Posts Tagged ‘Indian Army’

Over 8,000 Men Disappeared in Kashmir Since 1989

Kashmir women protest, demanding information and responsibility for missing husbands and children, who were disappeared by the Indian security forces and presumably killed –  June 24, 13 


Over 8,000 Men Disappeared in Kashmir Since 1989SHAHANA BUTT, PRODUCER: Asia’s nuclear-armed rivals India and Pakistan, since their independence from British rule in 1947, have always remained at dispute over issues related to a territory called Kashmir. The two traditional neighboring rivals have fought each other thrice, and two out of the three wars over the disputed Kashmir. Both claim the entire territory but rule it in parts. And it remains at the heart of their enmity. An armed revolt against the Indian rule that started in 1989 in Kashmir has claimed over 60,000 lives and left almost no aspect of life in the area untouched. The armed groups fighting Indian rule in Kashmir are perceived to be backed by Pakistan. Each side claims itself to be right. India insists succession of Kashmir to India as final and complete, and hence Kashmir is an integral part of India, key to highlighting the secular nature of Hindu-majority Asian nation, and that all would be well in Kashmir if Pakistan stops crossborder terrorism. On the other hand, Pakistan insists Kashmir is a disputed territory, unresolved, and it is merely providing moral and diplomatic support for an indigenous freedom struggle in Kashmir.Presently, the human rights issues top the concern list for the people living here. Among the worst sufferers of human rights violations in Kashmir are those whose husbands and sons have gone missing after their arrests by security forces. Each month, hundreds of women, young and old, gather in the sprawling fields of the Himalayan territory controlled by India. These women seek information about their loved ones that went missing years ago now, after they were taken away by government forces during the past two decades of bloody turmoil in the region, which claimed lives of tens of thousands of people, mostly civilians. Parveena Ahanger is a founder of the Association of Parents of Disappeared People, supported by lawyers and human rights activists in Kashmir. APDP is a union of the relatives of victims of enforced disappearance in Jammu and Kashmir. Back in early 90’s Parveena’s son Javaid Ahangar was abducted by Indian security forces and was never heard from again. Today, 22 years have passed, but she never fails to attend this solidarity meeting on the 10th day of each month.

PARVEENA AHANGER, FOUNDER, ASSOC. OF PARENTS OF DISAPPEARED PEOPLE (VOICEOVER TRANSL.): It’s not a joke. People do not understand the pain we are going through. But our efforts will make sure none else in this region gets missing. The government tried its best to offer us perks, but money can’t buy us our beloved sons. Our children have been taken by Indian security forces, and we will continue to ask India where our children are. If they have killed them, we at least need to know where they have buried them. As long as they don’t give us proofs of their death, how will we accept they are dead?

 BUTT: Parveena says a large number of disappearance cases remain undocumented for many reasons, including fear of reprisal by the security forces. Also, no reparations or recourse are offered for these disappearances.

AHANGER: They have been using all sorts of pressure tactics to shut our mouths, but we haven’t given up so far. We know the culprits. Why doesn’t the government book them and punish them? My case is languishing in the Indian Home Ministry since 1997, and it has a clear mention of culprit. India is giving its forces a free hand in Kashmir. But as long as I live, I will make sure to knock each door of justice to seeking our children.

BUTT: Rights groups have estimated that there are more than 8,000 men that have disappeared in Kashmir after being taken away by state authorities. But the government has always denied the accusations, saying these men might have crossed over to Pakistan for arms trainings.

KHURRAM PARVAIZ, RIGHTS ACTIVIST: These disappearances are of four kinds of disappearances in Jammu and Kashmir. One of those–and that’s the most number of people. These are those people who have been arrested by the Armed Forces, the Indian Armed Forces. And after their arrests, their arrests were denied and their whereabouts have not been ascertained. They have perhaps disappeared in the custody. So there are clear-cut evidences against Armed Forces in these cases. Then there are other number of people who disappeared mysteriously, where we don’t know–they left in the morning–where we don’t know what happened to them. Situation was a conflict situation, situation was bad here. We don’t know what happened to them. Then we have a third kind of disappearance here, where militants were involved in disappearing people for political reasons or for being informers. And then there is a fourth kind of disappearance, where militants themselves have disappeared while crossing over to the Pakistani-administered Kashmir or coming back to Jammu and Kashmir after getting the arms training. So they were either arrested or killed in encounters, sometimes fake encounters, sometimes legitimate encounters. But their bodies were not handed over to their families. Their families do not know whether they have died or whether they’re alive.

BUTT: Kashmir, dotted with security camps, is perhaps today the most militarized zone in the world. Besides thousands of troops who are guarding a military control line that divides Kashmir between South Asian neighbors, armed personnels are deployed in streets, towns, villages, and hamlets surrounded by lofty snowy Himalayan peaks. International rights groups have accused Indian troops of grave human rights violations in Indian-administered Kashmir and have asked India for investigations. However, little has been done by India in this direction so far.

AHANGER: We are demanding an independent commission. If India thinks it’s not responsible for the crimes, why isn’t it allowing investigations? Let’s have free trial. All the major right groups have been asking India for investigations why it isn’t giving access to them. This is clear evidence that India is responsible for all sorts of human rights violations. We had hopes international community might intervene, but to maintain its economic ties with India, human lives have no value.

BUTT: The turmoil of past two decades in this region gave birth to a new group in a society commonly known as “half-widows”. These are the women whose husbands have disappeared over a period of time, and because of the Islamic law, these women couldn’t remarry, thus are facing the burden of being a single parent.PARVAIZ: The story of half-widows is a story of honor, the story of resilience. And in Jammu and Kashmir, though so far our estimates are there are 1,500 women, but you would see most of these women are suffering in a very bad way, and there are very few organizations who are focused in supporting them, because normally you have to prove yourself to be a widow to receive support from a humanitarian organization. Unfortunately, the children of these half-widows, they were the worst affected because of the psychological trauma they had to face, and also their education suffered.

BUTT: Once such woman we met who is taking care of her three sons for the past ten years now. Tahira’s husband was a contractor who once left home for some work and never returned.

TAHIRA BANU, WIFE OF DISAPPEARED: It’s not easy to be a single parent. I have faced the worst since he is not there. Two of my sons are in the orphanage, and the youngest lives with me. Earlier, people used to give me charity, but now I work here in this beauty clinic to make my living. I could not get support of my in-laws, because my husband married me without their consent. And I know I’m not the only struggling. There are hundreds of women like me. We are just telling the government to help us locate our missing men. But they are not paying any attention to our demands. This clearly hints that government has some stakes in their disappearances. BUTT: Indian authorities deny any systematic rights violations and say they investigate all the cases and punish those found guilty. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights established the working group in 1980 to assist families in determining the fate and whereabouts of disappeared relatives. India signed the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance in February 2007; however, it failed to ratify the convention. Observers say such seething protest against human rights violations will endanger the world peace and there can be no lasting political settlement in Kashmir unless human rights abuses which have fueled the insurgency are addressed. 

For The Real News Network, this is Shahana Butt in Indian administered Kashmir.

This is a press release by the JKCS and the Kashmiri women fighting on behalf of Kunan Poshpora villagers


Press Statement
24 June 2013

On 22 June 2013, for the first time, the villagers of Kunan Poshpora spoke to the civil society and media of Srinagar. They spoke of rape, torture, suffering, pain and courage. More specifically, they spoke of the fight ahead. They vowed to continue the struggle for justice, and never to forget persons responsible for the cover up of the Kunan Poshpora case.

B.G. Verghese was called a liar by the villagers of Kunan Poshpora and several civil society members in the audience. He headed the Press Council of India fact finding team report on Kunan Poshpora, which was ‘appointed’ by Indian army. But, he never visited the villages of Kunan and Poshpora. He, through the report and subsequently, has sought to malign the men and women of Kunan Poshpora. He has called them shameless, as according to him the allegation was orchestrated on behalf of the militants.

In the recently held public meeting B.G. Verghese was accused of actively abetting the rape and torture of Kunan Poshpora. It is public knowledge that B.G. Verghese served as an “Information Consultant” for the Indian Defence Minister.

The re-opening of the Kunan Poshpora case also implies that those involved in cover ups and in maligning the women of Kunan Poshpora had lied. Therefore recognizing his criminal role in the Kunan Poshpora case, it was unanimously resolved that B.G. Verghese is to be socially and professionally boycotted. The civil society vowed to not engage with him. Further, anyone who does engage with B.G. Verghese will in turn be boycotted. B.G. Verghese presently occupies positions of importance in the Center for Policy Research, Delhi and the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, Delhi. The Support Group for Justice for Kunan Poshpora alongwith other civil society stakeholders will communicate directly with these institutions, and any other institution that may have ties with him, to immediately stop all engagement with him.

