anarchy , rise of naxalism , terrorism & underworld in india. The
cause for all this CORRUPT PUBLIC SERVANTS in India. When common
people don’t get justice by police , by courts of law , rich mighty
criminals get away from punishment & people’s representatives in
parliament / state legislatures legalizes the crimes of their rich
friends , criminals , anti nationals , the justice becomes a mirage to
common man , democracy a farce.
secrets to enemy countries endangering the security of India , a
government official gives driving license , ration card , voter
identity card to a Pakistani terrorist , a police official issues gun
license to anti national Terrorist , a police official applies 3rd
degree torture to a poor innocent to cover up rich criminal , a police
official murders a poor innocent in lock-up , fake encounter to cover
up rich criminal , a judge issues bail , other judicial orders for a
price to anti national , a police officer destroys evidence , delays
investigation to aid rich criminal , etc , all these public servants
are least bothered about either the well being / security of our
motherland India or our countrymen . they are concerned only about
the kick backs they get . even higher officials , courts are not
taking any action against such corrupt anti national officials , why ?
security of our motherland India ,to uphold law , to protect
themselves , in exercise of their CONSTITUTIONALLY ENSHRINED
FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES ( ie to uphold constitution of India , to protect
the unity , integrity of the country , to protect the rights of fellow
country men ) eliminate , kill such CORRUPT ANTI NATIONAL PUBLIC
SERVANTS when all the avenues for seeking justice have failed , is it
not justified in the interest of country ?
. subash Chandra bose , shri. Bhagath singh & others have contributed
to our independence struggle immensely. However their actions at that
point of time as per then prevailing laws of britishers were termed as
illegal , although it did good to our motherland & our countrymen.
anarchy , more violence. this anarchy can be controlled only by the
corrupt public servants , whose making it is . they must mend their
corrupt practices , must strictly work for the welfare of our
motherland , the courts must punish the corrupt public servants
severely. Then alone bapuji’s true swaraj can be built.
public servants have increased their personal security & taking more
and more kick backs. God only must protect them from dog’s death at
the hands of mass of people.
peace & non violence and hereby only analyzing the causes for bihar
type mob violences , rise of naxalism , terrorism , under world in
India. Our analysis is a social pointer to the things to come in near
future , in India , ways to protect democracy in India.
violation of constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights / human
rights he can appeal to the higher Authorities for justice , then to
the next higher authority in the hierarchy . if it fails he can
approach the police , courts of justice. Finally he can appeal to the
first citizen of the country & supreme court of india . Now ,
corruption is more prevalent in police & judiciary. To my numerous
appeals for justice , e-voice’s appeals for justice concerning public good
, the public servants have failed to perform , the police have taken
biased action & finally H.E.PRESIDENT OF INDIA , HONOURABLE CHIEF
JUSTICE OF INDIA are mum. They have failed to perform their
constitutional duties. All the doors of justice are closed for me.
rights violations , crimes , tax evasions by public servants &
corporate bodies , it also offerred it’s services in apprehending
corporate criminals stealing crores of tax money. there was no
response . the police & authorities are keen , over zealous in
apprehending & prosecuting a pick-pcketer stealing Rs.10 , where as it
cover-ups the crimes of corporate criminals stealing lakhs , crores of
tax money. the government even rewards such corporate criminals with
tax exemptions , subsidies , etc. Is it equitable justice ? true
democracy of mahatma’s vision ? This type of corrupt administration in
india since independence has made the lives of commoners miserable and
is the main driving force for the rise of NAXALISM , TERRORISM /
SEPARATIST MOVEMENTS & UNDER WORLD.
mahatma’s democracy true
swaraj cann’t be set up on the basis of violence. When all the doors
of justice are closed for a commonman ( sufferer of gross
injustices ) without financial might or contacts , he has the
following options :
although naturally justified .
reality that democracy in india is fake only a facade.
illegal & cowardice.
judiciary , public service & to kindle the light of crusade in them
within legal democratic frame work although presently sufferring from
gross injustices. All in the hope that tommorrow will be bright &
sunny , with the dawn of mahatma gandhi’s swaraj , as clearly told by poet Ravindranath Tagore and bow our heads to our great motherland India.
