Showing posts with label Fake Encounters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fake Encounters. Show all posts

6 Feb 2014

Frozen in time

Bashaarat Masood, Safwat Zargar. 

Families and villagers preserve the signs that remind them of the victims of the Pathribal killings of 2000. The Indian Express visits some of these villages after an Army court martial cleared five personnel accused of faking the encounter.

Nazir Ahmad Dalal opens a dusty, sky-blue refrigerator and takes out a half-empty bottle of Rooh Afza squash. The last one to sip from it was his nephew Zahoor Ahmad Dalal, 29, and that was 14 years ago. “No one has touched this bottle since,” says Nazir Ahmad.

Zahoor’s body, burnt and mutilated, was among five exhumed from graves in three villages on April 6, 2000. Army personnel had killed the five on March 25 and described them as foreign militants responsible for the killing of 36 Sikhs five days earlier in Chittisinghpora, close to Pathribal. Last fortnight, the Army closed court-martial proceedings against five personnel and cleared them of charges of having faked the encounter.

It is the first time the Dalal family in Mominabad is letting an outsider into the house since Zahoor was killed. The Dalals themselves unlock and enter the two-storey building once or twice a week — only to switch on the lights. “It is a feeling we have that the house is not empty,” says Nazir Ahmad. “It has been 14 years and we haven’t snapped the electricity and water supply to the house. If we do, our sister will feel sad.”

It retains many reminders. A yellowed telephone directory carries romantic verses in Zahoor’s handwriting. The directory is from 1994, when a telephone connection was a luxury, and lists Zahoor’s name on page 159. In the corridor is a kerosene lamp, now covered in cobwebs, a reminder of the time when inverters hadn’t come into fashion.

In a wood and glass cupboard in the kitchen is a plastic jug that Zahoor drank water from. There is a red toothbrush he used in 2000. On the top shelf is an empty bottle of Dabur Chyawanparash, manufactured in October 1999. “Zahoor regularly ate from this,” says Nazir Ahmad.

Mominabad: the house

Zahoor was well-off, running a textiles shop in Anantnag. He disappeared on March 22, 2000, after stepping out for evening prayers.

“He was sitting besides me. I asked him to buy some oranges,” says his eldest uncle, Mohammad Yusuf Dalal, who now runs Zahoor’s textiles shop. “When he brought the oranges, I offered him some but he hurried to his house and then left for the mosque. Everybody else returned but he didn’t.”

The family’s search ended after a few days. “A villager from Pathribal told me he had been killed,” says Yusuf. “We were hoping the news was wrong. The Army wouldn’t allow anyone to go to Pathribal, but an old friend of mine went in the guise of a holy man and came back with a piece of cloth. It was from Zahoor’s shirt.”

The exhumation confirmed it. “I identified him from his ring and burnt sweater,” says Nazir Ahmad. “He was in an Army uniform, which was intact when the entire body was charred. It was after burning them that they dressed them up in Army fatigues.”

Zahoor’s father, Abdul Gaffar, had died when the only son was just nine. With his four sisters married, Zahoor’s world revolved around his mother Raja Begum. She hasn’t entered the house since he died. Her brothers too restrain her fearing the reminders will be too painful to bear. What she does do is gaze at the house from the floor verandah of her brothers’ home.

“Ask Farooq Abdullah (the then chief minister) what he said that day and what he has to say today,” she calls out from the verandah. “Ask them what wrong my son had done.” And when the house is shut again: “Did you find my prince there? Tell him, please come.”

Brari Angan: the pictures

In a small, rusty tin box, Mirza Noor has kept three pictures of her husband Juma Khan, 55 in 2000. The first shows him with a henna beard and in a green turban. He had it taken in Jammu, the day before he returned home. “This picture gives me the reason to live,” she says.

Another picture is of Juma Khan’s second funeral in his village, Brari Angan, after the body had been exhumed from the original grave. The third shows the burnt, mutilated body on the ground. “I still cannot sleep,” Mirza says. “Whenever I shut my eyes, that image comes to me.” Yet she refuses to destroy the picture. “How can I? It is his last photograph.” Two men from this village, the other too called Juma Khan, were killed.

Zona Tengri: the shacks

From Wuzkhah, a roadside village at Pathribal, a 1½-km uphill trek leads to Zona Tengri, a small plateau where Gurjjar shacks lie unused. These connect the five families who lost members to the “encounter”.

On the morning of March 25, 2000, the army cordoned off the area and asked villagers to stay inside their homes. They heard gunfire and the loud thuds of mortar shells. When they were allowed to come out of their houses, they found the five burnt bodies in the shacks.