We urge civil society groups, conscientious citizens in India and Jammu and Kashmir that until B.G. Verghese is prosecuted for his role in the Kunan Poshpora case, there must be an absolute boycott: he must not be invited to speak at public functions, he must not be allowed to occupy any positions of responsibility, and he must constantly be reminded of his own criminality.

Finally, before and after the 22 June 2013 press conference, the State has continued its intimidation. The Jammu and Kashmir Police [Tregham Police Station], Indian army [specifically 24 Rashtriya Rifles, based at Trehgam] and other agencies, have sought to intimidate the villagers of Kunan Poshpora. They have gone to the villages, demanded answers to questions about the case and sought to intimidate them through repeated phone calls. This will not be accepted. Legal action will be taken against anyone who seeks to intimidate and threaten the villagers of Kunan Poshpora. They will, first, be named in public, and then dragged to court.

Representatives of the Support Group for Justice for Kunan Poshpora
1. Ifrah Mushtaq
2. Samreena Mushtaq
3. Uzafa Basu
4. Uzma Qureshi

  1. Praful Bidwai
    June 07, 2013 ,

    Kashmir is at a crossroads. The post-2006 transition from insurgency to peaceful protests now faces a serious threat, says Praful Bidwai after a recent visit to the valley.

    The security bunkers that stood out like sore thumbs every 50 metres in Srinagar [Images ] for two decades have gone. And the oppressive presence of uniformed men bearing weapons has become less overwhelming. But the shadow of Indian security forces still hangs heavy over the social, economic and political life of the Kashmir Valley.

    During a brief visit to Srinagar, I discovered widespread popular alienation from the Indian State. For the Kashmiri people, the gun remains India’s [ Images ] main face, and coercion or deception by New Delhi [ Images ] dominates their consciousness.

    Sullen anger, discontent, hopelessness and despair lie beneath the calm and normalcy at the surface. The anger is intense among educated young people.

    I wish I were wrong, but my discussions with separatist leaders from both factions of the All-Parties Hurriyat Conference, mainstream politicians, intellectuals, and above all, articulate young men and women, leave me with no other conclusion. Reading recent publications from the Valley only confirms this.

    It is hard to predict what form the anger will take, and whether it will once again explode into militancy and secessionist violence, as in 1989. But Indian policymakers and the larger public would be dangerously mistaken in ignoring the simmering discontent in the Kashmir valley, or in imagining that it can be calmed or neutralised by incremental or token gestures like the announcement of yet another economic ‘package’.

    The popular alienation is the cumulative result of a number of factors culminating in Mohammed Afzal Guru‘s execution on February 9, and the widespread disgust this provoked in the valley.

    Most Kashmiris believe, like many Indians, that Guru’s trial did not establish his guilt.

    Guru, Kashmiris believe, was killed for ‘political’ reasons — because the United Progressive Alliance [ Images ] wanted to counter the Bharatiya Janata Party‘s [ Images ] charge that it is ‘soft’ on terrorists. They regard Guru’s execution in secrecy as identical with that of Ajmal KasabImages ] — and hence proof that the Indian State equates Kashmir with Pakistan, an ‘enemy’ country.

    They underline the contrast with the right to appeal granted to members of sandalwood smuggler Veerappan’s gang and to Rajiv Gandhi’s [ Images ] assassins, and believe Guru was singled out because he was a Kashmiri.

    Other factors behind the alienation are innumerable human rights abuses, including the continuing detention of more than 1,000 young people for holding peaceful protests, despite the government’s promise to pardon them; and use of the draconian Public Safety Act — which allows detention without charges for two years — against 12- and 15-year-old boys merely for pelting stones.

    No less important is the disappearance of scores of people detained by the security forces, and many unpunished killings by the army, such as that of three boys at Machil in Kupwara district in 2010.

    All this has strengthened resentment at what large numbers of Kashmiris consider as India’s military occupation of the valley, which violates their freedom and dignity.

    Compounding this is the ruling National Conference-Congress government’s failure to address growing unemployment, prevalence of massive corruption, dilution of the Right to Information Act, and police brutality, reflected in the killing of more than 100 peaceful protesters in both 2008 and 2010.

    Instead of redressing the situation, the state government has drafted the J&K Police Bill, which allows it to set up ‘special security zones’ in ‘disturbed’ areas, where the police acquire magisterial and administrative powers — and impunity for their actions.

    It also allows the creation of Salwa Judum-style militias in the form of ‘village defence committees’. This has bred further resentment.

    No less important is the exposure of the joint civilian-military Unified Command as a handmaiden of the army in ‘security’ matters. Chief Minister Omar Abdullah [ Images ], backed by then Union home minister P Chidambaram [ Images ], has repeatedly called for repeal of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act from certain peaceful areas, but the army has contemptuously vetoed that demand — just as it sabotaged a settlement of the Siachen glacier dispute with Pakistan, favoured by New Delhi.

    Army commanders have spoken on such policy issues in gross violation of the democratic principle that only the civilian leadership can do so. They even threatened to suspend counter-insurgency operations if AFSPA is repealed.

    They strongly loath any dilution of their power under AFSPA to kill anyone merely suspected to be about to breach a prohibitory order such as Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code which bans the assembly of five or more persons.

    This only proves, say Kashmiri analysts, that the Indian State has no respect for Jammu and Kashmir’s [ Images ] elected government: Democracy is a ‘mere showpiece’ so far as Kashmir is concerned.

    Irrespective of whether this perception is right or wrong, it is widely prevalent. An important element in it is the memory of repeated rigging of J&K assembly elections and imposition of Delhi’s puppets on the state until recently.

    A watershed was the 1987 election, the manipulation of whose results spontaneously provoked fierce anger, leading to the eruption of the separatist militancy in 1989, which Pakistan cynically exploited, to disastrous effect.

    The militancy and ferocious State repression claimed more than 80,000 lives before they declined after 2002 thanks to popular exhaustion with violence. Things further changed with the 2004 Lok Sabha and the 2008 assembly elections, which saw relatively high polling such as 40 percent-plus.

    In 2011, local body elections were held for the first time in a decade, which witnessed an impressive turnout of 79 percent despite the separatists’ call to boycott them.

    Since then, Kashmir’s economy has expanded, tourism has boomed, and new enterprises have sprouted, including some in information technology, floriculture and banking. Kashmiris started taking and scored well in the all-India services examinations.

    The number of Kashmiri students in Indian colleges has multiplied four-fold over a decade, according to one estimate.

    However, this doesn’t mean that full normalcy has returned or Kashmir’s wounds have healed. Kashmiris have learnt to use the available democratic space without changing their fundamental stance vis-a-vis India.

    There has been a transition from violent to peaceful protest, which became starkly visible in the 2008 Amarnath Yatra [Images ], and again in 2010. But popular alienation hasn’t abated.

    The Indian State’s response to the protest was twofold: Shoot down peaceful agitators or arrest them on fake charges; and when the protests ebb, make conciliatory moves through committees such as the interlocutors group headed by journalist Dileep Padgaonkar.

    This group is only the latest in a series of ‘olive branch’ offers by New Delhi, including visits by Rajesh Pilot [ Images ] and S B Chavan in the 1990s, the K C Pant committee of 2001, the N N Vohra committee of 2003, several rounds of talks with the separatists, numerous economic packages, and the prime minister’s five J&K working groups set up with much fanfare in 2006. One of these, headed by present Vice-President Hamid Ansari, recommended revocation of AFSPA.

    These initiatives may have temporarily calmed tempers in the valley and even averted a deeper crisis. But none of them produced results. Their recommendations either fell short of a solution, or were rejected outright. That was the fate of the interlocutors’ report too.

    Its story not only provokes derision, but worse, further cynicism in Kashmir and convinces people that the Indian government has no intention of changing course or reforming its J&K policy.

    That was the message from the India-Pakistan back-channel talks too, based on General Pervez Musharraf’s [ Images ] four-point formula. These very nearly succeeded in 2006-2007 and could have clinched a solution which involves demilitarisation, regional autonomy and self-rule without a redrawing of the borders.

    But Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [ Images ] didn’t seize the moment. Soon, Musharraf’s position became untenable thanks to his confrontation with the judiciary. The moment passed.

    To return to the present, Kashmir is at a crossroads. The post-2006 transition from insurgency to peaceful protests now faces a serious threat amidst the perception that New Delhi remains as unresponsive to these as it was hostile to the militancy.

    There have been more than a dozen attacks on security forces by gunmen and suicide bombers, as well as armed encounters, in different parts of the valley in recent weeks.

