Thursday, June 3, 2010
Fake encounters in Kashmir
The epidemic of fake ‘encounter killings’ by the security forces has plagued Kashmir for too long. This weapon sanctioned as an instrument of State Policy and employed as a standard operating procedure was hitherto used to muzzle the voice of defenseless Kashmiris. This time it has been used by the Security forces for obtaining pecuniary advantages of promotions and monetary benefits. I must `congratulate' them for for this latest innovation, even at the risk of appearing cynical.The monster of `fake encounters' in Kashmir has run riot. With every such incident we think that Government of India must have learnt a lesson or two from our protests and things will not be repeated . But every time our hopes are belied and the Government comes with fresh assurances and promises. We tend to forget every time that when the highest authority of Indian Government that is its Prime Minister reneged on his own promise of a plebiscite made in 1947 in Lal Chowk. How are his successors expected to remember a promise of sparing the lives of ordinary hapless Kashmiris. Our naivety has accompanied us in this long and arduous journey of sixty three years.Year 2000. Five innocent people were Killed in Pathribal, Islamabad District. They were labeled as persons responsible for Chittisinghpora massacre. It hardly needs to be reiterated that Chittisinghpora incident itself was a covert operation conducted by the Indian agencies to malign and brand Freedom Struggle as a Communal Movement. When further five persons were murdered to shield the covert operation, Indian Home Minister, visited Kashmir to congratulate the forces for pulling off a miracle.Now let us examine the fate of Pathribal incident. After a lengthy inquiry, CBI chargesheeted five Army personnel, namely Brigadier Ajay Saxena, Lt Col Brijendra Pratap Singh, Major Sourav Sharma, Major Amit Saxena and Subedar Idrees Khan for murder. After going through various Court procedures. The case could not be proceded against the Army officers and is pending before the criminal court in Jammu and Kashmir. The reason being the issue of absence of “sanction” under Section 7 of the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act,1990.Come closer and you find that the Ganderbal fake encounter in 2007 raised a lot of hue and cry. Again the same result. Promise of an impartial enquiry, the repeat of the rhetoric of Zero tolerance for human rights violations, a few bucks to purchase the silence of poor hapless relatives of victims and that is all.The discovery of unmarked graves is yet another serious issue . Recently, the International People's Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice has shaken the world by disclosing that 2,700 unmarked graves with nearly 3,000 bodies across 55 villages in three districts of Kashmir have been discovered. Dr Angana Chatterjee of the Tribunal said: "The graves might be containing the bodies of the 8,000 people who disappeared during the 20 years of the armed conflict."It is believed with reasonable degree of certainty that a vast number of people have been killed in fake encounters and buried in these graves. What lends credence to such belief is that these unmarked graves are located near the Military Camps making them inaccessible for common man.The 'fake killings' in general are aided and abetted by some Special Operation Group (SOG) personnel, an amalgam of renegades, possibly motivated to gain awards and permanent recruitment into the police force. Remember that this group was conceptualized during National Conference government after 1996. The Govt. helped them in extortion, loot and plunder until they became law unto themselves. One of such persons was also recently awarded a Padma Shri confirming full consent of the Central Govt. to the arrangement. The Political advisor to State Chief Minister has now come with a bizarre explanation. He smells a conspiracy of destabilization of his master’s Govt. through these fake encounters committed with the help of same very renegades who helped him to come to power in 1996.By all means, modes and measures, it is the responsibility of international community to take cognizance of this genocide before it is too late. Syed Ali Shah Geelani is right in demanding a probe by International War Crime Tribunal.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
In a recent security operation in Chinkipora, Sopore nearly Fifty residential houses were razed to ground by Indian Security forces. We are told that few Militants had taken shelter in one of the houses in the area. When operations were launched to arrest them, heavy firing took place which caused a devastating fire resulting in destruction of residential houses. The loss was routinely attributed to “Collateral damage.”
Kashmiris are no new to such type of vandalism carried out under the garb of security exercises. In 1965,the whole colony of Batmaloo was razed to ground on the pretext of infilitrators having taken shelter there. Right from 1990, the devastating operations have been carried as a standard operating procedure at regular intervals by the security forces. Wazapora-Kadikadal belt, Chari-sharief Residential Colony, Sopore, Kupwara are few instances to quote. All the incidents were immediately debited to the account of “Collateral damages”. There are instances where security forces did not allow deliberately fire tenders & ambulances to reach the effected spots for extinguishing fire & evacuation of injured civalians for medical aid.