A fortnight later, when the victims had been identified as innocent civilians, villagers here decided to turn the site into a place of prayer. “It was a collective decision of the villagers to use this area  only for prayers,” says Gulzar Ahmad Khan of Zona Tengri.

The villagers haven’t repaired their old shacks but built new ones instead.  “How could we live in those shacks? The blood of innocent people was spilled there,” says Syed Mohammad Yousuf, 65. “It gets scary sometimes.”

via The Indian Express

5 Feb 2014

Court Martials begin in Machil encounter case

The Army has started court martial proceedings against half-a-dozen of its officers and jawans involved in the April 2010 staged encounter in which three Kashmiri youth were shot dead in cold blood in Machael area along the Line of Control after being lured with job offer.

In December 2013, the Army had indicted Col. D.K. Pathania, Major Upinder, Subedar Satbir, Hawaldar Bir Singh, sepoys Chandra Bhan, Nagendra Singh and Narendra Singh in the fake encounter case and ordered their court martial. Investigations carried out by the Army and J&K police separately and spread over three years confirmed that Major Upinder of 4 Rajput Battalion and others had entered into a criminal conspiracy with Abbas Hussein, a resident of Kamalkote village in Uri area near the de facto border and a soldier of 161 Battalion of Territorial Army, and lured three youth Shehzad Ahmed, Muhammad Shaffi and Reyaz Ahmed of Nadihal village of Baramulla district to Machael on the promise that they would be provided with jobs in the Army.

But the trio was instead shot dead in cold blood and subsequently dubbed as infiltrating foreign terrorists apparently with an eye on rewards and out of turn promotions. A special police officer Bashir Ahmed Lone, his brother Abdul Qayyum and two other civilians Fayaz Ahmed Ikhwani and Abdul Hamid Butt are also involved in the crime

The accused Army officials have since been attached. The Army’s action comes after its “court of inquiry” into the incident submitted its final report in November 2013. The “court of inquiry” was led by then commander of 68 Mountain Brigade, Brigadier G.S. Sangah, now a major-general, which found the accused guilty of the crime.

via The Asian Age

30 Jan 2014

Army's goodwill at stake: Omar Abdullah

In his first reaction on the 2000 Pathribal encounter case, Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has flayed the Indian Army, saying that it needs to be "a lot more accommodating".

The Army had on Friday closed its probe in the case, acquitting the five accused soldiers, saying the evidence recorded could not establish prime facie charges against any of them.

Abdullah said, "The Army has said that they don't have enough to proceed with the court martial. I hope the Government of India recognises the decision of the Army has not gone down well. This is a matter which is currently in front of the Supreme Court as well. The AFSPA argument will come up again. The CBI has found evidence, how can the army say that they cannot accept this?"

The CBI had in 2006 indicted the five accused Army personnel - Brig Ajay Saxena, Lt Col Brahendra Pratap Singh, Maj Saurabh Sharma, Maj Amit Saxena and Subedar Idrees Khan - stating that they were involved in the gunning down of five villagers and dubbing them as foreign militants before the media.

The investigative agency, in its chargesheet, stated that the killing of the innocents was a result of "tremendous psychological pressure" on the Army to show results after the massacre of 36 Sikhs in Chittisinghpura in the valley on the eve of the visit of then US President Bill Clinton to India.

"One Macchil doesn't make everything else fair. All the goodwill the Army has earned has been undone by a Pathribal decision. This is one of the few test cases," the 43-year-old said, referring to the 2010 Macchil fake encounter case for which the Army court-martialed six of its officers.

The young Chief Minister also ruled out Arvind Kejriwal-style protests to press for his demands.

"Arvind Kejriwal did a dharna outside the Rail Bhawan. What did he end up with? Two policemen go on paid leave? We have to give logic to the government of India. How would you react if any Chief Minister sat outside the Ministry of Defence on the AFSPA? Would you be open to that thought?" he asked.

Abdullah also said that the National Conference's alliance with the Congress was "under discussion". "There are reservations in our party. Sections in the Congress too would like to do it alone," he said.