    These attacks were not led or coordinated by organised groups like Hizbul Mujahideen [ Images ], but conducted by educated professionals — engineers, science postgraduates and MBAs — motivated by azaadi (freedom, autonomy, independence, nobody knows exactly which), and convinced that normal, peaceful, dignified life is impossible under Indian ‘occupation’.

    A majority of the young people I interviewed expressed sympathy for the attackers, while admitting that a heavy price would have to be paid for militancy and the State’s retaliatory response.

    Some even said that peaceful protest has exhausted its potential, and armed resistance may be necessary to highlight the cardinal truth that the Kashmir problem remains unresolved after 66 years.

    These are dangerous signs. New Delhi must heed them and correct course — even as it responds positively to Pakistan’s new Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s [ Images ] welcome offer of talks.


The Apparatus

By SANJAY KAK | 1 March 2013,

| 1 | FLESH

A YOUNG KASHMIRI MAN is working in his father’s paddy field, bare-chested in the humid late summer, his strong body glistening with exertion. His mother and sisters work alongside, knee-deep in water. Let’s just imagine that they’re humming a tune off a nearby transistor radio.

That’s how the story, which I first heard almost exactly ten years back, begins—Soon an army jeep, closely followed by a truck, pulls up on the road next to their fields. The men inside appear to watch for some time. Then half a dozen armed soldiers step out briskly, and walk towards the family. There may have been an exchange of words, though later no one can confirm what was said.

The soldiers quickly grab the young man, and drag him off into the waiting truck. His muscular torso did not suggest strength any more, it was quietly noted afterwards, but great vulnerability. The women ran after the soldiers, shouting and screaming. One of them pulled off her headscarf, tossing it at the feet of the departing soldiers, in a final gesture of abject surrender. But there was no space for mercy here: these were men from the Rashtriya Rifles of the Indian Army, the much feared RR, trained for counter-insurgency, and said to be “psychologically strong”. They were not known to relent. As the olive-green truck rolled away, it was as if its engine were sucking away the very air from this landscape. For a little while longer the women could still be seen, flailing their arms in muffled, incoherent despair, and then, a heaving heap of exhausted bodies on the ground.

A week later, the young man’s father was still doing the rounds of army outposts in the area, trying to find his missing son. Dense concentric webs of barbed wire girdle these camps, with a second impenetrable ring of sandbags and metal sheets, which together buttress the nervous, edgy authority of the soldiers. Over several days the elderly man was passed on from camp to camp; after craven postures of servility and submission had been struck before soldiers and Subedars, in front of boyish Captains and Majors, he was finally ushered into the presence of “C.O. sahib”, the Commanding Officer of the unit.

Ah, that was your son, the Colonel is said to have remarked, sharp in his mint-fresh camouflage fatigues and his polished combat boots. The Colonel was almost smiling now—good-looking boy, handsome, nice strong body. He was with us, he said, but he’s gone now. As he signaled for the old man to be escorted out, the Colonel looked the father in the eye, and added—uska maas achcha tha. His flesh was good.

In some versions of this story, the father reports a mumbled last comment heard on his way out—it tasted good.

THE STORY MAY BE APOCRYPHAL, for I heard several variations of it during the summer of 2003, each time with all its noxious insinuations intact. From Kupwara, from Sopore, from Kulgam, whispered stories like this one were the incarnations of a fevered nightmare that has plagued Kashmir for at least two decades. In the early 1990s the movement for azadi—independence for Kashmir—had quickly devolved into the hands of the armed mujahideen, and these groups were pretty much setting the agenda of the struggle. That paved the way for many years of a brutal counter-insurgency campaign in the valley, spearheaded by the Indian Army and its para-military forces, who were charged with neutralising the insurrection in Kashmir, what was locally called the ‘militancy’.

By 2003, with support from Pakistan beginning to dwindle, the insurgency was set to weaken. After a decade of vicious bloodletting, the Indian security apparatus in Kashmir was more confident, ready to trade that older brutality for a new regime of psychological war. This mind-bending battle of attrition was not to be played out in open confrontations between militant and soldier, but in another, more subterranean zone, peopled by government-backed militants, by ‘special’ police officers, by renegades, spies and double-agents. The story I heard had probably risen out of the toxic sludge of this ‘psy-war’.

The recently released human rights report Alleged Perpetrators: Stories of Impunity in Jammu and Kashmir doesn’t contain the story of a bare-bodied young man splashing his way through the paddy fields and into the back of an olive-green truck. But between its severe black covers are several hundred other stories, in meticulous detail, arranged in a matrix constructed along four chilling categories: enforced disappearance, extra-judicial killing, rape and torture. The report is the patient work of several years by two Kashmir-based human rights groups—the Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP), and the International Peoples’ Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Indian-Administered Kashmir (IPTK), widely known for its landmark 2009 report documenting the existence of more than 2700 unknown, unmarked and mass graves in three districts of Kashmir.

There are several cases from that year, 2003, with the place of anecdote now reassuringly taken up by verifiable detail. The report’s authors insist that all the cases in the document have been reconstructed almost entirely from official records. But running my eyes over the stories, I found myself snagged by that familiar, but still unsettling word: flesh.

Case 178 is about Mohammad Ashraf Malik, a 25-year-old from Kupwara town, a casual employee of the Forest Department. In May 2003, he was asked to report to the Town Hall by the local Army unit, and detained along with four other young men. The others were all released shortly, he was not. A few nights later, there was a blast—and here we had best turn to the report itself:

“On 20 May 2003, the family of Mohammad Ashraf Malik was informed by the Senior Superintendent of Police [SSP], Kupwara that the victim had died in an Improvised Explosive Device [IED] blast on the previous night. One kilogram of the victim’s flesh was handed over to the family. The family of Mohammad Ashraf Malik believes that he was tortured and that the IED blast was a cover up.”

Case 55 is about Tahir Hassan Makhdoomi, a 23-year-old from Tujjar Sharief, near Sopore. The army picked him up from his home in September 2003, at 4.30 am on the morning after his wedding. The family, the report notes, had taken ‘permission’ for the wedding from the nearest Army post, a mandatory procedure in much of rural Kashmir. There were no charges against Tahir Hassan, but several months earlier his father was known to have had a disagreement with an officer, Major Rajinder Singh, at the nearby camp. The family made several trips to see the officer, but no information was forthcoming. Three days later, according to the report:

“Around 5:00 am on 15 September 2003, Major Rajinder Singh came to the house of the family of the victim and informed the father of the victim that his son had been an informer for the army and had died in an explosion during an anti-terrorist operation at Yemberzalwari. Subsequently, the left leg of the victim, the only part of his body that could be recovered from the explosion, was provided to the family of the victim. Based on the information provided by Major Rajinder Singh, only the victim was killed in this incident. Nobody from the army was injured or killed.”


BEGINNING IN 1990 with Mohammad Shafi Dar, 19 (abduction, enforced disappearance) and ending in 2011 with Nazim Rashid Shalla, 28 (abduction, wrongful confinement, torture, extra-judicial killing), Alleged Perpetrators details 214 such stories over its 232 closely set pages. The report comes with the disclaimer that it’s not to be considered a “definitive or exhaustive list”. That’s not possible in Kashmir, its authors insist, because in a zone of conflict where institutions of the State—including the judiciary, and especially the police—have proven ineffective, “a majority of the violations have not been investigated”. The trail of official documents that the report deploys usually begins at a police station, with the filing of the mandatory First Information Report (FIR), and many of the cases have been investigated by the Jammu & Kashmir Police (JKP), and by its Criminal Investigation Department. Some have been scrutinised by Magisterial Enquiry, and by the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC). A few have even been argued at length before the High Court. By restricting their universe to cases documented by these official sources, its authors are able to assert that “the documents in possession of the State itself indict the armed forces and the police by providing reasonable, strong and convincing evidence on the role of the alleged perpetrators in specific crimes”.

The wider intention in selecting this particular set of cases becomes clear early on—to trace the unbridled use of military and police power by the Indian state in Jammu and Kashmir, and to make palpable the overwhelming impunity that accompanies this application of state violence, all of which happens in the name of countering militant violence. But by drawing a spotlight on the identities of the perpetrators, the report also begins the process of sweeping aside the protective anonymity that has sustained impunity in Kashmir. By naming names, and placing the ranks and institutional affiliations of the perpetrators in the public domain, its authors underline the idea that “despite a culture of systemic impunity that exonerates them, it is individuals who commit violations, and they must first and foremost bear responsibility for their acts”.

