Rights Commission in Case No. 234 (6)/93-94. The observation of the Commission deserves to be quoted in extenso: “Section 154 CrPC provides that if information is given orally relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, the officer-in-charge of the Police Station shall reduce it into writing. Section 156 speaks of power of Police officers to investigate cognizable cases. Section 157 provides that if a cognizable offence is suspected from the information received or from other sources, the officer-in-charge of the Police Station shall forthwith send a report of the same to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence and he shall proceed to take up investigation of the case. Section 173 requires the investigation to be completed with expedition and as soon as it is completed to forward the investigation report to the concerned Magistrate. The investigation must be directed to find out if and what offence is committed and as to who are the offenders. If, upon completion of the investigation, it appears to the officer-in-charge of the Police Station that there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable ground, he may decide to release the suspected accused, if in custody, on his executing a bond. If, however, it appears to him that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground to place the accused on trial, he has to take necessary steps as provided in Section 170 of the Code. In either case, on completion of the investigation, he has to submit a report to the Magistrate. The report of investigation in such cases should be examined thoroughly by the Magistrate so that complete application of the judicial mind is available to ensure just investigation and upright conclusion. The Magistrate, on consideration of the report, may either accept the same or disagree with the conclusions and call for further investigation as provided in Section 173 (8) of the Code. If the Magistrate accepts the report, he can take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 of the Code.

“Section 157 (1) requires the officer-in-charge of the police station to apply his mind to the information received and the surrounding circumstances to find out whether there is reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence which he is empowered under Section 156 to investigate. He cannot mechanically accept the information received. When the information received indicates that death was caused in the encounter as a result of the firing by the Police, prima facie the ingredients of Section 299 IPC which defines culpable homicide are satisfied. This is sufficient to suspect that an offence of culpable homicide has been committed. Thus, Section 157 of the Code is attracted calling for investigation. Any plea like causing of the death in the case does not constitute an offence either because it was done in exercise of the right of private defence or in exercise of the powers of arrest conferred by Section 46 of the Code, can be accepted only after investigating into the facts and circumstances. Section 100 of IPC provides that right of private defence of the body extends to the voluntary causing of death if occasion for exercise of the right falls in any one of the six categories enumerated in that Section. Whether the case falls under any one of the six categories, can only be ascertained by proper investigation. Similarly, when Section 46 (3) of the Code is invoked, it has to be ascertained as to whether the death of the deceased occurred when he forcibly resisted the endeavour of the Police to arrest him and whether the deceased was accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Without proper investigation, the Police officer cannot say that the causing of the death in the encounter was not an offence either because it was done in exercise of the right of private defence or was done in legitimate exercise of the power conferred by Sec. 46 of the Code.

“Section 174 of the Code says that when the Police officer in charge of the Police station receives information that a person has been killed by another, he shall make an investigation about the apparent cause of death and submit a report to the District or Sub-Divisional Magistrate and also to take steps to arrange for the autopsy of the body. These provisions indicate that unnatural death has to be taken note of seriously by the Police and required them to find out by investigation the real cause of death. The responsibility is greater when it is the Police that are the cause of unnatural death. There is also a general feeling that most of the encounters are fake. It is, therefore, in public interest that the conduct of the Police involved is subjected to proper scrutiny by investigation. To avoid the possibility of bias, the investigation in such cases should be entrusted to an independent agency like the State CID by a general order of the Government. We are, therefore, of the opinion that when information is received in the Police Station about the causing of the death by the Police officer in an encounter, the officer-in-charge of the Police Station must, after recording that information, draw the inference that there is reason to suspect the commission of an offence and proceed to investigate the same as required by Section 157 of the Code. If such a procedure is not required to be followed, it would give licence to the Police to kill with impunity any citizen in the name of an encounter by just stating that he acted in ‘the right of private defence’ or under Section 46 of the Code. A procedure which brings about such unjust, unfair and unreasonable consequences cannot be countenanced as being within Article 21 of the Constitution.”

There is another more recent case of blatant disregard of law and human rights which, on the other hand, concretely establishes the theory of rapport between security forces and AOGs. On 19 March, 2008 at about 10.30 pm one Gypsy and two 407 truck-ful of CRPF personnel belonging to 147 battalion camping at Kashipur, Cachar along with Mr. S C Nath, an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police posted at Borkhola police station in Cachar, came at Behara Bazar under the jurisdiction of Katigorah police station, Cachar and picked up Mr. Ranjit Roy, Mr. Birbikram Deb and Mr. Raju Kar at gun point.

These three youth are ordinary residents of Behara Bazar and by occupation businessmen with small shops at the bazaar. As usual they were shutting the shutters of their shops after the day's drudgery to go home when they were accosted by the said security forces. The CRPF personnel started to beat them with gun butt and bayonet inflicting intentionally severe pain causing sufferings and hurts on their persons apparently to intimidate them and rob them of their belongings. When at the scream of the victims people started to come out and gather around the scene the CRPF men took them aboard a vehicle and went away.

They went to an adjacent temple named Loknath Mandir at Nilcherra and woke up Mr. Sandipan Chakrabarti and Subir Guha, drivers of the temple, who were asleep there. Here also the CRPF jawans applied their gun butts and bayonets causing more serious injuries to both the said persons with intention to force them to board a vehicle at which Mr. Swapan Bhattacharya, the priest of the temple, protested. Abuses and intimidation were also hurled at him. But on the possibility of waking up nieghbourhood people by this hullabaloo the CRPF personnel left these two victims.

Now they went with the first mentioned three victims not to the Katigorah police station under which jurisdiction they were in action but to the Borkhola police station and tried to persuade Mr. Ajijur Rahman, the Officer in Charge of the police station, to register an FIR against the victims by producing six fresh bullets and claiming that these had been found with the victims. After interrogation Mr. Ajijur Rahman denied to admit the CRPF theory that the victims belonged to any non-state armed organizations as well as to frame them as such. But Mr. Ajijur Rahman himself detained the victims illegally for the whole night instead of making arrangement for their medical treatment. He acted in contravention of strictures of the law of the land and international human rights law, perhaps, as well-known practice of Assam Police suggests, for a few thousand rupees from the victims.