The question naturally arises as to what is “collateral damage”. The dictionary meaning of the word "collateral", which is derived from latin word collateralis, is "parallel" or "additional".In military expression,when coined with the word damage, it means an unintended damage to Civalian objects & property during security operations.
As is evident, intent is the key element in understanding the military definition as it relates to target selection and prosecution. Collateral damage is damage aside from that which was intended. It does not include a damage or destruction inflicted intentionally on civalians with a purpose of teaching them a lesson.
No law, national or international, permits security forces to indulge in wanton destruction of civalian properties. Under international law, civilians and their properties are protected under the laws of armed conflict by the principle of distinction. Under this principle, parties to an armed conflict (including militants) must always distinguish between civilians and their properties on the one hand, and combatants and military targets on the other. Article 57 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions states that, in an international conflict, "constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians, and civilian objects." In addition, under Article 51, certain type of operations are prohibited, as are attacks that employ methods and means of combat whose effects cannot be controlled. Finally, attacks are prohibited if the collateral damage expected from any attack is not proportional to the military advantage anticipated. Military commanders in deciding about attacks have to be aware of these rules and either refrain from launching an attack or suspend an attack if the principle of proportionality is likely to be violated, or re-plan an attack so that it complies with the laws of armed conflict. It must be noted that the obligation of a State to uphold the principle of distinction is also valid as customary law even if the State has not ratified the relevant protocol.
Additional Protocol II requires that, so long as they do not take part in hostilities, the civilian population "shall enjoy general protection against the dangers arising from military operations" and "shall not be the object of attack." It also prohibits acts or threats of violence whose primary purpose is to spread terror among the civilian population.
Coming to the the draconion Armed forces Special Power Act, which offers an impunity & immunity to security forces, it is submitted that the said Act also does not permit a hara-kiri on a scale witnessed in chinkipora. First, in an armed conflict in a disputed area like J&K, all national laws on the subject become subservient to the international law. Further even if, security forces are vested with powers which are excersible merely on the basis of suspicion, such powers have to be used resonably in good faith & not capriciously or whimsically.
Looking to the destruction & devastation inflicted on Chinkipora residents in light of the above arguments, it is clear that security forces have voilated with impunity all rules & norms while conducting the operation. Destruction of fifty house is quite disproportionate to the number of alleged militants present in the area. The said loss is not a collateral damage but a wanton destruction of civalian property with clear imprints of “teach- you-a-lesson” policy on it.
Kashmiris are no new to such type of vandalism carried out under the garb of security exercises. In 1965,the whole colony of Batmaloo was razed to ground on the pretext of infilitrators having taken shelter there. Right from 1990, the devastating operations have been carried as a standard operating procedure at regular intervals by the security forces. Wazapora-Kadikadal belt, Chari-sharief Residential Colony, Sopore, Kupwara are few instances to quote. All the incidents were immediately debited to the account of “Collateral damages”. There are instances where security forces did not allow deliberately fire tenders & ambulances to reach the effected spots for extinguishing fire & evacuation of injured civalians for medical aid.
The question naturally arises as to what is “collateral damage”. The dictionary meaning of the word "collateral", which is derived from latin word collateralis, is "parallel" or "additional".In military expression,when coined with the word damage, it means an unintended damage to Civalian objects & property during security operations.
As is evident, intent is the key element in understanding the military definition as it relates to target selection and prosecution. Collateral damage is damage aside from that which was intended. It does not include a damage or destruction inflicted intentionally on civalians with a purpose of teaching them a lesson.
No law, national or international, permits security forces to indulge in wanton destruction of civalian properties. Under international law, civilians and their properties are protected under the laws of armed conflict by the principle of distinction. Under this principle, parties to an armed conflict (including militants) must always distinguish between civilians and their properties on the one hand, and combatants and military targets on the other. Article 57 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions states that, in an international conflict, "constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians, and civilian objects." In addition, under Article 51, certain type of operations are prohibited, as are attacks that employ methods and means of combat whose effects cannot be controlled. Finally, attacks are prohibited if the collateral damage expected from any attack is not proportional to the military advantage anticipated. Military commanders in deciding about attacks have to be aware of these rules and either refrain from launching an attack or suspend an attack if the principle of proportionality is likely to be violated, or re-plan an attack so that it complies with the laws of armed conflict. It must be noted that the obligation of a State to uphold the principle of distinction is also valid as customary law even if the State has not ratified the relevant protocol.