That Indian security forces in Jammu and Kashmir have operated in a bubble of impunity is not by itself a startling conclusion. But in its detailed recounting of this closed universe of 214 cases, the report is able to take the bald, featureless idea of impunity and give it a shape and structure, outline its methods, and most of all, give its operating parts names. And it’s not all history: it includes SM Sahai, currently Inspector General of Police (IGP), who as a young DSP figures in the 1990 extra-judicial killing of one man and enforced disappearance of another; and Kuldeep Khoda, former Director General of Police (DGP), who is named in the 1996 extra-judicial killing of three men at the hands of a Special Police Officer known to be close to him. By placing these “alleged perpetrators” in the dock of public opinion, the report is able to achieve a transformation in the wider discourse on human rights in the troubled valley. After years of doggedly pursuing an accurate rendition of the victims—the questions of who, when, and how many that fill most accounts of human rights violations—this report now forces us to confront a more precise account of the perpetrator. And by its systematic tracking of the cases, some of them with a paper-trail of official documents almost 20 years old, we can also see the methods by which the pursuit of justice is rendered almost impossible.

The end result of this quiet shift will, in the long run, prove to be no less than tectonic. The narratives assembled in Alleged Perpetrators cumulatively make clear that these are not stories about the fog of war. These are not aberrations, or temporary acts of indiscipline, or even ‘collateral damage’. On the contrary, the brazen repetition of the same tactics, over and over again, in 214 instances, tells us that there is a deliberate, systemic, even systematic application of extreme violence.

As you turn the pages on these carefully curated cases, layer upon layer is added to our imagining of a monstrous device by which such violence is exercised, revealing a vast and well-oiled apparatus through which a restive population is sought to be controlled. It’s a machine that has been half a century in the making, its details worked out in similar situations, in Nagaland, in Manipur, in Mizoram. Its apparent capriciousness and its underlying criminality are both made possible only by impunity—by that complete freedom from the injurious consequences of an action, by the very opposite of accountability.

Alleged Perpetrators unfolds before us endless variations in the stories of this dystopia, this One Thousand and One Nights with an ever changing cast of characters. In this Hazar Dastan written up especially for Kashmir, if narratives that end in ‘flesh’ are too disturbing, for instance, try and distract yourself by looking for stories that feature ‘escape’—I counted at least ten.

In June 1992 Ghulam Nabi Bhat was picked up in Srinagar by the Border Security Force (BSF), and rapidly processed through at least four dreaded interrogation centers: Hariniwas (literally, “the abode of God”), Papa-2, Hotel No.3 and Hotel No.4. But it was from the heavily guarded headquarters of 107th Battalion BSF that they claimed the 21-year-old had made an escape. Ghulam Nabi has disappeared since.

In March 1993, after holding the 24-year-old Ashiq Hussain Ganai in custody for almost three weeks, the 17th Jammu & Kashmir Light Infantry reported his escape, during an ambush on a convoy in which they were moving with him. The soldiers reported no casualties, and no further proof of the veracity of their claims was ever asked for. In the second week of April, the report states, “the mutilated and decomposed body of Ashiq Hussain Ganai was recovered from the Jhelum river 40 km away from the Chatoosa Camp.”

Twenty-year-old Mushtaq Ahmad Chacha was picked up by the 41st battalion BSF in July 1995. While in custody he was taken along to help locate militant hideouts in downtown Srinagar, the BSF told investigators, when there was sudden ‘heavy firing’ in the Kani Mazar locality, and he escaped. Mushtaq Ahmed has disappeared since. (Eyewitnesses later testified before a judicial enquiry ordered by the High Court that no firing was reported in the area that day).

Even in the constrained universe of cases brought together by Alleged Perpetrators, it’s difficult not to be overwhelmed by the practiced ease with which these frequent tales of “escape” have cloaked the abyss of what human-rights speak calls enforced disappearances.

In August 1990, four men were pushing their car after it broke down on the highway, not far from Baramulla town. Picked up by a passing patrol of the 46th battalion Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), they were taken to the nearby Matches Factory camp, where after several weeks of torture, three of them were released. But not Ghulam Mohammad Lone—a day after his arrest, the CRPF said, this 40-year-old carpet seller tried to push aside a sentry and escape. There was a scuffle, and he died.

In August 1994 26-year-old Mushtaq Ahmad Wani was picked up by the 3rd Grenadiers as he waited at a bus stop in Hayan, in Kupwara district. In a report filed with the police a few days later, the soldiers acknowledged the arrest, and said arms and ammunition had been found on him. Later the same day, they filed a second report, this time to say that as Mushtaq Ahmad led them to a militant hideout on a nearby hill, he had managed to escape.

The brutal rupture of disappearances described in Alleged Perpetrators is often compounded by random, twisted acts of cruelty.

In November 1996, after almost 20 days in the custody of the 8th Rajputana Rifles, the family of 28-year-old Mohammad Akbar Rather was contacted by a ‘government-backed’ militant, an Ikhwani. The renegade asked the family to prepare a feast, a wazwan, for their sahib, Major Liyakat Ali Khan (his ‘operational’ name—the police records identify him as Major SS Sinah). The Major sahib was fed, in the tortured hope that it might help release their son. It was only a few days later that his family were told that soon after he was taken into custody, Mohammad Akbar had—what else—escaped. The actions of the Ikhwani displayed a cruel malevolence. But such perverse acts of criminality must be seen as only one more blade in the apparatus of impunity, and Alleged Perpetrators contains dozens of cases that match it.

Manzoor Ahmad Beigh, a 40-year-old car broker from Srinagar, was picked up in May 2009 and taken to Cargo camp, another well-known interrogation centre, under the orders of Inspector Khurshed Ahmed Wani of Special Operations Group (SOG), Jammu and Kashmir Police (JKP). There were no charges against Manzoor Ahmad, just Inspector Wani weighing in to help another car broker recover an unpaid debt of Rs. 40,000. When Manzoor Ahmad left Cargo camp three hours later, it was for the hospital, where he was reported dead on arrival. A later investigation by the SHRC referred to injuries on his shoulders, head, and chest, with “intraparenchymal haemorrhage” of his kidneys.

Straightforward robbery could be accommodated too. In June 1999, when Nazir Ahmad Gilkar, Javed Ahmad Shah and Ghulam Rasool Matoo were stopped for routine checking by men of the SOG, they were on their way from a wedding, and carrying a substantial amount of cash. They were dragged into the adjacent Soura Police Station, then under the watch of Sub-Divisional Police Officer Abdul Rashid Khan, the notorious ‘Rashid Billa’, from where all three disappeared. Their bodies did eventually surface. Nazir Ahmad had been thrown into the Dal lake after being tortured to death; and Javed Ahmad and Ghulam Rasool were shot dead, then buried anonymously.


TWO WEEKS AFTER Alleged Perpetrators was released I spoke to Kartik Murukutla, a lawyer who was part of the team that wrote the report. Murukutla drifted into Kashmir last year, not quite a tourist, he said, but not very clued into the conflict there either—drawn only by a general curiosity, and “wondering if I could help with something”. He turned out to be uniquely placed to contribute—he had recently returned after five years working with the UN International Criminal Tribunal in Rwanda.

“The report doesn’t necessarily privilege official records over, say, oral testimonies. Nor does it assume that just because these facts are part of the official record that makes them true,” he clarified. “It’s just that by drawing on what their own records contain, we are able to draw attention to the very sophisticated way in which all standards of human rights have been lowered in Jammu and Kashmir. Formally, every stage of judicial procedure exists here, from the FIR, to the investigation, to the courts and the SHRC,” Murukutla added. “It’s only when you look beyond procedure, look at the outcome, at what they’ve actually done and said, that it becomes clear what the State is up to”.

Incidents involving the Army usually have the protection of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). Under the Act, army and paramilitary officers can search homes and make arrests without warrants. They can shoot at those suspected of causing disturbance to ‘public order’, and can blow up a building or a home on suspicion that insurgents are using it. The law also protects the soldiers from being prosecuted in civilian courts without the formal approval of the central government.

In almost 20 years of the conflict, not a single case has been granted this sanction to prosecute. According to the authors of the report, this is hardly surprising, given the all-pervasive “climate of secrecy and non-disclosure, and the misuse of the sanction process”. When details of these sanctions were sought under the new Right to Information rules, the Home department of the J&K Government provided a list of 50 cases which they had forwarded for sanction to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Ministry of Defence (MOD) in Delhi. But a similar request made directly to the MOD yielded only 24 cases—only 10 of which were also on the list provided by the J&K Government.

What happened to the 14 cases that were missing from the J&K Government’s records? Where did the 40 cases missing from the MOD records vanish? This shoddiness and lack of seriousness would be bad enough, but the outcome was worse—the sanction to prosecute was denied by the MOD in 19 of the 24 cases, while 5 remained “under examination”. The stated reasons for rejection often seemed simply rubber stamped—“motivated by vested interest to malign the image of the security forces”, or “under pressure from terrorists and sympathisers”, or “to put the army on defensive”, and so on.