There was an eerie environment of fear and tension everywhere in Barak Valley when the news reached people the next morning. Despite this, some individuals and organizations including Barak Human Rights Protection Committee came into action and contacted senior police officers and the Deputy Commissioner of Cachar. The five victims were sent to the Silchar Medical College and Hospital, Silchar for treatment.

ASI S C Nath stated on 20 March, 2008 at the Office of the Superintendent of Police in the presence of media and social and human rights activists that CRPF personnel themselves had kept the bullets in the pockets of the victims forcibly. Senior CRPF officer S S Bohar made himself present at the SP office a little later and apologized to the people for the incident of the day before. He admitted that CRPF acted wrong information and also promised that there would be an inquiry into the matter. SP, Cachar also promised to take necessary actions in this regard.

On the other hand, Mr. Biswajit Sinha, the OC of Katigorah police station denied to register the complaints filed by the Mr. Ranjit Roy and his two companion victims and by the authority of Nilcherra Loknath Mandir as FIRs. Mr. Ranjit Roy and others alleged in their complaints that Mr Tapan Deb, Mr. Sujit Deb of village Dinanathpur and Mr. Sanjay Mahato of village Chayaranbasti were behind the whole incident. Local people alleged that these three persons are known as CRPF informer as well as members of an AOG having a camp in the area. Mr. Kanailal Bhattacharya, joint secretary of Desh Bondhu Club, was called on his cell number 94353 72029 from +9194356 66043 at 6. 57 pm on 21 March, 2008 and threatened with death apparently for his co-operation with BHRPC fact-finding team. The caller was Tapan Deb and the number from which the call was made is usually used by local chief of the AOG, Mr. Bhattacharya alleged. He also claimed that Mr. Tapan Deb, Mr. Sujit Deb and Mr. Sanjay Mahato have been using the AOG camp as their hideout. Local people also alleged that Mr. Haidar Hussain Laskar, an ASI at Behara Outpost works as an informer of the AOG more than as a police officer on the ground that if he was given any information regarding the trafficking of arms and ammunitions and other illegal activities of the AOG he cautions them instead of taking any actions against them.

In the complaint Mr. Ranjit Roy, Mr. Birbikram Deb and Mr. Raju Kar also alleged that the CRPF personnel took away rupees 2,275.00 (two thousand two hundred and seventy five) only, rupees 6,000.00 (six thousand) only and a wrist watch and rupees 2,320.00 (two thousand three hundred and twenty) only from them respectively at gun point.

The victims and local people alleged that this incident is only a spoke in the larger ring of the conspiracy between the men holding arms, legitimately or illegitimately, against the civilians to extort and exploit them and to ensure permanence of this terror regime by setting example of the persons who might dare to protest. Efforts of fabricating evidence by keeping bullets in the pockets of the victims and producing them at the police station and of efforts of framing them at least under section 122 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 intending to procure their conviction under that section attract section 195 of the IPC which is a non-cognizable offence. The CRPF personnel attempted to institute a criminal proceeding on the false charge of collecting arms with intention of waging war against the government of India. This attempt also amounts to a non-cognizable offence as per law laid down in section 211 read with sections 511 and 195 of the IPC. The threatening phone call to Mr. Kanailal Bhattacharya reinforces the conspiracy theory of the local people and sections 120B and 34 of the IPC come into play.

Fist of the many offences committed by CRPF and AP personnel that day is the criminal trespass fitting squarely under section 447 of the IPC. If they were to arrest the victims on a reasonable suspicion they should have procured warrant and informed the concerned police station and made themselves accompanied by a responsible officer of that police station and a respectable local citizen. They did nothing of the sorts. So they entered the property of the victims with criminal intention.

Further, they picked up the victims at gun points committing contempt of law of the arrest as established by international human right treaties and customary laws, the Constitution of India, the CrPC, 1973 and the mandatory requirements issued by the Supreme Court of India and Guidelines regarding arrest issued by the National Human Rights Commission. Their beatings by bayonets and gun butts causing acute pain and serious injuries to the victims not only violate UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials but also come under section 325 of IPC at the least. This act of violence by security forces also fits in the definition of torture given in Article 1 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to which India is a signatory. Such torture is also prohibited by Article 7 and 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which India is a party. Torture also violates right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution as held by the Supreme Court in numerous judgments.

The act of dacoity alleged in the complaints of the victims is a serious crime falling under section 395 which is cognizable, non-bailable and punishable with imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for10 years or fine. Illegal detention of the victims at Borkhola police station by the OC also constitutes the offence of wrongful confinement under section 344 of the IPC.

So there appears a prima facie case against ASI S C Nath, CRPF personnel taking part in the 'operation' and supposed CRPF informers under sections 120B, 34, 447, 193, 325, 395, 506, 342 and 211 read with 511,155 of the IPC. Many of the offences are serious and cognizable.

Section 154 of the CrPC imposes a duty on an officer in charge of a police station to register the complaint in a proper form if he gets information regarding commission of a cognizable offence. The OC, Katigorah P.S. failed to perform intentionally this statutory mandate by denying to register the complaints of the victims. This, in turn, attracts section 166 of the IPC which lays down offence of disobeying law by public servant with intent to cause injury to any person.

This is a practice on the part of the security forces to maintain a de fecto regime of impunity for their delinquent colleagues. Impunity encourages repetition of the crimes and violations of human rights. So no violation is to be let to go unattended. Wherever there is a violation of a right there accrues a new right to remedies. Indeed the right to remedies is the most important human right. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides this right in Article 2. The UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment contains it in Article 14. The Constitution of India guaranteed the right to remedies in Articles 226 and 32 under which the Supreme Court and High Courts of India held that this right is also implicit in Article 21. Right to remedies include (a) access to justice consisting of impartial investigation of the complaint and prosecution and conviction of those found guilty in a fair trial, (b) reparation for harm suffered and (c) right to know the truth about the violations.

In which way the people should go for enforcement of their rights and exercise of liberties? The Gandhi way or the Mao way? 6 years of fast unto death of Irom Sharmila is not a very inspiring case in all respect. But it is always good to strive for apparent impossible and unattainable.