Police Reforms: Too Important to Neglect, Too Urgent to Delay
- accountable to the law and not a law unto itself
- is accountable to democratic government structures and the community
- is transparent in its activities
- gives top operational priority to protecting the safety and rights of individuals and private groups
- protects human rights
- provides society with professional services
- is representative of the community it serves
Checking, Correcting and Preventing Human Rights Violations through
Community Involvement in Prisons
The significance of this subject is on the logic that the state is the custodian of the law and is principally responsible for governing by the rule of law. It implies that the state must ensure equality before the law and must not allow the arbitrary abuse of authority and power by its agencies. Further, it casts a legal obligation upon the state that it can resort to force only through legitimate and controlled procedures, that too in extraordinary circumstances where the lives of its citizens are under immediate threat.
The constitutional framework in the country that guarantees rule of law to its citizens thus restricts the state from unleashing disproportionate violence upon its citizens. Unfortunately, the Indian state is engaged in systematically negating this legal premise for the past several years.
A cursory glance at the statistics produced by the National Human Rights Commission of India (NHRC), brings this fact to the fore. From April 2001 to March 2009, the NHRC has recorded 1184 deaths in police custody; which is murder committed by the police, without any sanction or approval of a court of law. Further analysis of this data brings out even more startling facts.
Most of these murders have taken place in relatively calm and problem-free states in the country, with Maharashtra state having the dubious distinction of topping the list with 192 murders. The other states ranked high in the list are Uttar Pradesh (128), Gujarat (113), Andhra Pradesh (85) and West Bengal (83). All these states are within the peaceful and prosperous parts of the country, with no insurgent activities.
It becomes apparent what would be the state of affairs in states like the Jammu and Kashmir, and in the seven states forming the Northeastern territory of the country where armed insurgent activities have been going on for the past 60 years. Deaths in police custody and extra judicial executions in fake encounters are rampant in these states, and the perpetrators of the crime go unpunished. For instance, in a recent statement, the Director General of Police in Manipur state, Mr. Y Joykumar Singh, said that in the past eleven months his officers have murdered more than 260 persons. Of course, the officer added that all those who are killed are terrorists, murdered in armed encounters.
It is a fact that these statistics is a gross underestimation of the actual numbers since only very few cases reach the NHRC and/or judiciary. The reason behind this is that often the victims' families, being from the most underprivileged backgrounds, have no means or the courage to approach the courts. The complete absence of a witness protection programme or even a law to that effect, coupled with court delays often makes complaining against the law enforcement agency a suicidal act in the country.
Further, in states like Manipur, the security forces have unlimited and unaccounted power to carryout their operations under the statutory protection of the draconian law, The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act of 1958. This law allows even a non-commissioned officer to shoot to kill based on mere suspicion in order to "maintain public order".
The euphemism, "to maintain public order" is widely misused by the security forces for unleashing unbridled terror where they operate, thus supporting a trigger-happy culture of governance. The July 23 killing of Mr. Chongkham Sanjit and Ms. Rabina Devi in Manipur, exposes the degree of lawlessness resorted to by the security forces in these areas. For further information please see: AHRC-UAC-098-2009
Placed in this context, the recent developments in the country have been highly disturbing. Despite all the evidences pointing to the worthlessness of the idea in delivering peace to the disturbed areas by use of force, the state is increasing its pitch for declaring war on its own people. Even more unsettling is the fact that the union home minister himself leads the campaign.
An example of this is the home ministry's argument for a cohesive, clinical and all out operation against the Maoists named as Operation Green Hunt. What is missing in the aggressive rhetoric for a war on Maoists is the question about the people living in the area -- poor, hapless tribal -- marginalised to the peripheries of the Indian state for long. Caught between two warring parties armed to the teeth, the tribal pay the heaviest price in this battle.