via IBN Live

29 Jan 2014

Reopen the Pathribal case

The Indian Army has not covered itself with glory by closing the cases against the officers involved in the infamous Pathribal fake encounter in Jammu and Kashmir in which five civilians were killed. Taking over the investigation of the case after an uproar over the 2000 incident, the Central Bureau of Investigation concluded that a Brigadier, a Lieutenant Colonel, two Majors, and a Subedar of 7 Rashtriya Rifles had staged the encounter, picking up civilians from the Anantnag area and killing them in cold blood. They lied to the police that the five were foreign militants who had carried out the massacre of Sikhs in Chattisinghpora a few days earlier. Backed by the Ministry of Defence and the Army top brass, the officers named contested the CBI charge sheet, making the argument that under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, prior sanction was required to prosecute them. When the legal battle reached its portals, the Supreme Court upheld the officers’ case. It also directed the Army to either sanction the prosecution of the officers or court-martial them. The Army was offered the same options back in 2001, but chose to prolong the legal battle. This time, its back to the wall, it chose the latter option. The Army court has egregiously concluded that “the evidence recorded could not establish a prima facie case against any of the accused.” The finding flies in the face of the CBI investigation, but that was only to be expected. The last hope the families of the dead had that justice might be done, lies buried.

It was only in December 2013 that the Army was patting itself on the back for ordering the court martial of three officers involved in the Machchil fake encounter case, citing that as evidence of its willingness to improve its human rights record. But the Pathribal case, through all its legal twists and turns, ending in the exoneration of the accused officers, sends exactly the opposite message. It is a textbook illustration of why the AFSPA is flawed, and strengthens the case to do away with the provision that requires “previous sanction” from the Central government for prosecution, if not to repeal the law itself. The Army’s whitewash job can only increase resentment against the military in Kashmir, and feed into the sense of alienation. Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, who understands this well, has rightly said Pathribal “can’t be closed or wished away”. The leader of the National Conference, already criticised as a Congress “stooge”, will have to face the political backlash from the exoneration. If the Centre is serious about winning hearts and minds in Kashmir, it should step in to undo the damage, and find a legal way to reopen the case and pave the way for a civilian trial.

via The Hindu

28 Jan 2014

AFSPA, Army And My Republic : A Case Of Pathribal Encounter

Ravi Nitesh.

With all the sentiments of the republic, it is a contradiction to see that how after a long struggle of court case in the Pathribal Encounter Case, Supreme Court of India told the Indian Army on 1st May 2012 to give sanction for prosecution of officers or court martial them. Army announced on June 29, 2012 to court martial and now on Januray 24, 2014 , Army closed the court martial and said that no evidence found against accused officers.

It is very shocking to see that how Indian Army overruled the Apex Court and protected its officers who were accused of fake encounters in a case where five civilians of J&K encountered to death in the year 2000.

In the case, that was held on March 25, 2000 just after the prior incident of killing of 34 Sikh men in Chittisinghpora (J&K). First incident was obviously sad and for that detailed search operation and investigation was required. First operation was done by unknown anti social and anti national elements. Also timings of this killing was very important as it was just a day before the visit of Bill Clinton to India. In this context , there were many views regarding the incident. Some persons viewed it a conspiracy and various such arguments were in air. It could be viewed as a terrorist attack or a sponsored one, but all with the motive of making a scene that Kashmir is not peaceful at all and there is a need to deploy security personals to maintain law and order. However what happened later was more shocking and sad. It was encounter of five civilians at Pathribal (a place), that took place by Indian soldiers.

This incident again became so shocking that people came out of their home to protest, to demand the action against Army. It was not abnormal at all and not unjustified because an armed personal has every responsibility to protect the people rather than killing them. Also, people were angry because they were already facing the every day sufferings by armed forces deployed in J&K region.

With the massive protest, the CBI came in loop and the investigation started that chargesheeted 5 personals of Indian Army in its chargesheet filed on May 11, 2006. Again with the impunity granted to army under Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) where a prior sanction is required under AFSPA for any prosecution of officers, Army challanged the chargesheet. Then the case after the 6 year long judicial procedure heard at Supreme Court where CBI told that these encounters were cold blooded and also demands that these officials deserve exemplary punishment.

With all this, any one can easily understand that how it is so difficult to get permission to prosecute a an armed personal under civilian law. Not even that, it is a valid proof of judicial delay where the case happened in the year 2000 and it came to an end in 2012 by judiciary while in 2014 it again went to fresh position from where the case was started. It is also a valid proof that how despite being a central agency , Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is helpless and its own investigation became null and void in front of the army. It is also to know that how Supreme Court of India provided option of permission of sanction of prosecution and of doing court martial by army itself and as obvious Army choose to do a court martial. This again raise a question that why and how long we need a parallel system of providing justice at least in such severe cases of killings and rapes that were held in civilian areas and of civilians?

Is not it a question upon whole concept of Republic?

via Counter Currents

27 Jan 2014

Pathribal: Army’s move inexplicable

Editorial, The Asian Age. 