Riffling through the pages of Alleged Perpetrators gives you the feeling that you’ve been handed a scale-model of the vast mechanism of impunity that underlies the police and military control of Jammu and Kashmir. As you learn to spin the various wheels of this working model along their different axes, and watch the gears and pinions engage, you can see that the ‘escape’ stories are really the crude outer blade of this machine. And that an even more powerful mechanism sits at its middle: the entropic black hole of delay.

In the 1990 enforced disappearance of Raja Ali Mardan Khan, it took 16 years to file an FIR, which named Major Thapa of the 3rd Sikh regiment. It took 12 years for an FIR to be filed in the 1997 enforced disappearance of Mushtaq Ahmad Dar and Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, by soldiers from the 20th Grenadiers battalion. (This was six years after the High Court had ordered that this FIR be registered.) The logic in the delay of lodging FIRs is not hard to find, and is made most clear in the 1992 extra-judicial killing of Sheikh Hamza, where Captain Gorpala Singh and Subedar Charandass Singh of the 17th J&K Light Infantry were named. The fact that “FIR was lodged after 20 months from the date of operation” was eventually invoked by the Ministry of Defence to brush aside the case, on the grounds that “the individuals named in the complaint were never borne on the strength of the unit.”

The report quotes one particularly chilling circular, sent out to all police stations from the Home Department, Jammu and Kashmir in April 1992, directing them to “refuse to file FIRs against the armed forces without the approval of higher authorities, and refrain from reporting accusations of misconduct on the part of the armed forces in their daily logs”. In effect, this is an official sanction to disobey the Indian Criminal Procedure Code. That FIRs may still get filed—after unconscionable delays—conceals the fact that such delays can completely paralyse even the meagre possibility of eventual judicial redress.

The agonising pace of the process leaves its anesthetising effect over many of the cases in the report. In the absence of timely investigation, any later imprecision by the families of the victims around ‘facts’ become a ground for denial. It is this institutional culture of moral, political and juridical impunity, the report notes, that has resulted in “enforced and involuntary disappearance of at least 8000 persons, besides more than 70,000 deaths, and disclosures of more than 6000 unknown, unmarked, and mass graves”.

“That failure to deliver justice is actually its success,” Kartik Murukutla told me. “That’s what it’s meant to do; it’s meant to fail.”

IF THERE IS AN AXIS ALONG WHICH JUSTICE can be slowly approximated, then the apparatus of impunity seems designed to grievously wound those who try and make their way on it. Across the array of 214 cases in Alleged Perpetrators, you can read a consistent pattern in the cuts deployed by the machinery of the State: Delay. Distract. Divert. And if that doesn’t work: Subvert, Suborn, Seduce, and Bribe.

This usually begins with the ‘ex-gratia’ government relief, payable for “death or disability as a result of violence attributable to the breach of law and order or any other form of civic commotion”. That’s far too genteel a description for the instances in this report, many of which read like straightforward executions. But the ex-gratia is at least doled out quickly, a secular version of blood money, usually around Rs. 100,000, drawing distraught families into a relationship with the state, which they may be loathe to do otherwise. The more elusive promise comes from the enigmatically titled “SRO-43”, the Statutory Rules and Orders that govern “compassionate employment of family members of victims of militant related action or other specified reasons”. Here, the possibility of a government job is held out as a palliative, a means of tempering the anger of the victim’s families over a longer time span. You may never get that promised job, but waiting for it, and negotiating for it, will certainly put a knot in your tongue.

The futility of such compassion, and the deep cynicism underlying it, is of course obvious to everybody it touches, because the entire mechanism is otherwise constructed around incentives that encourage the killing of ‘militants’. Everything else we now recognise as the back teeth of the machine necessarily rolls along in the wake of that juggernaut of killing: extortion, fake encounters, reward money.

Nothing illustrates this better than some of the names that show up repeatedly in the report, like Major Avtar Singh, who was involved in the well-known abduction and extra-judicial killing of the human rights lawyer Jaleel Andrabi in 1996. In that same year Major Avtar Singh was also involved in two other cases—abduction (with intention of extortion), and abduction and enforced disappearance. The next year the Major is named in the extra-judicial killing of five men (some of whom may themselves have been involved in the killing of Jaleel Andrabi, so this was probably the execution of inconvenient witnesses); as well as in the extra judicial killing of a Sikh tailor in Srinagar.

Major Avtar Singh was never brought to trial. Despite the cases against him, despite a 1997 High Court order ordering the government to impound his passport, he was able to flee to Canada with his family in 2006, from where he eventually moved to the United States. He last resurfaced in tragic circumstances, early one morning in June 2012, when he called the police in Selma, California, to announce that he had just shot dead his wife and two sons, and was about to shoot himself. This last act of inward violence may have been interpreted by some as divine intervention, but it surely cannot count as justice.

Another name that figures frequently is Hans Raj Parihar, who as a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) was named in the 1997 enforced disappearance of Fayaz Ahmad Beigh, a cameraman from University of Kashmir. In 2001, as a Superintendent of Police (SP), his name figures in the extra-judicial killing of Ashiq Hussain Akhoon. (That’s the same year he also picked up the Commendation Medal). In 2006, now promoted to Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Hans Raj Parihar was named in the extra-judicial killing of Abdul Rehman Padder, a carpenter who was lured by the offer of a well-paying job, killed in a fake encounter, and buried. (Abdul Rehman the carpenter was then invested with the identity of Abu Hafiz, a foreign militant, and financial rewards were given to his killers.) SSP Parihar’s luck turned with this one, for he possibly misread the breeze. The case became extremely visible, and he was eventually indicted and sent to jail, where he remains.

It’s the only case amongst the 214 listed in Alleged Perpetrators where there’s been a conviction.


WHAT GREASES THIS MONSTROUS SYSTEM, and keeps it running with no end in sight, like a perpetual-motion machine, is the system of promotions and financial rewards, what Alleged Perpetrators calls the “incentivising” of impunity. We know that the man who lured Abdul Rehman Padder into the encounter received Rs. 120,000 for his troubles, and that the police “encounter party” shared a reward of Rs. 100,000. But we don’t know how much SSP Hans Raj Parihar received, or what kind of cash other police officers are able to pull in. A request for details of these incentives, filed under the Right to Information laws, was denied, the report tells us. The J&K Government would only confirm that 2226 police officials had received out of turn promotions for “anti-militancy operations”, and that 560 police officials had received awards for “gallant acts”. Names of these policemen, as well as the “militants” they were rewarded for killing, must remain secret, the Government said in a written reply, because disclosure would “hit the sentiments of the general people and create unrest and law and order problem”.

The secrecy around these incentives is periodically broken only by the proclamation of State awards and medals. SP Altaf Ahmad Khan, an accused in the 2004 custodial rape and torture of a 16-year-old girl in Zachaldara, Kupwara, received the 2010 DGP’s Commendation Medal. In 2011, his name reappears again in the custodial killing of a 20-year-old in Sopore, the last case in the report. Despite the notoriety, SP Altaf Ahmad Khan was given a gallantry award on India’s Republic Day in January 2012, and a President’s Police Award for Gallantry on Independence Day later that year.

“Most of the people involved in these cases are doing what they do for the money,” Khurram Parvez told me recently over a video chat. One of the key researchers and writers of Alleged Perpetrators, the feisty Khurram is an important figure in the modest universe of what they call “human rights defenders” in Kashmir. For over a decade he’s been at the heart of its most important interventions, including the IPTK’s landmark report on unidentified graves. “It’s this corruption of incentives that has created a vested interest here, and brutalised our society and created these creatures,” he said.

And the longer such brutalisation and corruption stays unaddressed, the more volatile and uncontrollable the anger becomes. In 2010, it was the “Machil” killings that became a crucial trigger for unprecedented outrage in Kashmir, leading to sustained mass street protests that paralysed the valley for at least six months over the summer. It’s here as Case 205, with three men lured from their homes in Nadihal, Baramulla in April 2010 by Army informers, on the promise of well-paid high-altitude porter work. The three were killed in a fake encounter a few days later, by the 4th Rajputana Rifles, who then presented the bodies as those of important foreign militants. The evidence on record with the police against the Army officers and their subordinates seems straightforward enough. But the case finds itself pulled out of the already slow grind of the civilian criminal courts, from where it has disappeared into the opaque justice system of the Army’s Court Martial. No one expects to hear about it soon.