Additional Protocol II requires that, so long as they do not take part in hostilities, the civilian population "shall enjoy general protection against the dangers arising from military operations" and "shall not be the object of attack." It also prohibits acts or threats of violence whose primary purpose is to spread terror among the civilian population.
Coming to the the draconion Armed forces Special Power Act, which offers an impunity & immunity to security forces, it is submitted that the said Act also does not permit a hara-kiri on a scale witnessed in chinkipora. First, in an armed conflict in a disputed area like J&K, all national laws on the subject become subservient to the international law. Further even if, security forces are vested with powers which are excersible merely on the basis of suspicion, such powers have to be used resonably in good faith & not capriciously or whimsically.
Looking to the destruction & devastation inflicted on Chinkipora residents in light of the above arguments, it is clear that security forces have voilated with impunity all rules & norms while conducting the operation. Destruction of fifty house is quite disproportionate to the number of alleged militants present in the area. The said loss is not a collateral damage but a wanton destruction of civalian property with clear imprints of “teach- you-a-lesson” policy on it.
Not Murders but selective genocide
The Killing of Zubair Ahmad Bhat of Sopore through forcible drowning & cold blooded murder of a seventy year old person in Handwara comes close on the heels of killing three teenaged boys earlier namely Inayat, Warmik & Zahid Farooq. If We had thought that arrest of Virdi & his subsequent trial in the Zahid Farooq’s murder would deter others or put a stop to such killings in future, We were badly mistaken.
Badly mistaken & embarrassed must also have been our Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as well as Chief Minister, Omar Abdullah , who have never been tired of repeating the rhetoric of Zero tolerance for human rights violations. It must now be clear to the them that it is only & only, the Jawan with Gun who matters in Kashmir. It is his writ which runs here & it is he who can spare our life or take it away depending upon his whim & mood.
I would not be farther from truth if I say that the mindset of the Indian Soldier, belonging to any rank & file, is heavily biased against the native Muslim Kashmiris. He has been tutored to distrust a Kashmiri Muslim & kill him at a slight doubt or suspicion. For him every Kashmiri Muslim is a terrorist, irrespective of his age or status. Let me cite an instance.
In early Nineties, when Militancy was it’s peak, I shifted from Downtown Srinagar to relatively calm uptown area of Wazir Bagh. My neighbourer was one Mr. Sita Ram, a noble soul, popularly known as Pappa Ji in the area.There was a BSF Camp in an house adjacent to his and pappaji would often talk to jawans or their officer through a window in his Kitchen. One day a firing incident took place in the vicinity & jawans from this camp were directed through wirless to handle the operations there. After two hours or so when they returned back, Pappa ji enquired the details of incident from them.Their reply was “ Firing Hui thi-Aur Hum ney Do Mohemmedans Ko Mar Giraya”.Being in his Company at that moment, pappaji felt highly embrassed to hear that stuff, closed the window & hurled an invective or two at them ,of-course outside their hearing range.
By the way the draconian laws of AFPSA & Disturbed Area Act also require him
precisely to do that & further extend him a legal shield against any proceedings what-so-ever. The problem is also compounded by his immunity from proceedings under the State Human rights Commission. The recent statement of new Army chief opposing repeal or any change in AFPSA law puts the soldier further in the comfort Zone & he feels that he has a licence to kill.
Lately the security forces have also, like politicians, mastered the art of changing statements. In the murder of 70 year old Habibullah, the Army first claimed that that its “6 Rashtriya Rifles killed a terrorist during an encounter in Rainawari forest near Pahaldagi village in Handwara in north Kashmir” around 4 am. The statement issued by defence spokesman Lt Col J S Brar said “Our patrol parties along with police had an exchange of fire with a terrorist in Rainawari forest. In the ensuing encounter, the lone terrorist was killed,”. The statement further claimed to have recovered an AK rifle along with four magazines and 67 rounds from the “slain terrorist”.