Sunday 23 March 2008

BARAK HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION COMMITTEE

BARAK HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION COMMITTEE
SadarghatRoad, Silchar-788001, Assam, India. Email: bhrpcsilchar@yahoo.co.in
(A Human Rights Organisation registered vide No. RS/CA/3/61 of 2002-03 dated 1st October 2002)


Introduction:

Where there are human beings there are human rights. Human rights came in this world with the coming of the first group of human beings and will exist until the last group of human beings is not eliminated. These rights inhere in every human being by virtue of the only fact that he or she is a human being. Human rights are inalienable, inviolable and indivisible. Though they may not have been recognized technically as such by certain groups, or in certain times of history, or in some places the position of these rights remain all the same. The normative superiority of human rights can not be lowered by non-recognition or non-adherence. On the other hand, history shows that these rights were known to all peoples in all periods but in different names and forms such as natural rights, civil liberties or rights, rights of men etc. The term “human rights” is used for the first time in the Charter of United Nations in 1945. The present day concept of human rights can be described as those absolute rights which inhere equally in every human being by virtue of the fact that he or she is a human being and which are sine qua non for maintaining his or her inherent human dignity and worth and for developing his or her inherent faculty and personality. Human rights are both end unto themselves and means to establish and maintain peace and happiness in the world. As human civilization is ever changing so the concept of human rights is dynamic. Enumeration of human rights varies from time to time keeping pace with civilization.

Appalled by the gruesome devastation of the Second World War (1942-1946) and pressed by the International Human Rights Movement United Nations’ Genral Assembly proclaimed a Universal Declaration of Human Rights setting “a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations” based upon which an International Human Rights Structure has evolved.

Members of international community have bound themselves for protection and promotion of human rights and prevention of their violations in a number of treaties and other instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966; the two Optional Protocols to the former; the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discriminations, 1965; the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discriminations Against Women, 1979; the United Nations Convention Against Torture, or Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984; the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Child, 1989 and many other such instruments. India is also the party to a number of such important treaties.

Fundamental human rights are also guaranteed in the Constitution of India and the Supreme Court and High Courts are made the custodians of these rights. There are other laws and mechanisms in India guaranteeing human rights enacted and constituted to fulfill its obligations under international law and treaties. One such legislation is the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, which encourages explicitly under section 12(i) the efforts of Non-Governmental Organisations in the field of human rights. Barak Human Rights Protection Committee (BHRPC) is such a non-profit organization.

The Context:

In Article 3 of the constitution of BHRPC the area of operation is defined as “basically entire Barak Valley and if necessary beyond this area”. Barak Valley is the part of the globe which is located in southern part of the state of Assam in India where about four million people live mainly on agriculture. Almost 80% people of Barak Valley belong to Bengali speaking Hindu and Muslim communities and others are Manipuri Meitei and Bishnupriya, Jharkhandi (Sadani speaking) Hindi speaking people, Dimasa, Khasi-Pnar, Hmar, Riang etc. while Assam, or for that matter the entire North East India is populated by nearly 70 ethnic groups.

The land now known as Barak Valley was in part an independent kingdom known as Cachar before the British annexed it to the empire in 1832 and the rest was a part of Sylhet district of Bengal. The districts of Cachar and Sylhet along with Goalpara were appended to Assam in 1874. At the time of partition in 1947, following the referendum as to the question of joining India or Pakistan held in Sylhet, as per recommendations of the Radcliff Commission the area covering the jurisdiction of three police stations and half area of another police station of Sylhet district joined India and the district of Cachar was formed of four sub-divisions, namely, Cachar, Karimganj, Hailakandi and North Cachar Hills. Later on North Cachar Hills was curved out form Cachar and annexed with Mikir Hills. Subsequently in 1983 Karimganj and in 1993 Hailakandi were declared separate districts of Assam. Now Cachar, Karimganj and Hailakandi districts are known as Barak Valley for their relative geographical and cultural unity after the name of the main river of the area.

After a few years of the independence of India the ethnic groups of North East India, a region rich with cultural and geographical diversity, tended to slacken ties with each other and with the main land India. Nagaland, Mizoram, Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh were curved out from Assam and were made separate states. Though the cases of Manipur and Nagaland are slightly different, this politics of assertion and establishment of separate identity gave birth to the violent secessionist movements through the pangs of “Language Movement” of 1961 in Barak Valley, “Assam Movement” of seventies culminating in the Neelie Massacre of 1983 and resulting in formation and operation of various armed opposition groups turning the region into a conflict zone. The war field where the main casualties of the conflicts are security, justice, peace and human rights includes Barak Valley also. The valley being a free play ground of corruption, nepotism, political vested interests as well as illiteracy and poverty the human plight here got further worsened.

Establishment and Status:

It was in this context in 2002 that human rights activists of the valley came together for defending human rights and formed this Barak Human Rights Protection Committee (abbreviated as BHRPC) on 28 th June and was registered under the Societies Registration Act. 1860 vide No. RS/CA/3/61 of 2002-03 dated 1st October 2002.

Objectives:

The main objectives are (i) to promote and protect human rights and prevent their violations, (ii) to improve socio-economic situation and (iii) to work for democracy, secularism and world peace.

Activities:

1.1 Activities aimed at promoting human rights include: (i) Projects of research and study of human rights law and situations and other related matters, (ii) Awareness generation campaigns through public meetings, lectures, seminars, symposiums, workshops, publications etc. (iii) Awards to, or felicitations of, the activists, journalists, authors and other outstanding contributors in the field and (iv) Cultural activities including drama, documentaries and other arts.

1.2 Activities aimed at protecting human rights include: (i) Monitoring and documentation of cases of violations, (ii) Reporting cases of violations to the appropriate forums for justice by way of legal action or otherwise (iii) Resorting to street actions if and when needed and (iv) Rendering services aimed at relief and rehabilitation of the victims including victims of man-made and natural disasters.

1.3 Activities aimed at preventing violation of human rights include: (i) taking measures for implementation of the existing laws, rules, guidelines etc., (ii) Examining drawbacks, lacuna and loopholes of laws and suggesting repeal, amendments and enactments (iii) Programmes to sensitize law enforcement and defence agencies and (iv) Maintenance of emergency help-lines.