No one anticipates an early resolution to the older “Pathribal” killings of March 2000 either. That’s Case 155, when five men were killed in a fake encounter staged by the 7th Rashtriya Rifles, and their bodies proudly produced as those of the militants responsible for the heinous killing of 35 Sikhs in Chattisinghpora in South Kashmir. Cosseted by the blanket legal immunity offered by the AFSPA, the soldiers named as perpetrators have moved on with life. (We know that the C.O. sahib, Colonel Ajay Saxena, was promoted to Major General; and that Major Brijendra Pratap Singh was subsequently made a Lieutenant Colonel.)

“We had some debate internally about calling out the names of perpetrators,” Khurram said. “This is, after all, still a zone of active conflict, and the violence is still all around us.” There were apprehensions that it might provoke a backlash from some of the perpetrators, or that it might incite many ordinary Kashmiris to violence. “We went through the same apprehensions when we were coming out with the Mass Graves report too—and that probably had an even bigger emotional impact on people here.” The fears proved to be misplaced, and eventually neither document triggered an upheaval, “although the two reports together have changed the discourse of human rights in Kashmir”, Khurram added, with disarming confidence.

In off-the-record conversations with him, Khurram said, several senior police officials have even welcomed the attention that the report draws to the monetary rewards, for it’s becoming clear even from within that the incentives have led to a massive perversion of the system.

“There’s a very important link between these incentives and the occupation of Kashmir,” Khurram Parvez concluded. “Stop this corruption, and I don’t think that the occupation will even last a day.”

AT THE BACK OF THE ALLEGED PERPETRATORS report is a full list of the 500 names, from the Army, the Para-military forces, the J&K Police, and from the loose assemblage of Government-backed militants. Here, senior police officials, like the former DGP and the present IGP, are joined by two Major Generals, three Brigadiers, nine Colonels, three Lieutenant Colonels, and 78 Majors from the Army—the brass is fairly blinding. When these seasoned veterans hear of the report, will they want to pore over it, looking for their names? Will they worry? Will young policemen and army officers also read it, and pause to think about the battle they have signed up for, and look for a different compass to help them find a way out?

The Army’s official response to the report was predictable: a spokesman dismissed it as the mere “collation of unsubstantiated allegations aimed at maligning the Army”. The state government’s first response was to call it a “serious” matter, but then the same week, they proceeded to promote two senior police officers who figure in the list.

Looking at this list of 500 names, I could not but wonder if there are no soldiers and policemen in Kashmir who have had a moment of bad conscience, or an urge to break ranks? Did any of them ever feel the moral pressure to turn whistle-blower? We’ll probably never know. But in the printed report, I found traces of only one.

It’s a story that I knew already, and this one doesn’t end well either.

Case 185 involved the killing of four men from outside the Kashmir valley: Ashok Kumar, Bushan Lal, Ram Lal, and Satpaul, all Hindus from near Jammu. They too had been lured into coming to Kupwara with that familiar offer of highly paid work as porters. They too were killed in cold blood, with the 18th RR filing a routine report at the Lalpora Police Station: an encounter, they said, and two dead ‘terrorists’ to be buried. This was 20th April 2004.

A few months later, some Muslim families from Ganderbal were told that the buried men might be their missing kin, and were swiftly given permission to exhume the bodies. They were almost encouraged to take the bodies away and re-bury them in their family graveyard. The story could have ended with that interment: one set of disappeared men transformed into another. Messy, even tragic, but no one would have known better. But tucked in at the tail end of case is the sting, a mention of an Army officer connected to the killings, a Captain Sumit Kohli, who was subsequently “found dead”.

In this last story of our selections from the Hazar Dastan, we’ll have to stray away from Alleged Perpetrators, and reconstruct the conclusion from newspaper archives. This part is triggered by a letter that Meso Devi, wife of Ram Lal, one of the four dead men, received in June 2005. Written in Hindi, it informed her about the fake encounter and gave explicit details of the involvement of officers and men of the 18th RR. It was signed anonymously—aap ka sainik, insaniyat ka pujari (your soldier, worshipper of humanity). Someone—obviously a witness to the killing and burial of the four—had picked up their identity cards, found an address, as well as the courage to write the letter.

Eventually, some family members of the missing men arrived at the Lalpora Police Station, and by the end of 2005, the whole case exploded into public view. In the subsequent Court of Enquiry conducted by 18th RR, Captain Sumit Kohli was also a witness. In March 2006, this outstanding young officer was awarded a Shaurya Chakra, a prestigious medal for gallantry, for his courage in fighting ANEs (Anti National Elements, in the jargon). Five weeks later, the Captain was dead, shot in the head with an AK-47. Self-inflicted wounds, the Army said, hinting that he was depressed. Suicide, they said. He was only 26.

Captain Kohli’s father had a cerebral haemorrhage on hearing the news, and died a few days later, to be cremated only a day after his son. That left behind a grieving mother and a pregnant wife, and for many years the two women bravely campaigned to clear the air: they were convinced that their Sumit was no quitter, and that he had been killed for daring to lift the lid on the killings of the four civilians.

This footnote to Case 185, the young soldier who worshipped humanity, insaniyat ka pujari, was the one exception to have crossed the line, to become a possible witness, and maybe a whistle-blower. He was truly a shahid, both witness and martyr.

All through the pages of Alleged Perpetrators, making your way through case after case of the most disturbing instances of impunity, of a callous disregard for humanity, it’s not just the victims (or the perpetrators) alone whose stories take you in. Often it’s the witnesses, the brave souls who were present at the sites of abductions, who were present in police lock-ups and interrogation centers and torture chambers, taking their own punishment, but emerging with stories of those who perhaps didn’t make it. They are the witnesses to the silently borne rape of women, to the custodial killings, and the large-scale massacres. Without them the work of a volume like Alleged Perpetrators would be impossible. With each story that is told with care and caution, it’s that collective memory, painfully garnered, which promises to become the keen edge of justice in the future. That alone can blunt the teeth of the monstrous machine of impunity.

Sanjay Kak is a film-maker and occasional writer, whose recent work includes the documentary Jashn-e-Azadi—How we celebrate freedom (2007) about the conflict in Kashmir. He is the editor of the anthology Until My Freedom Has Come—The New Intifada in Kashmir (Penguin India 2011).


Responding to the public pressure, an Army court on Saturday decided to shift its centre of recording the statements of witnesses in the Pathribal carnage from Nagrota in Jammu to Awantipore in Kashmir valley. The court is holding trial on a chargesheet as the CBI has held a group of the Army officials guilty of killing five civilians in a fake encounter in Anantnag district in March 2000.

Even as the civilian witnesses had declined to travel to the headquarters of 16 Corps at Nagrota, the court had continued its initial proceedings in Jammu. It has finally relented to the extent of facilitating the recording of the evidences at headquarters of Victor Force at Awantipore in south Kashmir.

“Upholding the principles of justice, in a significant endeavour to facilitate timely conclusion of the case, the officer recording Summary of Evidence has been directed to move to Awantipur for recording the statements of the remaining witnesses,” an Army spokesperson said in a handout. He said that fresh summons had been issued to all the witnesses, including the family members of the five persons killed in the controversial shootout.

“Statements of 26 witnesses, including all the Army witnesses and some police as well as government officials, have been recorded so far. However, despite repeated summons issued to the civilian witnesses, they have not come forward to depose before the Army court, which is unduly delaying the judicial process”, said the handout. Recording of statements would commence from March 5.

On the night intervening March 20 and 21 in 2000, 35 male members of the Sikh community were massacred outside a Gurudwara at Chittisinghpura in Anantnag district. Four days later, officials of Rashtriya Rifles 7th battalion claimed to have killed “five foreign mercenaries” holding them responsible for the massacre. Soon, the residents of different villages developed suspicions with regard to the Army’s claim. They held demonstrations, asking the authorities to trace out the five civilians, who had been picked up in late night raids by different units of the armed forces.

As the residents’ demand grew louder with the death of seven demonstrators in firing by the men of Special Operations Group of Anantnag district police, a special investigation was ordered and all the five bodies were exhumed under magisterial supervision. Fudging of some tissue samples in a Forensic Science laboratory led to a fresh pandemonium. Finally, the investigation was assigned to the CBI.

In 2006, CBI completed its investigation and produced challan in a designated court in Srinagar. It found five Army officials responsible for stage-managing a fake encounter and claimed that the five innocent civilians had been killed so as to project them as the militants responsible for the Sikhs’ massacre.

Brig. Ajay Saxena, Lt. Col. Brajendra Pratap Singh, Maj. Sourabh Sharma, Maj. Amit Saxena and Subedar Idrees Khan were charged by the CBI with the murder of the five civilians.

However, Army put up resistance, claiming that the courts could not hold the trial without proper sanction from the government of India, as the Army in Jammu and Kashmir enjoyed special powers and immunity against such prosecutions. The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir stayed the proceedings in 2007.