On the face of it, the Army’s case seems implausible in respect of the infamous Pathribal episode of March 2000, in which five innocent villagers in southern Kashmir were shot to death at point blank range, allegedly under a diabolical plan involving five of its personnel, four of them officers.

At the end of court-martial proceedings that lasted about two years, the Army blandly — and opaquely — said last week that there was no prima facie case against the accused. It also noted that the incident was a joint operation with the police. The implied suggestion is that those looking for the killers might search within the J&K police force.

From the perspective of the victims’ families, and the people in the Valley, it has taken 14 long years to reach a conclusion such as this. Justice, of course, is nowhere in sight. In a volatile context, pain and grief can turn into rebellion, at least at the psychological level, even if the populace can be physically kept down.

Indeed, it is worth pondering if the Army could have got away with the straight-faced explanation it has offered had Pathribal been located in India’s heartland. This is a question that Kashmiris quite appropriately ask. Also, the separatists have been gifted an opening when their zeal was flagging.

The Army’s case may have been on firmer footing if it had presented the reasons for its finding both to the public as well as the Supreme Court even if the manuals do not require this, given the sensitive nature of the affair. In the face of protests and grave disquiet in Kashmir over the unlawful killings, the Supreme Court had asked the Army to either submit itself to civilian jurisdiction in the matter or accept a court-martial.

This was on the back of the CBI finding enough grounds to chargesheet the five Army personnel in 2006. Kashmir had been buoyed by this show of impartiality. The Army, however, rejected the CBI’s action, saying that under the provisions of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, the investigators should have obtained the Centre’s prior sanction to proceed against military personnel.

The Indian Army is a patriotic force with a well-deserved reputation for bravery and professionalism. But this formidable reputation suffers when its personnel become wayward and break the rules of fair conduct. When the Army as an institution condones the lawless behaviour of individuals in the force, its ability to operate in sensitive areas gets diminished. This is to the nation’s detriment. The AFSPA is not meant to give Army personnel a free ride, but to protect them from malafide legal action when they act lawfully in the line of duty.

via The Asian Age

26 Jan 2014

Army lets off its men who killed civlians

Sanjay Khajuria & M Saleem Pandit.

The Army has closed the case against five soldiers accused of killing five civilians and trying to pass them off as terrorists at Pathribal in Anantnag district of Jammu & Kashmir in 2000, citing "lack of evidence" in the probe.

The Supreme Court in 2012 had given the option to the Army to either itself try the soldiers -- including one who retired as a Major-General last year, two serving Colonels and a Lt-Colonel - or let the proceedings against them continue before a civil court in Srinagar. This had come after the CBI chargesheeted the accused, describing the extra-judicial killings as "cold-blooded murder".


The Army said it had undertaken ``a comprehensive and exhaustive" effort to record the evidence against all the accused, examining forensic and documentary evidence as well as over 50 witnesses including civilians, state police and government officials.

``The evidence recorded could not establish a prime-facie case against any of the accused but clearly established that it was a joint operation by the J&K Police and the Army based on specific intelligence. The chief judicial magistrate in Srinagar has been apprised of the closure of the case on January 21," said an Army spokesperson.

With the Army insisting on trying them, the abrupt closure of the long-pending controversial case triggered immediate criticism from human rights groups as well as state politicians on Friday. "A matter as serious as Pathribal can't be closed or wished away like this more so with the findings of the CBI so self evident," said chief minister Omar Abdullah, expressing his ``extreme disappointment".

Opposition People's Democratic Party leader Mufti Mohammed Sayeed described the Army's move as "miscarriage of justice". Holding that it was a huge setback to efforts of reconciliation and justice, he said, "There have been many instances in which standards of justice applied to incidents taking place in J&K have been found short of the universal standards applied in rest of the country. The Pathribal atrocity stood out even among them for its cruelty and context."

The killing of the five civilians, aged between 22 and 50, had rocked the Valley in 2000. Their bodies were burnt beyond recognition to pass them off as the terrorists who had killed 35 Sikhs in Chattisingpora on the eve of the then US President Bill Clinton's visit to India on March 25, 2000.

Matters had taken a turn for the worse when seven protestors had been killed as CRPF jawans fired on a group of people demanding a proper probe into the alleged fake encounter on April 3, 2000.

With the state government finally ordering a probe into the case, the bodies of the five were exhumed. After the first lot of DNA samples were found to have been tampered with, a fresh DNA test later proved they were innocent civilians and not foreign terrorists.

A judicial inquiry had also found the Army soldiers and J&K cops guilty of staging the encounter before the case was handed over to the CBI for "extensive investigations". The CBI had exonerated the police but charged the then Brig Ajay Saxena, Lt-Col Brahendra Pratap Singh, Majors Saurabh Sharma and Amit Saxena and Subedar Idrees Khan with criminal conspiracy, murder and kidnapping.