Same activities may serve more than one purpose and as such fall under all three categories mentioned above. Here are some of such activities: (i) Custodial Justice Programme, (ii) National Human Rights Guidelines Awareness and Implementation Programme (iii) Right to Information Programme (iv) Free legal Aid and Services Programme, (v) Gender Justice Programme and (vi) Child Rights Programme.

2. Activities aimed at socio-economic development include: (i) Disaster Risk Management Programme, (ii) HIV / AIDS Awareness Campaign (iii) Environmental Awareness Campaign and (iv) Various development and service porgrammes.

3. All programmes and activities of BHRPC would be directed in such a way as they can contribute as much as possible towards securing justice, democracy, secularism and world peace. Besides, other exclusive programmes would be taken solely aiming at furthering the cause of democracy, secularism and peace.

In all programmes and activities of BHRPC creation and mobilization of public opinion is emphasized.

Organization:

1. Houses:

The Committee is comprised of six houses:

1.1. Auxiliary Body: Any person agreeing with the ideology, constitution and other rules and regulations of the organization and having interest in human rights can join the organization by joining first the Auxiliary body as Auxiliary Member.

1.2. Auxiliary Group: Whenever in a particular locality, at least five auxiliary members join BHRPC, and demand so, or situation demands so, as felt by the Executive Body, an Auxiliary Group may be formed with a convener. The group will act a de fecto primary unit of BHRPC.

2. Associates Body: Members of Auxiliary Body would be nominated to membership of the Associates Body by the Executive Body if and when the latter is satisfied as to the eligibility of the concerned member.

3. Advisory Body: The persons who are specialists / experts in particular fields if agree with the ideology, constitution and rules and regulations of the organization and have interest in human rights may be nominated by the Executive Body as members of the Advisory Body.

4. Board of Patrons: The persons who agree with the ideology, constitution and other rules and regulations of the organization and having interest in human rights but can not participate actively in the activities of the organization for various reasons may be nominated by the Executive Body as members of the Board of Patrons.

5. General Body: Members of Associates Body, Advisory Body and Board of Patrons would be nominated to the membership of the General Body by the Executive Body if and when the latter is satisfied as to the wish and eligibility of the concerned member.

6. Executive Body: The members of the Executive Body are chosen by the members of the General Body from amongst themselves.

2. Offices:

There are some offices in the organization such as (i) The Chairperson, (ii) Vice-Chairperson, (iii) Secretary General, (iv) Joint Secretaries, (v) Secretaries with particular responsibilities and (vi) the Executive Members. These offices are held by the Executive Members as chosen by the members of the General Body. Other positions include Directors, Coordinators, Advisers, Representatives, Spokespersons, Monitors etc. which can be held by members of the Associates Body and other equivalent bodies as nominated by the Executive Body.

3. Divisions:

All activities and programmes of the organization are run by 8 divisions. The divisions work with close co-ordination with each other. They are:

1. Organisation Division:
This division is responsible for all works related to organizational administration.

2. Education and Training Division: This division is responsible for running education centres and giving training to the members of the organization, members of the public and members of the various Government agencies by itself and/or in collaboration with other organisations, institutions and agencies..

3. Case Monitoring Division: This division monitors cases of violations, receives complaints, or institute suo moto complaints of violations, forwards them to the appropriate forums for redressal and pursues till the final disposition.

4. Fact Finding and Documentation Division:
This division is responsible for fact-finding and documentation of a case of violation forwarded to it by the Case Monitoring Division.

5. Free Legal Aid and Services Division:
This division runs “Workshop cum Counseling and Conciliation Centre” approved by the Assam State Legal Services Authority.

6. Projects and Programmes Division: This division adopts, manages and co-ordinates various projects and programmes of the organization.

7. Research and Study Division: This division is responsible for all works related to research and study of human rights law and situations and other related matters.

8. Information and Publication Division:
This division disseminates information relating to BHRPC and other matters related to human rights through publications and responsible for public relations.

Achievements:

Past achievements of the organization include:

1. The term 'human rights' and its significance became more familiar to the people of the valley following many seminars, symposiums, public meetings, workshops, debates, interactive sessions, demonstrations, publications etc. conducted by the organization since its establishment. A drastic increase in recent days can be seen in the numbers of complaints regarding cases of violations filed by the victims and others with the organization, Assam Human Rights Commission and National Human Rights Commission which is indicative of greater awareness of the people. BHRPC received more than 150 complaints in the last year.

2. The organization has published folders and booklets containing Bengali translation (the local language) of (i) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (ii) Provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1988, (iii) Requirements of Arrest under D K Basu Case, (iv) NHRC Guidelines Regarding Arrest, (v) Dos and Don'ts regarding Solid Waste Management and (vi) The Supreme Court Judgment on Employment of Teachers on non-teaching duties and continues to distribute them free of cost among the public.

3. The organization maintains a 24 hours mobile helpline for the victims. A victim or anyone on his behalf can call at anytime on +919435989997 or +919854441275 or can e-mail at bhrpcsilchar@yahoo.co.in

4. The organization has got the status district nodal NGO in Disaster Risk Management Programme from the district administration.

5. The organization has undertaken a research project titled “Freedom from Torture and Ill-treatment: Compatibility of Indian Law and Practice with International Human Rights Standards (Focusing on The North East)”.

6. The organization publishes a yearly magazine on human rights named ‘The Human Voice’ and a monthly e-news letter named ‘RightsNews’.

In the Days to Come:

BHRPC will expand its activities and networking both horizontally and vertically by continuing formation of Auxiliary Groups and nomination of Block Level Monitors of Human Rights in or out of Barak Valley and entering into networking and partnership with other similar minded organisations and institutions in points of mutual agrrement and interests in and out of the valley.

The organization has undertaken a project of translation (in Bengali) and publication of the International Bill of Human Rights and the organization is going to launch its own website. Besides, the organization is contemplating to start some other important programmes for working more conveniently in the area of i) Labour Rights, ii) Agricultural Awareness, iii) Right to Education, iv) Health Rights and v) Rights of Persons with Disabilitis.