The CBI pleaded that it was a “cold-blooded murder” of innocent civilians and the armed forces’ special powers and immunity were restricted only to the genuine counter-insurgency operations. The Supreme Court did not agree with the CBI but directed the Army to either hold the trial in its own court or choose the option of a civil court. On September 20, 2012, Lt. Gen. A.S. Nandal, who is also GOC of 16 Corps, started hearing the CBI case after the matter was shifted from the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Srinagar to the Army court.

On January 14, 2013, the General Court Marshal asked the family members of the five deceased persons to depose at Nagrota on January 28 but they refused to travel to Jammu and expressed security concerns. Finally, the Army court decided to record rest of the witnesses’ statements in the Valley.



The Kunan Poshpora incident occurred on February 23, 1991, when units of the Indian army launched a search and interrogation operation in the village of Kunan Poshpora, located in Kashmir‘s remote Kupwara District. At least 53 women were allegedly gang raped by soldiers that night. However, Human Rights organizations including Human Rights Watch have reported that the number of raped women could be as high as 100.Although the Indian government‘s investigations into the incident rejected the allegations as “baseless,” international human rights organizations have expressed serious doubts about the integrity of these investigations and the manner in which they were conducted, stating that the Indian government launched a “campaign to acquit the army of charges of human rights violations and discredit those who brought the charges.
According to reports, on February 23, 1991 at approximately 11:00PM soldiers from the 4th Rajputana Rifles cordoned off the village of Kunan Poshpora to conduct a search operation. The men were taken from their homes and assembled in an open field for interrogation overnight. Once the men had been taken away, soldiers allegedly gang raped a large number of village women overnight till 9:00 AM the next day.Local villagers alleged that up to 100 women “were gang-raped without any consideration of their age, married, unmarried, pregnancy etc.,The victims ranged in age from 13 to 80.The village headman and other leaders have claimed that they reported the rapes to army officials on February 27, but the officials denied the charges and refused to take any further action. However, army officials claim that no report was ever made.On March 5, villagers complained to Kupwara district magistrate S.M. Yasin, who visited the village on March 7 to investigate. In his final report, he stated that the soldiers “behaved like wild beasts”and described the attack as follows: A large number of armed personnel entered into the houses of villagers and at gunpoint they gang-raped 23 ladies, without any consideration of their age, married, unmarried, pregnancy etc… there was a hue and cry in the whole village.
He went on to state: I found the villagers were harassed to the extreme possible extent. In the morning after 9 a.m. when the Army left, the village men folk were released and when they entered their houses, they were shocked to see that the Army forces have gang raped their daughters, wives, sisters, etc. The armed forces have forcibly taken No Objection Certificate from the locals as well as from the local police after doing the illegal action… I feel ashamed to put in black and white what kind of atrocities and their magnitude was brought to my notice on the spot.
The United States Department of State, in its 1992 report on international human rights, rejected the Indian government’s conclusion, and determined that there was “was credible evidence to support charges that an elite army unit engaged in mass rape in the Kashmiri village of Kunan Poshpora.
#Every heart cried and every eye shed tears in the intervening night of the 23rd and 24th February 1991, when the young and energetic, but inhumane, Indian troops of the 04 Raj Raffles of 68 Brigade C/o 56 APO launched a search operation in the village of Kunan Poshpora, just 5kms from the main township Kupwara, and toed all humanitarian principals with the raping of as many as thirty women, including teenage girls and a near 100 year old frail


  • Musab Iqbal,

In Kunan Poshpora perhaps lie the truth of not only largest democracy, which moves on million boots, but also the secret of its non- violent conscience. The society whose conscience find no stimulation from the ‘distant’ brutality on it’s top, on it’s margin and in it’s heart.

It reminds us how the existence of oppressive power is denial of dignity to the oppressed. It reminds us of the history that is present and a past, which is not forgettable, and about the future which will emerge from the history of ruins.

The dream to come true is the dream of complete freedom from the rule of the power, which decides for itself and operates on us. The future is not known but what known is the presence of resistance; resistance against the ‘obvious’ – obvious of the power.

Can one speak after such an ordeal – a brutal operation on mind and body but then does ‘one’ remain after such a tragedy. There is no ‘one’ left – the experience transformed ‘one’ into ‘many’ and then into ‘another one’. The impossibility thus is in that very transformation whose beginning point is the singularity of the ‘collective pain’ shared by all but experienced by ‘one’. The moral of ‘one’ is then not in resistance – resistance to brutality but in the existential resistance to that very ‘other’. Resistance to the very operation of brutal has no meaning but the resistance to existence is the essence of that transformed ‘one’: Another One.

Can ones Army be imagined to rape and traumatize its own people but then we are forced to ask do army have any ‘people’ as ‘own’ people. The deployment itself is a detachment from ‘own-ness’. The police in localities of ours if catches someone, does that someone remains police’s own or not. The organized movement to traumatize ends the possibility of ‘own’ and ‘people’.


– 23rd February 2013, on his blog

Instead of punishing the men in uniform who tortured two young men, the J&K Police is targeting those who exposed the act.
Baba Umar

January 17, 2013, Issue 04 Volume 10

Exposed Video grab of J&K policemen stripping a youngster before thrashing him

Exposed Video grab of J&K policemen stripping a youngster before thrashing him

WHAT WAS hidden in police lock-ups so far is slowly coming out in grainy videos from the Kashmir Valley. A video clip uploaded on YouTube recently shows personnel of the Jammu and Kashmir Police stripping two young men naked before whipping them with belts.

The two-minute video clip titled ‘Kashmir: Indian militiamen assault detained Kashmiri teenagers’ — apparently shot with a cell phone by a policeman inside what is believed to be a police station in north Kashmir’s Baramulla district — shows a group of policemen forcibly taking off the two youngsters’ clothes and thrashing them, while the two keep pleading that they are not guilty.

After the video went viral on the Internet from 8 January, the police filed an FIR (No. 12/2013) under Section 66(A) of the Information Technology Act at the Baramulla police station. Under the controversial section, those who send “false and offensive messages through communication services” can be jailed for upto three years. Rights activists in the state say the police are targeting the whistleblower instead of taking action against those seen torturing the young men on the video.

“The FIR has been lodged against the person who leaked the torture episode. But there is no investigation into the role of those who were watching the crime and taking sadistic pleasure in it,” says Khurram Parvez, a Srinagar-based rights activist. “Had this video been about a similar incident outside Kashmir, the entire nation would have demanded answers.”

This is the latest in a chain of videos from Kashmir to have emerged on social networking sites and YouTube. In 2011, a video clip showed a soldier of the Indian Army shooting an unarmed man point blank after pulling him out from the rubble of a demolished house. The army did not question the authenticity of the video and claimed that the man shot dead was Pakistani militant Ahsan Bhai.

In September 2010 a three-minute video clip titled ‘Indian Army repeating Abu Gharib in Kashmir’ showed CRPF and policemen parading Kashmiri boys naked in Sopore town of north Kashmir. The video triggered massive outrage against the security forces, and Inspector General of Police (Kashmir) Shiv Murari Sahai promised a fair investigation. More than two years later, the probe is yet to pin down those responsible for the atrocity.

Reacting to the latest video clip, top politicians have sought an impartial probe and demanded that a case be filed against the policemen who tortured the two youngsters. PDP leader and former CM Mehbooba Mufti says the subsequent FIR lodged by the police is “yet another incident of silencing the whistleblowers.” Mufti believes such incidents are routine in the state. In 2010, more than 120 boys were shot dead, 95 percent of them students, and yet no justice was done, she says.

Promising to take up the issue with the government, Mufti says the Delhi-based media has glossed over “such a heinous act under the garb of security and nationalism”. The ruling National Conference’s senior leader and J&K Law Minister Ali Mohammad Sagar declined to speak with TEHELKA. “Let me enquire from the police officials first,” he said.

MEANWHILE, POLICE officials say they are investigating the veracity of the video. “The probe may throw up a lead against the officers who stood by doing nothing when the boys were being thrashed.”

Section 66(A) of the IT Act was used in this case even as a public interest litigation against the controversial clause has already made its way to the Supreme Court. SC lawyer and cyber law expert Pavan Duggal says the section is used to gag freedom of speech. “If the video shows police atrocity, it was wrong to file a case under the IT Act.” Agrees Brinda Karat of CPM, who says, “Section 66(A) is being misused to give impunity to the police.”

Anil Parashar, an official of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the country’s apex statutory human rights body, told TEHELKA that the video needs to be examined first. “If we find a violation of rights, then the NHRC will help the victims get justice.”


