Showing posts with label Pathribal Fake Encounter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pathribal Fake Encounter. 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

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