Barak Human Rights Protection Committee will continue to fight for rights, justice, peace and truth with resilience and dynamism.

Published and printed by Bijaya Kor-Som, Director, Information and Publication Division, Barak Human Rights Protection Committee, Sadarghat Road, Silchar-1, Cachar, Assam, India on 03/12/07.

http://docs.google.com/Present?docid=dcjv5bpf_76c2b2h5ff

Sunday 16 March 2008

HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN BARAK VALLEY

HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN BARAK VALLEY IN ASSAM
Waliullah Ahmed Laskar



Moizun Nesa, a neighbourhood woman, informed Anowara and Sazna Begum that she had seen some five Central Reserve Police Force personnel going towards the field where Jamir Uddin was collecting grass. Three of them rushed to the field and saw Rezwan Uddin, who was known as CRPF informer, was asking 5 (five) CRPF personnel belonging to Gharmura Camp of E-147 company to shoot Jamir Uddin pointing his fingers towards the latter who was dumbfounded at the sight. At that moment Sazna, sister of the victim, and Anowara, wife of the victim, started to cry and beseech the men with arms to spare the life of Jamir Uddin at which they were also beaten, kicked, abused and humiliated. At the instance of Rezwan Uddin the CRPF fired a bullet targeting Jamir Uddin which was missed, the second shot also missed, but the third bullet hit on the back of the target, who had already started to run away, and piercing his chest exited. The critically injured victim was sent to the Silchar Medical College and Hospital, Silchar where he was declared dead at 6-30 P.M that day. Thus, in a home invasion the said security forces shot dead Jamir Uddin Laskar, about 35 years of age, of village Bainchera (also known as Bhaichera) under the Katlichera Police Station in Hailakandi, Assam at about 10 am on 22 Oct, 2007. At the time of the incident the deceased was collecting grass to graze his cattle from a paddy field near his house where five CRPF men accompanied by one Rizwan Uddin accosted him. Such incidents have kept happening in Barak Valley.

Barak Valley is that part of the globe which is located in southern part of the state of Assam in India where about five million people live mainly on agriculture. Almost 80% people of Barak Valley belong to Bengali speaking Hindu and Muslim communities and others are Manipuri (Both Meitei and Bishnupriya), Hindi speaking people, Dimasa Khasi-Pnr, Hmar, Riang etc. while Assam, or for that matter the entire North East India is populated by nearly 70 ethnic groups.

The land now known as Barak Valley was in part an independent kingdom known as Cachar before the British annexed it to the empire in 1832 and the rest was a part of Sylhet district of Bengal. The districts of Cachar and Sylhet along with Goalpara were appended to Assam in 1874. At the time of partition in 1947 following the referendum as to the question of joining India or Pakistan held in Sylhet as per recommendations of the Redcliff Commission the area covering the jurisdiction of three and half police stations of Sylhet district joined India and the district of Cachar was formed of four sub-divisions, namely, Cachar, Karimganj, Hailakandi and North Cachar Hills. Later on North Cachar Hills was curved out form Cachar and annexed with Mikir Hills. Subsequently in 1983 Karimganj and in 1993 Hailakandi were declared separate of Assam. Now Cachar, Karimganj and Hailakandi districts are known as Barak Valley for their relative geographical and cultural unity after the name of the main river of the area.

After a few years of the independence of India the ethnic groups of North East India, a region rich with cultural and geographical diversity, tended to slacken ties with each other and the main land India. Nagaland, Mizoram, Meghalaya and Arunachal were curved out from Assam and were made separate states. This politics of assertion and establishment of separate identity gave birth to the violent secessionist movements through the pangs of Language Movement of 1961 in Barak Valley, Assam Movement of seventies culminating in the Neelie Massacre of 1983 ultimately resulting in formation and operation of various underground outfits turning the region into a conflict zone. The battle field where the main casualties of the conflicts are security, justice, peace and human rights includes Barak Valley also. The valley being a free play ground of corruption, nepotism, political vested interests as well as illiteracy and poverty the human plight here got further worsened.

The human rights situation is very pathetic in the valley mainly due to some factors such as; firstly, draconian laws kept in force by the Indian State in the area. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, for example, empowers even a non-commissioned officer of force to shoot to kill anybody, if he is in the opinion that it is necessary to do so. They have got total impunity under the Act. Secondly, insensitivity of the other police forces towards the rights of the people. They still operate under colonial Police Act of 1860. Last but not the least is illiteracy and unawareness of the people regarding their rights and duties. A sample survey conducted by Barak Human Rights Protection Committee (BHRPC) indicates that 76% of the people don’t know that they have the right to know the grounds of arrest at the time of arrest by a police officer. 78% of the people are not aware that an arrestee must be produced before the magistrate within 24 hours excluding the time of journey. 83% people have no knowledge about the right to free legal aid. 51% believes that it is the fate of an arrestee to be tortured mildly in police custody. 83% of those interviewed told that they think it is not wrong for an arrestee to be handcuffed in all circumstances. 87% of the people have no knowledge about the arrest memo. 65% think that police can arrest women even in the time between sunset and sunrise. So, it is no wonder that rights of arrestee are violated by the security forces in the one way or the other nearly in all cases of arrest, detention and during other pre-trial procedures.

As a result, there are innumerable cases of human rights violations by the security forces in the valley such as non-registration of FIR in genuine cases, implicating innocent people in trumped up cases, harassment and violence by the police in the name of search and raids, detention and arrest in false charges, use of excessive force in time of arrest even to the extent of causing serious injuries, tortures in custody sometimes leading to custodial deaths and rapes, opening fire leading to serious injuries and death in the face of slightest or no provocation, staging drama of encounters, enforcing disappearances and many other such form of violations and violence against the people showing utter disregard to the law of the land.