Peoples’ Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR)
Cordially invites you

for a
Public Meeting/Discussion
“Impunity for Alleged Perpetrators and Quest for Justice in Jammu & Kashmir”
On the 24th Jan 2013, Thursday
Between 1pm—5pm at Gandhi Peace Foundation, New Delhi.

Speakers and Discussants:
Pervez Imroz, Arundhati Roy, Nivedita Menon, Karthik.

Asish Gupta & D. Manjit
Secretaries, PUDR

(N.B: Please see the following statement of PUDR)

People’s Union for Democratic Rights
Press Statement

PUDR welcomes study on ‘Alleged Perpetrators’ on the culture of impunity in Jammu & Kashmir. Peoples Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) welcomes the release of the
study “Alleged Perpetrators” by the International Peoples’ Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Indian-Administered Kashmir (IPTK) and Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP)   on the culture of impunity ubiquitous in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. PUDR acknowledges that this is the first ever study in India which has broken the cover of anonymity which protects the perpetrators by raising the principle of ‘individual criminal responsibility’ which is well established under International Criminal Law starting with Nuremburg Trials and several UN tribunals.

Equally it raises the principle of Command Responsibility and principle of Joint Criminal Enterprise which too forms part of International Criminal Law. The Indian State ‘authorizations’ to armed forces to carry out every kind of operation, often without adherence to laws and norms under draconian legislations such as AFSPA  on the pretext of combating militant violence while simultaneously being in breach of bringing India’s domestic laws in line with International Conventions such as against Torture, Enforced Disappearance and Genocide compounds the impunity extended to India’s security forces because certain crimes are non-justiciable under Indian’s domestic law.

The study exposes the state of impunity through a study of 214 cases, using information garnered from official State documents. The documents include FIRs, statements before police and /or magistrates, police final reports, High Court petitions, objections, other documents forming a part of the court record such as compliance reports, status report, judicial enquiries, SHRC documents from complaints to objections, police submissions and final orders; the documents in custody of the State itself arraign the armed forces and the police of culpability in specific crimes. But the study also supplements these documents with testimonies of victims and other witnesses.

The study successfully refutes the claim of the Indian state that commission of crimes is an aberration than policy. It indicts the Indian State for pursuing a policy which engenders the state of impunity by listing 500 individual perpetrators, which include 235 army personnel, 123 paramilitary personnel, 111 Jammu and Kashmir Police personnel and 31 Government backed militants/associates. The list of perpetrators includes 2 Major Generals, 3 Brigadiers, 9 Colonels, 3 Lt. Colonels, 78 Majors and 25 captains of the Indian army as well as 2 Additional Director Generals of central para-military forces, 2 DIGs and 12 commandants. It also indicts a DG of Police and a serving IG of police.

The study shows how State violence is institutionalized through a culture of institutional impunity to the state forces where the police, the judiciary and other organs of the government perpetuate the state of human rights violation. This has resulted in enforced and involuntary disappearance of an estimated 8000 persons, besides more than 70,000 deaths, and disclosures of more than 6000 unknown, unmarked and mass graves as of November 2012. There is hardly any prosecution and conviction of the perpetrators. The unwillingness of the Indian State is revealed in the mass grave issue where the Kashmir Home Department on 19 October, 2012 expressed inability to carry out DNA tests because there are no more than “15-16 recognised labs in the Government as well as Private Sector”.  And then turns the entire issue into a farce when they ask that the blood relative should indicate “with fair amount of certainty the exact location of the graveyard and the grave”!

The study highlight that the state structure specifically sanctions commission of crimes through provisions such as the system of cash incentives, awards and out of turn promotions for anti-militancy operations, and prioritizing for the victims the system of monetary compensation over justice. The venerable Supreme Court has also ended up shielding criminals by upholding in the Pathribal fake encounter case denial of sanction for prosecution under AFSPA thereby raising yet another wall to protect the perpetrators.

The recent Universal Periodic Review by UN agency tasked with human rights, on India, revealed that Indian Government has rejected 67 recommendations out of 168 made by the committee which had among other things asked the Indian State to repeal AFSPA, and to ratify and bring domestic laws in accordance with International Convention Against Torture, Enforced Disappearance and Genocide. This blatant refusal by the Indian state currently engaged in taking its claim to a permanent seat in the UN Security Council only lends credence to the study which concluded by indicting India State and establishing that victims of armed conflicts stand little chance to get justice from Indian state institutions because they are themselves implicated in the perpetuation of impunity.

PUDR in extending solidarity with IPTK/APDP demands:
•         Adherence to domestic and international obligations and punishment to all perpetrators of human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir.
•         Withdrawal of security related legislations that are in contravention of international humanitarian laws and norms.
•         Ratification of Convention Against Torture, Convention Against Genocide and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance by the Government of India.

Asish Gupta and D. Manjit


By Abdul Majid Zargar

03 January, 2013

In the backdrop of recent incident of gang-rape of a girl in Delhi, Mr. Wajahat Habibullah, Chairman National Minorities commission & former Chief information commissioner of India has admitted that there have been numerous & widespread allegations of rape against Indian Army in Kashmir which have largely remained uninvestigated with the result that culprits have gone unpunished. But regrettably it has taken nearly ten thousand rapes of kashmiri women (Figure provided by a reputed news portal-Kashmir Media Service) for his conscience to arouse and speak truth.

Mr. Habibullah has worked in various top positions in Kashmir and is privy to many dirty things & covert operations having been committed in Kashmir .One such covert operation hatched by then Director General of Police that Killed Dr.Abdul Ahad Guroo in 1993 was revealed through his book “My Kashmir Conflict and the Prospects of Enduring Peace”(page 81-82).But one wonders whether he has fully come out of deep slumber or is it like a lucid interval for an insane person as in a recent TV programme it was shocking to hear his bizarre explanation of unidentified mass graves being unmarked because of persons of Wahabi sect buried therein which does not permit the names of dead to be inscribed on graves.

All Tyranny & barbarism needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. This is what Kashmir is witnessing today. The long struggle of Kashmiris against occupational violence is an everyday reality in the valley. Violence has served as a tool to affirm power and increasingly, women have become a medium through which the armed forces assert their authority and inflict human rights abuses. Rape in Kashmir is not merely a matter of chance nor is it a question of sex. It is also not a casual act by some erring soldier. It is rather a question of power and control which is `structured by male soldiers’ notions of their masculine privilege. Being cheaper, more destructive and easier to get away with than other methods of warfare, it has assumed an instrument of State policy to punish, intimidate, coerce, humiliate and degrade the local population with the sole purpose of forcing them into submission. Dr Maiti, a professor of political science at Rurdwa University, West Bengal, explains, “Rape continues to be a major instrument of Indian oppression against the Kashmiri people while the majority of victims are civilians. This concept stands fortified by a report of International Committee of Red Cross (ICRC) dated March 6, 2001, which mentions that women are raped in order to humiliate, frighten and defeat the enemy ‘group’ to which they belong. While addressing a seminar at the UN in Geneva, entitled, “Defending the Democratic Processes”, British parliamentarian, George Galloway, has also confirmed that India is using rape as a weapon of occupation in Kashmir.

A study done by “Doctors without Borders” reveals that Kashmiri women are among the worst sufferers of sexual violence in the world. It further mentions that since the beginning of the armed struggle in Kashmir in 1989, sexual violence has been routinely perpetrated on Kashmiri women. With victims numbering around ten thousand, Kashmir has surpassed the figures of Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka and Chechnya. A media portal of UK maintains that non-governmental organizations hardly took interest in documenting the plight of these silent sufferers of Jammu and Kashmir. This serves as a telling comment on the plight of women and on the indifferent attitude of the state towards addressing the issue. This has even been admitted by UN Special Representative Margot Wallstrom when she said recently . “It has become such a way of life in some conflict zones like Kashmir that many victims are simply too afraid to report it and you can understand that,” And even in those cases, where the victims manage to transcend these fears and report the matter to police, they achieve little or no justice because of the legal immunity provided to the erring soldiers.

With no remedy available at the national level, the rapes in Kashmir become eligible for an appropriate response at the international level. The state has to be held accountable for breach of its obligations under various relevant treaties and customary international law. The prosecution of individuals alleged to have committed rape should be done by the international criminal tribunal on the precedent of Nuremberg as the domestic courts and military court-martials have failed to deliver justice in these matters and are motivated by a state centric approach. The focus of the tribunal should be to punish the wrongdoers and not on providing compensation and support to the victim. If the international community remains a mute spectator to the war crimes in Kashmir, the people will loose trust in international law because of the strong developing perception that it applies only to the poor and weak and not to the strong and powerful? If you want global security, there are a lot of things to do, but the first thing is to have values or standards that are equal and fair.

The author is a practicing chartered Accountant. Feed back at