The Army appealed against the CBI chargesheet before the Supreme Court saying it was filed without the Centre's mandatory sanction as per the provisions of the draconian Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), which gives sweeping powers to armed forces besides providing them immunity against prosecution.


The apex court gave the Army the option to court-martial the five despite the CBI insistence that they were involved in the "fake encounter", which does not give them immunity under AFSPA.

Human rights groups decried the Army's move to close the case. "The Indian Army's recent statements declaring 'zero tolerance' for human rights violations in J&K ring hollow after its decision to close the Pathribal fake encounter case," said Amnesty International spokeswoman Christine Mehta. "The Army's closure of the case brazenly disregards the findings of the CBI and the rights of the families of the victims`," she added.

via Times Of India

23 Jan 2014

From extrajudicial killings to rape, the Army is reeling

Syed Nazakat. 

How much is a life worth? Not more than Rs.50,000, according to a few errant soldiers of 4 Rajput Regiment. That was the price they put for the lives of three Kashmiri youth, Shahzad Ahmad, 27, Riyaz Ahmad, 23, and Muhammad Shafi, 23. The trio from Nadihal village in Baramulla, some 70km north of Srinagar, did not know that they were walking into a trap when they were offered jobs as porters for the Army. They were lured by renegades, who had fixed a deal with the troops.

On April 29, 2010, they were taken to the Machil sector of the Line of Control. Next day, they were driven to the desolate woods nearby and shot dead in a staged encounter. To make sure that they could not be identified, their faces were mutilated before burying them in unmarked graves near the border. In the first information report filed subsequently, they were described as dreaded Pakistani terrorists. And, the fake encounter became a badge of bravery on paper. The killings triggered violent protests across Kashmir, claiming at least 123 civilian lives, with each new death leading to another round of protest marches and more deaths.

The Machil fake encounter raised a number of disturbing questions. What prompted the Army men to kill three innocent civilians in cold blood? Who paid the money? Were the senior military officials aware of the killings? And, more importantly, whether the regiment had conducted similar encounters in the past? As the Army announced its decision to court-martial the accused, Colonel D.K. Pathania, the then commanding officer of the regiment, Major Upinder Singh and four jawans, these questions, too, need to be answered.

“This [court-martial decision] should adequately project that when there is sufficient evidence of human rights violations, the Army will never stand in the way of justice,” said Lieutenant General (retd) Ata Hasnain, former military secretary. “The Army took immediate action, but the whole case got mired in legalities of jurisdiction of military or civil legal process, which is why it has taken so long to commence the proceedings.”

From extrajudicial killings and abductions to rape and harassment, the Army is facing a series of allegations of human rights violations. As many as 93 serving soldiers, including senior officers, have been named in FIRs related to rights violations in the last three years, according to a defence ministry statement. Most of these cases were recommended by different state governments and human rights commissions. However, the military commanders have, on most occasions, reflexively glossed over them.

The instances of abuses are not limited to Jammu and Kashmir. In 2013, the Supreme Court set up a three-judge committee, headed by retired justice Santosh Hegde, to examine a case of 1,528 fake encounters in Manipur. The committee selected six encounters and found that none of them was genuine. In one of the cases, the committee indicted Major D. Sreeram Kumar, a recipient of Ashok Chakra, India's highest peace-time gallantry award.

There is no dearth of guidelines to ensure that human rights are not violated during counterinsurgency operations by the Army. There are strict instructions against keeping anyone under illegal custody, destroying civilian properties or humiliating locals. Yet, extrajudicial killings remain unabated.

A senior officer said these were merely aberrations. “To suggest that an aberration is the norm is to present a completely distorted picture,” he said. “Please remember that fighting insurgency is a very complex job and mistakes happen inadvertently.” He pointed out an incident in Handwara  in Kashmir in 2011. Manzoor Ahmad, a 21-year-old student, walked into an ambush the Army had laid for militants. The Army had asked local people to carry lanterns at night to avoid being mistaken for militants and Manzoor was without one that fateful night. When the troops detected a movement towards the ambush site, he was asked to surrender. Manzoor, however, turned back and started to run for fear of the Army. The troops opened fire and he died on the spot. The Army expressed regret and said it was a case of mistaken identity. No one was punished for the killing.

Between 1993 and 2013, the Army's human rights cell investigated 1,394 allegations of human rights violations in the northeast and Jammu and Kashmir. Of these, only 54 cases, it claimed, were supported by facts and evidence. Consequently, 124 personnel, including 39 officers, were punished. However, the Army has not given a detailed breakdown of the courts-martial cases. Neither has it shared details about the large number of cases which it has outrightly dismissed as false and baseless.