Some recent grave cases of violation of human rights perpetrated in the valley, which are documented by BHRPC, would drive home the points made above. So some of them are given below as samples:

1. Illegal detention of Hussain Ahmed Laskar
A senior citizen named Hussain Ahmed Laskar, S/o Late Twahir Ali Laskar of village Neairgram Pt.-I under Silchar Sadar Police Station in Cachar district in Assam was detained by the Officer-In-charge of the said police station at 3 Pm on 7/10/06. After some time, when he was contacted and informed of the fact, the Secretary General of Barak Human Rights Protection Committee visited the police station and came to know that the detainee had come to the Police Station to enquire about the charges of offences against one Habibullah Laskar and others. Mr. H A Laskar is a retired head master and a respectable person in his village. However, the Secretary General came to know that there is a police case against him vide Silchar Police Station Case No. 1208/06, although, the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court had accorded him pre-arrest bail regarding the case vide BA No. 2401 / 2006 dtd. 27-09-06. As the Secretary General smelt foul play in the offing on the part of the police against the detainee he guarded him physically till 2 AM. The senior citizen was kept sitting and standing and meted out rude behavior the whole night. Next morning a team from BHRPC led by Advocate Imad Uddin Bulbul, legal adviser to BHRPC visited the police station and rescued the detainee. He was detained illegally for about 23 hours by the police without following the required procedure of arresting persons established by law. The detainee informed that before the visit of Secretary General, police were pressing him hard for Rs. 10,000.00 (Ten thousand) only as the price for his release.

2. Death of Hashmat Ali Caused by Police in his Home
A daily wage labourer named Hashmat Ali, son of Imam Uddin of Vill. Burunga Part-1 under the Katigorha Police Station in the district of Cachar, Assam was killed by police personnel of Kalain Outpost in the intervening night between 40 April & 1st May’2007. It was not a case of mere shootout but it was a pre-planned action of home invasion. In-charge of Kalain outpost Sub Inspector Sewa Sinha led the invading police team which at about 11-30 pm attacked the house of the deceased and ferociously made their way into the rooms breaking the doors. They started breaking utensils and furniture and abusing, beating and humiliating the inmates of the house including women and children. Being terrified the deceased desperately jumped through the window and ran towards the paddy field. When he was about 200 metres away constable Tapan Hazarika opened fire and shot three rounds. Neighbours of the deceased testified that they heard three times the sound of firing. The deceased died on the spot. Police, without informing the family members, brought him to the Silchar Medical College & Hospital, Silchar. The doctors of SMCH declared him dead. The widow of the deceased was informed in the next day that her husband was getting treatment at SMCH. When she reached the Hospital the performance of autopsy of the body of her husband was complete.

3. Death of Pia Das and Harassment of Kiran Sharma in the Hands of Police
A young woman named Pia Das alias Piu Das, wife of Shankar Das of Atal Basti, Silchar under the Silchar Sadar Police Station in Cachar, Assam died abnormally at about 2.30 pm on 19th Apirl, 2007 at Silchar Medical College & Hospital, Silchar. She was married to Shankar Das in 2002 and they were blessed with a son now aged about four years named Rahul Das. Late Pia Das had suffered mental and physical torture in the hands of her husband and in-laws for her inability to satisfy their demand for dowry. Like many other day on that fateful day she was beaten by her husband mercilessly. Her husband struck on her head with a sitting stool for which she fell down and became unconscious and later, as stated above, she breathed her last in the hospital. Mother of the deceased Kiran Sharma went to Ghungoor Outpost to lodge a complaint on this issue on 22/04/07. The In-charge of the said Outpost Sub-Inspector Nihar Ranjan Das demanded her rupees 5000.00 (five thousand) only for registering the complaint as an FIR. Subsequently Kiran Sharma informed the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar about the circumstances in which her daughter died and demand of bribe by police. She also lodged a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar regarding the matter but no action towards enforcing her right to justice, truth and reparation has been taken.

4. Custodial Torture and Death of Motahir Ali
An innocent poor labourer named Motahir Ali Tapadar, 38 years, S/o late Akaddas Ali Tapadar of village Bhatgram (also known as Bhatghat and/or Brahmangram) under the Katigorah police station of Cachar, Assam died on 21 September, 2007 in the custody of police personnel posted at Kalain Police Patrol Post (PP). He was taken into custody on 20 September, 2007 by Narain Tamuli, the In-charge of the PP in connection with Katigorah Police Station Case No. 453/07 which charged him of assault to his co-villagers Sahabuddin and others. When Alimun Nesa, widow of the deceased, her minor son Salman Uddin and other co-villagers visited the PP, they saw Sub-Inspector Narain Tamuli, Assistant Sub-Inspector PR Nath and Constable Ramzan Ali were beating and torturing Motahir Ali in other manners brutally. When Alimun Nesa beseeched for mercy and release of her husband the police assaulted her and her minor son and others were threatened, taunted and bullied away. In the morning next day she again she came with her son to see her husband and she saw her husband was still being tortured and his condition had got very bad. Once again she wept and cried for mercy. This time SI Narain Tamul demanded form her a sum of rupees 10,000.00 (ten thousand) only for releasing her husband. At the expression of her inability to satisfy this demand the said SI canned her several times and even kicked her in the belly in her pregnant condition. Her minor son Salman Uddin was also assaulted. In the way police kept torturing Motahir Ali till he breathed last at about 1pm.