After the facts of victim Habibullah started coming to fore, the statement was revised to suggest that Victim was a guide of Militants. The revised Army statement read as ““On the night of April 13 and 14, a surveillance cum ambush party of 6 Rashtriya Rifles observed suspicious movement of three to four terrorists in the Rainwari forests. On Being challenged a firefight ensured between the militants & his party.After the encounter, which lasted 10-15 minutes, the militants managed to break contact and escape into the thick jungles,” said Brar. “After daybreak, a body was recovered, with an AK-47 rifle and ammunition near it. Possibly the deceased was being exploited as a guide or human shield”
If you read the two statements carefully, you will notice the revision in statement from lone militant to Guide or human shield of militants is a ploy to cover the cold blooded murder of Victim Habibullah. This trait is typical of politicians which are now adopted by Indian Security forces with profit.
This naturally begs another question. If the politicians, to whom we have voted 70% in the last elections, as claimed by Indian authorities, have not been able to save our lives & properties, then why not try to vote the security forces itself. Let security forces together float a party and publish the names of candidates. We will come out enmass & vote for them. May be that puts our politicians to shame & the selective genocide of Kashmiris is put to an end.
Badly mistaken & embarrassed must also have been our Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as well as Chief Minister, Omar Abdullah , who have never been tired of repeating the rhetoric of Zero tolerance for human rights violations. It must now be clear to the them that it is only & only, the Jawan with Gun who matters in Kashmir. It is his writ which runs here & it is he who can spare our life or take it away depending upon his whim & mood.
I would not be farther from truth if I say that the mindset of the Indian Soldier, belonging to any rank & file, is heavily biased against the native Muslim Kashmiris. He has been tutored to distrust a Kashmiri Muslim & kill him at a slight doubt or suspicion. For him every Kashmiri Muslim is a terrorist, irrespective of his age or status. Let me cite an instance.
In early Nineties, when Militancy was it’s peak, I shifted from Downtown Srinagar to relatively calm uptown area of Wazir Bagh. My neighbourer was one Mr. Sita Ram, a noble soul, popularly known as Pappa Ji in the area.There was a BSF Camp in an house adjacent to his and pappaji would often talk to jawans or their officer through a window in his Kitchen. One day a firing incident took place in the vicinity & jawans from this camp were directed through wirless to handle the operations there. After two hours or so when they returned back, Pappa ji enquired the details of incident from them.Their reply was “ Firing Hui thi-Aur Hum ney Do Mohemmedans Ko Mar Giraya”.Being in his Company at that moment, pappaji felt highly embrassed to hear that stuff, closed the window & hurled an invective or two at them ,of-course outside their hearing range.
By the way the draconian laws of AFPSA & Disturbed Area Act also require him
precisely to do that & further extend him a legal shield against any proceedings what-so-ever. The problem is also compounded by his immunity from proceedings under the State Human rights Commission. The recent statement of new Army chief opposing repeal or any change in AFPSA law puts the soldier further in the comfort Zone & he feels that he has a licence to kill.
Lately the security forces have also, like politicians, mastered the art of changing statements. In the murder of 70 year old Habibullah, the Army first claimed that that its “6 Rashtriya Rifles killed a terrorist during an encounter in Rainawari forest near Pahaldagi village in Handwara in north Kashmir” around 4 am. The statement issued by defence spokesman Lt Col J S Brar said “Our patrol parties along with police had an exchange of fire with a terrorist in Rainawari forest. In the ensuing encounter, the lone terrorist was killed,”. The statement further claimed to have recovered an AK rifle along with four magazines and 67 rounds from the “slain terrorist”.
After the facts of victim Habibullah started coming to fore, the statement was revised to suggest that Victim was a guide of Militants. The revised Army statement read as ““On the night of April 13 and 14, a surveillance cum ambush party of 6 Rashtriya Rifles observed suspicious movement of three to four terrorists in the Rainwari forests. On Being challenged a firefight ensured between the militants & his party.After the encounter, which lasted 10-15 minutes, the militants managed to break contact and escape into the thick jungles,” said Brar. “After daybreak, a body was recovered, with an AK-47 rifle and ammunition near it. Possibly the deceased was being exploited as a guide or human shield”
If you read the two statements carefully, you will notice the revision in statement from lone militant to Guide or human shield of militants is a ploy to cover the cold blooded murder of Victim Habibullah. This trait is typical of politicians which are now adopted by Indian Security forces with profit.
This naturally begs another question. If the politicians, to whom we have voted 70% in the last elections, as claimed by Indian authorities, have not been able to save our lives & properties, then why not try to vote the security forces itself. Let security forces together float a party and publish the names of candidates. We will come out enmass & vote for them. May be that puts our politicians to shame & the selective genocide of Kashmiris is put to an end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)