“The Army should be more transparent in its approach in dealing with human rights cases,” said Major General (retd) Ashok Mehta. “The actions of one rogue military personnel demean the sacrifices of those who put their lives at risk to defend the nation.” He said the root cause for the fake encounters was the reckless temptation of a few to win rewards and promotions. “We need to discourage this trend of rewarding a unit or a battalion on the basis of the number of terrorists it has killed. There should be other ways to judge the performance of the soldiers,” he said.

M.M. Ansari, who was the Union home ministry's interlocutor for Jammu and Kashmir, said there was no transparency over how the Army investigated cases in insurgency-hit areas. “Many complaints have been described as false by the Army without disclosing details of the inquiries,” he said. “That reflects a culture of impunity.”

There are also cases like the Pathribal killings of 2000 that received prominent national attention, but yet remain unresolved. Five days after 36 Sikhs were killed by unidentified gunmen at Chattisinghpora in south Kashmir on the eve of President Clinton's visit to India, the J&K Police and the Army, in a joint operation, killed five men in Pathribal village on March 25, claiming that they were the foreign terrorists responsible for the massacre. Soon, it turned out that the slain five were civilians, who had been picked from different areas and then killed in a staged encounter. The CBI's investigation found that it was a cold-blooded murder and the accused officials were guilty. However, the families of the victims are still awaiting justice even as Brigadier Ajay Saxena, who was identified as the key accused by the CBI, was promoted to the rank of major general.

Christof Heyns, the UN's special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, who visited India in 2012, observed that most extrajudicial killings fitted a common pattern. In a majority of the cases, the victims were killed after they were picked up by security forces. In one such case, the Dimapur-based 3 Corps Intelligence and Surveillance Unit was accused of killing three people in a fake encounter. The whistleblower in this case was Major Ravi Kumar of the same unit, who said the victims were brought to the officers' mess and later killed in a fake encounter. The Army, however, said the allegations were “found to be devoid of merit and were not substantiated”.

In 2012, the same unit was accused of a botched intelligence operation in Jorhat, Assam. Lieutenant General Dalbir Singh Suhag, who headed the unit, was subsequently slapped with a discipline and vigilance ban by General V.K. Singh, who was the Army chief. After General Bikram Singh became the chief, the ban was lifted and Suhag was promoted to head the Eastern Army Command. On January 1, 2014, General Suhag took over as vice-chief of Army staff, making him the most likely successor of General Bikram Singh.

General Hasnain said the Army had tried to identify all symbols of aggression and provocation and dilute them as much as possible, besides attempting to train all ranks in cultural sensitivity. “The lessons from these efforts have been codified and are being more extensively studied and taught at the Army War College, Mhow,” he said. “We need to conduct operations with size of force commensurate to the task. Overkill fetches us no dividends.”

via The Week

27 Dec 2013

The case against AFSPA

The Machchil fake encounter case is the exception that proves the rule; justice cannot be served when the security apparatus is above the law

The army’s decision to court martial six of its men for their involvement in the 2010 Machchil fake encounter case is both welcome and open to interpretation. Justice for the cold-blooded murder of Reyaz Ahmed Lone, Shahzad Ahmad Khan and Mohmmad Shafi by army men is in itself an unalloyed good. But the tricky part is liable to come when the court martial is used to bolster the argument that it is possible for the army to police its own, as it inevitably will be. The corollary, of course, is that justice can be served within the framework of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). That is a mug’s game. Machchil is not an indicator of the army in Jammu & Kashmir and the northeast becoming more accountable. It is, if anything, the exception that proves the rule.

Consider the fact that Machchil is the first instance of major action being taken against a serving army official for involvement in human rights violations. This when AFSPA has been in effect in various parts of the country since 1958. Pathribal, Chattisinghpora, Sopore, Shopian and any number of such instances bear testament to the manner in which Kashmiris have been systematically alienated. The International People’s Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice pegs the number of people gone missing in the state since 1989 at over 8,000. From international bodies such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International to domestic activists, observers hold the instances of rape and extrajudicial killings as numbering in the tens of thousands. And this is one state. Look further east and there is the 2004 Manorama Devi incident, while a case concerning 1,528 alleged fake encounter deaths in Manipur is now before the Supreme Court.