5. Destruction of Police Post by Police Themselves and Charging Innocent People
In the wake of the incident of torture and death of Motahir Ali Tapadar on 21 September, 2007 in the custody of police posted at Kalain Police Patrol Post under Katigorah Police Station in Cachar, Assam the police themselves set fire on the PP and Bhairavpur-Klain Gaon Panchayat office situated in the same campus and burnt them down in order to distract the attention of people from the death of Motahir Ali. Subsequently SI Biswajit Sinha registered Katigorah Police Station Case No. 455/07 under sections 147, 149, 447, 448, 336, 333, 436 and 307 of the Indian Panel Code, 1860 against Faruk Ahmed Laskar, president of Kalain Citizen Forum and other 500 (five hundred) unidentified persons accusing them of the very offences which were committed by police themselves. In connection with this trumped-up case the police conducted frequent raids, caused persecution and harassment to the people residing in the village of Bhatgram. Police also arrested Faruk Ahmed Laskar, Ibazul Haque Laskar, Imamul Hoque and Saidur Rahman Barbhuiya who were later accorded bail by the Gauhati High Court.
6. Serious Injury to Saidur Rahman in Police Firing and His Subsequent Arrest
A boy aged about 17 years named Saidur Rahman Barbhuiya, son of Abdul Nur Barbhuiya, Village: Dhumkar under Katigorha Police Station in Cachar, Assam was hit by a bullet in his left leg and seriously injured on 21 September, 2007. After the death of Motahir Ali Tapadar in police custody on 21 Sept. 2007 the people of Kalian gathered in front of Kalian police petrol post and demanded the arrest of Narayan Tamuli and other police personal who were responsible for the death of Motahir Ali. To disperse the gathering police opened fire and caused 80 rounds of firing at the order of Circle Inspector. P.S Das. At that time the victim was watching the incident from the roof top of a nearby two storied building when he was hit by a bullet and badly injured. He was admitted to the Silchar Medical College & Hospital, Silchar. After a little recovery when he was released from the hospital the police arrested him in connection with the Katigoraha P.S. Case No. 455/07, which was registered against the persons gathered in front of the PP and demanded arrest of the police personnel responsible for the death of Motahir ALi bringing false charges against them, showing utter disregard to the logic and common sense. Saidur Rahman was watching the incident from the roof top of a two storied building when he was hit. So, he can never be a part of the gathering for the dispersal of which police opened fire. Moreover, as per the claim of the police, they fired in the air in order to frighten away the crowd. If he was a part of the crowd it is clear that all the bullets are not fired in the air as they claimed.

7. Death of Jamir Uddin Caused by CRPF Personnel in a Home Invasion
In a home invasion 5 (five) Central Reserve Police Force personnel belonging to Gharmura Camp of E-147 company at about 10 am on 22 Oct, 2007 shot dead one Jamir Uddin Laskar, about 35 years of age, of village Bainchera (also known as Bhaichera) under the Katlichera Police Station in Hailakandi, Assam. At the time of the incident the deceased was collecting grass to graze his cattle from a paddy field near his house where five CRPF men accompanied by one Rizwan Uddin, who is known to be a CRPF informer, accosted him. His wife Anowara Begum, sister Sazna Begum and neighbour Moizun Nesa came to the place of occurrence after getting information. They saw and heard Rezwan Uddin was asking the men in uniform to shot Jamir Uddin pointing his fingers towards the latter who was dumbfounded at the sight. At that moment Sazna and Anowara started to cry and beseech the men with arms to spare the life of Jamir Uddin at which they were beaten, kicked, abused and humiliated. At the instance of Rezwan Uddin the CRPF fired a shot targeting Jamir Uddin which was missed, the second shot also missed but the third bullet hit on the back of the target, who had already started to run away, and piercing his chest exited. The critically injured victim was sent to the Silchar Medical College and Hospital, Silchar where he was declared dead at 6-30 P.M that day.

8. Murder of Leela Begum and Subsequent Displacement of Her Mother and Children with the Abetment of Police
A widow named Leela Begum of Pangram Part-IV under the jurisdiction of Udharbond police station, Assam was strangled to death on 8 Nov, 2007. Kabirun Nesa, the mother of the deceased, was warned of grave consequences that she will be killed if she files complaint with the police. However on 14th Nov, 2007 Kabirun Nesa lodged a complaint with the chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar regarding the incident. The Court of CJM forwarded the complaint to Udharbond police station for registration of an FIR and investigation. But the police did not respond. More over, Kabirun Nesa was driven away from the house of the deceased where she was staying and looking after the two minor children of the deceased. All of them now left the house to save their lives and was wandering here and there in the city of Silchar. Members of Barak Human Rights Protection Committee met them and took them to the Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police, Cachar separately on 20 November, 2007. Both the officials were urged by the organization to provide the victim with safety and security and to rehabilitate them in their house as they were rendered shelter-less. The officials were also requested to arrest the accused of the said murder case expedite the investigation of the case. But till date no action has been taken towards enforcing the victim’s right to justice, truth, reparation and shelter. At the request of the organization a benevolent person of Madhurband, Silchar gave them temporary shelter.

9. Assault on Journalist Facilitated by the Wilful Negligence of Police
Abijit Bhattacharjee, reporter with Barak Television Natwork, Anup Das camera person of the same channel and another camera person was assaulted and injured by a group of hooligans when they ware covering on-going polling at Atal Basti J.P Das L.P school poll centre on 9th January, 2007 in Cachar, Assam in the presence of security personnel posted there. As the police remain silent spectators the attackers inflicted such grave injury to Abijit Bhattacharjee that he had to remain at Silchar Medical College and Hospital, Silchar for more than 14 days. However, an FIR was registered against the accused but none is arrested and no action has been taken against the negligent police personnel.

10. Rape in Silchar Medical College Campus
A minor girl named Rustana Begum of 15 years was raped in Silchar Medical College and Hospital, Silchar at about 5 pm on 2/2/08. She was attending her mother Sunapakhi Bibi of Kanchanpur Pt-I, Hailakandi, Assam, who was undergoing treatment at the orthopedic department of the Hospital from 10th January, 2008. At the time of incident Rustana Begum was going to the canteen to fetch hot water for her mother. Two security guards named Rahim Uddin Mazumder and Bishawjit Ghose, both of whom hail from Masimpur, Silchar and employed by Barak Security Agency, a private security providing firm, which was providing security to the said hospital under contract, stopped her at the door of the room of Medical Record Department when she was going to the canteen to fetch hot water and forcibly brought her in Out Patient Department room which usually remain closed at such hour of the day and they committed rape alternately on her. All this happened before the eyes of Atul Das, a fourth grade employee of the said Hospital who remain a silent spectator. Shushantha Nath and Surendra Singh, the two in-charges of security at the said Hospital on behalf of the BSA, threatened the victim, her mother and her relative Abdul Mannan with dire consequences and asked them not to disclose the incident and inform the police. However, Sunapakkhi Bibi, the mother of the victim lodged an FIR regarding the matter vide Silchar Poloce Station Case No 208.08 dtd 6/02.08. Abdul Mannan also filed a complaint with the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar regarding the threat to life of the victim, her mother and his own life under section 107 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 on 7/02/08.
In the present state of the things nobody hopes that the victims may be given their rights to justice, truth and reparation. Violators would not be brought to justice as there prevails a de juro as well as de facto impunity regime in the region. So the people would go on suffering at the hands of those whom they pay.

Friday 7 March 2008

ARREST: RIGHTS OF ARRETEE AND DUTIES OF POLICE

ARREST: RIGHTS OF ARRETEE AND DUTIES OF POLICE

By nature human beings are social animals. Without society and company of fellow beings they can not live. As for maintenance and survival of a healthy society discipline and order must be maintained some principles and rules have to be followed by all the members of the society. The rules which are thus recognised and have the sanction of the state can be called laws. The acts in violation of any of such rules of laws may be called crimes. The state mainly performs the task of implementing laws and preventing their violations through the agency of police. The institution of police is a machinery of state for implementing laws, maintaining peace and order in the society by ensuring justice for its each and every member by preventing crimes or acts or omission in violation of law. For this sometimes it has to nab and detain suspicious and anti-social elements. To bring an accused to book with enough evidence is a duty of police. Here comes the mast bitter and unwanted term ‘ARREST. There are many kinds of arrest in legal terminology. But in the popular sense, a detention or restriction of movements of a person by an authority acting with the authority given by law can be called a legal arrest. Here police is the authority to do so in certain circumstances. Those circumstances have been defined by law clearly. Actually a human being can not be arrested as he or she is born free and has his or her birth-right of freedom and more definitely the right to freedom of movement. This right is a natural right and a basic human right which can not be curtailed or infringed. As human rights inhere only in human beings so no animal has been given any of human rights including this right to freedom of movement. When a human being ceases to be a human and his being is possessed by animalist elements he loses his all such rights which are called human rights. Restriction of a person also becomes necessary when his freedom may cause infringement of others freedom. In this way sometimes arrest of a person becomes inevitable. However, arrest is a necessary evil. So when an arrest have to be made it should be made in strict accordance with the law, at least the Constitution of India says so. In the context of India it has to be said that the state of affairs is very sorrowful. The Indian police works still under the colonial Police Act of 1861. With this weapon of mass destruction in its hand the Police strides in a society which is in the extreme verge of explosion as it has been overflowing with corruption and erosion. The transparency International places Police in the first position in the list of bribe-takers in India.

The facts of crossing the Lakshman Rekha (delicate boundary line) and itself breaking laws when police goes to arrest or deal with an accused due to greed of money or being intoxicated by the beverage of power or merely as a habit are not new in India. Custodial deaths in this country can by no means be called rare incidents, they are very much regular. Whereas Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees right to life and personal liberty of every person: “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. Article 22 lays down the broad principles of law, to be made and implemented by state, of procedure of arrest. Clause (1) of the Article thunders: “no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody by without being informed, as soon as may be of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice”. Then comes clause (2) with the stricture that “every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without any authority of a magistrate.” But these two clauses have been made inapplicable where the arrestee is an enemy alien or detained under the laws of preventive detention. Torture in police custody and in the time of interrogation including the so-called third degree method is made a crime punishable with imprisonment for seven yours or fine under section 330 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

STATEMENT OF BHRPC REGARDING CONTINUED ASSAULT ON HUMAN RIGHTS

STATEMENT OF BHRPC REGARDING CONTINUED ASSAULT ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Barak Human Rights Protection Committee(BHRPC), a human rights group working mainly in southern part of Assam known as Barak Valley, is deeply concerned at the arrest of Lachit Bordoloi, Advisor to the Manab Adhikar Sangram Samiti (MASS), Pradeep Gogoi, the Duliajan correspondent of NETV, Nekibur Zaman, Advocate, Gauhati High Court and Suman Dutta, an employee of Air Deccan. We fear for their safety. It is disturbing that Borodoloi, Dutta and Gogoi have been remanded to 5-6 day police custody by the Sub Divisional judicial magistrate, Kamrup. Nekibur Zaman is in hospital with a leg injury.

The police are accusing them of being involved in a plot of hijacking a flight. But long before Lachit's arrest it was known that the Assam government had decided to detain him. On the 9th of February the police had come to his house and without giving a seizure list confiscated some CDs andhis computer from his residence.

BHRPC wants to remind that this is not the first time that Lachit Bordoloi has been picked up, having been arrested under TADA while it was in operation and on other occasions. Manab Adhikar Sangram Samiti, of which he is the advisor, too has also been at the receiving end of a state onslaught, with its offices being routinely ransacked, and activists threatened.

It is to be noted that Lachit Bordoloi was part of the People's Consultative Group set up in 2005 to initiate discussion between the Government of India and United Liberation Front of Assam. His arrest is another indication of the hard line that the government is adopting towards those who seek to occupy the middle ground. It is also yet another instance, in now linking Lachit to ULFA, of how the pernicious Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 2004 is being used to choke human rights activity. MASS has over the years been strongly opposing army atrocities, encounters, disappearances in Assam, and together with many other organizations demanding the repeal of the draconian Armed Forces Special Powers Act,1958 (AFSPA). Coming as it does within a few months of the arrest of Dr. Binayak Sen, Vice-President of PUCL, his arrest is clearly part of a concerted strategy, on the part of the state, to silence all democratic dissent and criticism of state policies, especially in conflict areas.



BHRPC Demands:
1. The immediate and unconditional release of Lachit Bordoloi, Pradeep Gogoi, Suman Dutta and Nekibur Zaman;
2. The total repeal of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958;
3. The repeal of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 2004, and
4. The end to any attempts by the government to muzzle the human rights of the people including the right to freedom of the Press and dissent.
The statement is issued by Neharul Ahmed Mazumder,
Secretary General,
Barak Human Rights Protection Committee,
Sadarghat Road, Silchar-788001
Assam, India
And sent to you by
Waliullah Ahmed Laskar,
Special Representative to Guwahati,
Barak Human Rights Protection Committee,
15, Darandha, Panjabari Road, Six Mile, Guwahati-781037
Assam. Cell: +919854441275




Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.