AFSPA draws upon the antecedent of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 — a handy little piece of legislation introduced by the British to protect their officials engaged in the imperial endeavour. It doesn’t take any great stretch of imagination to see the symbolism inherent in now using such a law against people on the fringes of the Indian state. A democratic nation is founded on the principle of equality before law. When a vast section of the security apparatus in parts of the country is exempt from this principle, what remains is, by definition, no longer democracy. And the military’s logic — that AFSPA is essential to fighting militancy — is deeply flawed. Instilling a siege mentality in the people of a state does not tamp down such sentiments; it feeds them.

The various organs of the Indian State have flubbed every opportunity to bring about a change.

From Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to then-Home Minister P Chidambaram, various members of the executive have spoken of the need to take another look at AFSPA — and left it at that. The SC buckled in the Pathribal case last year when it upheld the AFSPA provision that the prosecution of army personnel in states where the act is in effect must be sanctioned by the government. Given political exigencies, that is as good as granting immunity. Earlier this month, Lt Gen Gurmit Singh, commander of 15 Corps of the army’s Northern Command had said: “I don’t want any such person in the Indian Army who is found guilty of rights violation and any such official, whosoever he may be, will be prosecuted.” An admirable sentiment — but the only way in which it will be fulfilled is if the country’s civilian authorities rediscover their spine and democratic principles and move to repeal AFSPA.

via DNA

Machil fake encounter case: Victims’ kin welcome court martial order, but live in fear

Mir Ehsan. A day after the army ordered court martial proceedings against six soldiers including two officers involved in the Machil fake encounter case, families of three youth killed in the encounter welcomed it though fear still stalks them. The families claim they have to live under fear of death threats from civilians engaged by the army as informers, who are in police custody.
Mohammad Yusuf Lone, father of Riyaz Ahmad, one of the slain youth, said a few days ago he received a threat call from an unknown caller on his mobile phone. "After that call, my family members are scared to venture out during late hours. I fear for lives of my other children and have already reported it to the police.''

Lone, who deposed before the Army's Court of Inquiry in Kupwara in April, said he was ready to depose during court martial proceedings, "My only aim of life is to get justice for our innocent children.''

Lone said they will appear before court martial proceedings in police protection. "After the killings of our children in fake encounter we fear to go to any army camp. Last time when army summoned us to Kupwara camp, we first took police protection and appeared before the army's court of inquiry,'' he said.

He said on Wednesday evening, they came to know about court martial proceedings against the armymen involved in the case, from villagers. "My son, working at a local mechanic shop used to run our family. After his killing, everything changed for us," he said.

"For us, justice will be done the day soldiers and civilians involved in killings get severe punishment. We want death for them," he said.

Lone's wife Naseema said families of the slain youth are still receiving death threats. "Relatives of Bashir who took our children to army and is still in jail and are giving us threats even during court proceedings. He (Bashir) warned us of dire consequences once he gets released from jail. We have been constantly living under the shadow of threats.''

Half a kilometre from Lone's ancestral house, the family members of another slain youth, Mohammad Shafi, said, "We have been waiting for justice, but still it has taken three years to announce court martial proceedings. We have full faith that all the guilty will be punished,'' said Ghulam Nabi Lone, uncle of Shafi.

"Like our innocent children, the army men involved in killings would have killed many innocent people and dubbed them militants to earn medals and promotions, so this is a test case for army's system of justice", he said.

The family of the third youth is also waiting for justice. "With Shezad, I lost everything. After his death, I have to look after my seven-year-old son Shahid. Despite poverty, we spent money to pay for expenses of lawyers fighting our cases, only to seek justice,'' said Jabeena Akthar, wife of Shezad.

via Indian Express

25 Dec 2013

From fake encounter to court martial: A look back at 2010 Machil encounter case

An Army court on Wednesday ordered court martial proceedings against one Colonel, one major and four others in connection with the 2010 Machil fake encounter case.

The case is about three youths from the Valley, who were killed in a fake encounter and labelled as hardcore militants in 2010.

On April 30, 2010, the Army had claimed that they had killed three infiltrators in the Machil sector along the Line of Control.

Reyaz Ahmad, Mohammad Shafi and Shahzad Ahmad - all residents of Nadihal in Baramulla district- were reportedly lured by a former SPO Bashir Ahmad Lone and his accomplices to Machil on the pretext of getting them high-paying jobs in the Army and later handed over to Army for Rs 50,000 each.

The trio was later allegedly shot dead in a staged gun-battle near the Line of Control. Dubbed as Pakistani infiltrators, they were buried as unidentified militants. The case came to light when police found discrepancies in the FIR lodged by the Army unit and launched an inquiry into the incident.

Following complaints from relatives of the victims, a Territorial Army jawan and two others were arrested by police but the incident led to unrest in the entire Kashmir Valley and widespread demonstrations in which 123 people were killed.

Eleven persons including nine army officials and two civilians were charged under Sections 302 (murder), 364 (abduction), 120-B (criminal conspiracy) and 34 (common intent) of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).

The army personnel against whom chargesheet was filed included Colonel D K Pathania of the 4 Rajput Rifles, Major Opendra Singh, Major Maurya (Adjutant), Subedar Satbir, Hawaldar Bir Singh, Sepoy Chadra Bhan, Sepoy Nagendra Singh, Sepoy Narendra Singh and Abbas Hussain Shah of the Territorial Army.

Army had removed Colonel Pathania from the commanding of his unit while Major Opendra, who was the second officer of the unit, was suspended after an internal inquiry was launched by the force.

via Indian Express

Army indicts 6 soldiers in Machil fake encounter

Shabir Ibn Yusuf. 

Army has ordered Court Martial of six soldiers, including two officers, involved in the killing of three youth of Nadihal Baramulla in a fake encounter at LoC at Machil in Kupwara district of north Kashmir on April 30 in 2010. The action comes after three years of investigations.

Shahzad Ahmad Khan, Riyaz Ahmad Lone and Muhammad Shafi Lone of Nadihal Baramulla were killed in the fake encounter by the accused soldiers and passed off as infiltrating militants to get promotions and awards.

The police investigation found that they were killed by soldiers of 4 Rajput Regiment in a fake encounter in Machil. In July 2010, Police charge-sheeted an Army Colonel and two Majors among 11 people in connection with the fake encounter. The accused were Col D K Pathania, Major Maurya, Major Upinder, Subedar Satbir, Hawaldar Bir Singh, Sepoys Chandra Bhan, Nagendra Singh and Narendra Singh and Abbas Hussain Shah of the Territorial Army (TA) besides two civilians Basharat Lone and Abdul Hamid Bhat.

Highly-placed Army sources revealed to Greater Kashmir that the Court Martial was ordered last week. “The Court Martial was ordered after the court of inquiry submitted its final report,” they said adding the Court Martial proceedings will go against six people that include two officers.

Sources said the action was ordered after court of inquiry covered all the allegations based on the police report. The court of inquiry was headed by the then commander of 68 Mountain Brigade, Brigadier G S Sangah, now a Major General.

“The investigators carried out the proceedings as promised. They have ascertained the role of the accused and ordered Court Martial,” sources said, adding that there was a delay because of recalling of the witnesses who were involved in the incident, as the unit was de-inducted after it completed its mandated tenure. “Hectic efforts were made to complete the court of inquiry quite recently,” they said.

Army sources said that these six Army men would be given exemplary punishment. “They will most probably lose their jobs and other perks. They can be jailed also,” sources said adding that those things will get clear soon after the completion of Court Martial.  “Hopefully it will take little time for completion of Court Martial of these soldiers.”

Sources further said that parents and other relatives of the youth killed in the fake encounter were given fair opportunity to make their submissions during the investigations by the Army. “The step has been taken as a part of Army’s resolve towards non-tolerance for human rights violations and in pursuit of justice,” they said.

The family members of youth in their statement to police had said that Bashir Ahmad Lone, a Government-gunman-turned SPO (who worked as an informer for security agencies) is involved in the disappearance of the three youth. Later police interrogated Bashir and he identified dreaded Government-gunman Fayaz Ikhwani alias Gazi of Tujjar Sharief Sopore as an co-accused.

He has confessed before police that on April 26, 2010 they gave Rs 5,000 each to three boys and asked them to come next day for more money. He told police that when the youth approached the Government-gunmen Bashir and Fayaz the next day, the latter took them along and since then they were missing. During the investigations, police ascertained call records of Fayaz Ikhwani that confirmed he was in Thayen village of Kalaroos in frontier district of Kupwara when the trio was killed in Machil and the bodies were brought to Kalaroos.

During the investigations the police have recorded the statements of various people, including the driver of the vehicle in which the three youths were taken from their native village of Nadihal before being gunned down in a fake encounter.

After the investigations, in July 2010, police charge-sheeted an Army Colonel and two Majors among 11 people in connection with the fake encounter.

The charge-sheet was filed before a designated court in Sopore Tehsil of Baramulla district. All of them were charged under sections 302 (murder), 364 (abduction), 120-B (criminal conspiracy) and 34 (common intent) of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) for conspiring and kidnapping three youths from Nadihal Baramulla on the pretext of giving them jobs and later killing them in Machil on the LoC in Kupwara claiming that they were militants.
via GreaterKashmir