Yet, they are nowhere cited in the public discourse. The only occasion they appeared to be included in the discussion was when the government decided to withdraw more than 100000 cases against the tribal 'to win their hearts and minds'. Cases that were slapped on them for 'stealing' firewood, honey and other minor forest produce and a constant source of their exploitation by the police and the forest department were withdrawn.
The government did not care to answer why these cases were charged against them in the first place! After all, they have been living in these forests for centuries and the forest belonged to them. Why did it take an armed rebellion to force the state to think about their plight, and why the government could not act on its own for this long are two important questions that are yet to be answered.
Similar is the case with the people of Nagaland, Manipur, Assam, the Jammu and Kashmir and other states hit by insurgent activities in the country. The people residing in these states are compelled to resort to war like efforts just to ensure survival. Day after day, they are forced to walk through an alarmingly reducing narrow corridor of neutral space, maintaining equal distance from the sate and the non-state actors. In addition, the state does not help its case for garnering their support by the amount of terror it unleashes. After all, the state is the legal guardian of all its citizens, for it is the state who had solemnly promised and which had been bestowed the authority under the constitution to protect and preserve the inalienable human rights of its citizens.
For this reason alone, extrajudicial executions committed by the police and other state agencies deserve not only the strongest condemnation but also concentrated action against them. The deaths in police custody, committed with impunity provided by the uniform and authority, instigates not only public anger and protest but also hatred towards the state. The insurgents, whichever colour they belong to, tap this hatred for mobilising people into an armed rebellion against the state.
For this reason, declaring a war on its own people is a humongous error of judgment on the part of the state. What the state needs to do is reengaging those who are up against it, addressing all their concerns. The state also needs to go for a systematic and systemic overhaul of the system and correcting the flaws within the administration at the earliest. For this, it is elementary to conduct a revision of state policies ensuring public participation.
Further, guaranteeing equality before the law and ensuring punishment to the perpetrators of violence including those enjoying political power is required. The country needs to put an immediate end to murder in police custody and fake encounters. Those who are responsible for committing these acts must be prosecuted, with no exception to incidents that have happened in the past. The government needs to put people in command of their life, their habitat and resources and stop the state-sponsored corporate plunder of natural resources. The future, otherwise, does not seem that bright.
The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly warned the government that 'custodial torture, violence and killing' as 'a naked violence of human dignity' and a 'calculated assault' upon the people and their fundamental rights. The judgments delivered in the D.K. Basu and the Bhajan Kaur cases categorically declare that it is the state's duty to ensure that persons live, behave, and are treated like human beings. The state must neither condone nor tolerate deprivation, oppression and violation of the right to life and liberty.
Yet, custodial killings in India have assumed alarming proportions, that it has adversely affected the belief of the citizens in the rule of law and the administration of justice in the country. Arbitrary misuse of authority with statutory impunity has also demoralised the security agencies in the country. If the functionaries of the state become lawbreakers, it results in a situation where might means right, leading to lawlessness and anarchy.
The Supreme Court has also directed the government that it must undertake innovative measures to deal with terrorism and has said that 'state terrorism would only provide legitimacy to terrorism which is against the rule of law'. The state must thus ensure that its agents deployed for combating terrorism acts within the bounds of law and do not become law unto themselves.
India cannot afford to kill anymore of its citizens without plummeting into a state of anarchy. The prophetic vision of the court has proved to be true. It is now the duty of the state to undo its wrongs and prevent the ensuing anarchy.
It is time for the government to put an immediate end to the use of arbitrary means in dealing with dissent to safeguard the life and liberty of the citizens. The government cannot reject its constitutional and sacred duty to the citizens by becoming the unlawful arbiter and the executioner of humanity.
The relative success of the democratic experiment in India in comparison to its neighbors owes considerable debt to its media. The robust resistance of the media to the declaration of emergency, one of the darkest hours in Indian democracy, is an example. It was the media that had the courage, augmented with exemplary resistance put up by all political and social forces, that openly opposed the dictatorial declaration of the emergency by the then prime minister, Mrs. Indira Gandhi.
The Indian media did not spare even Jawaharlal Nehru, the first and perhaps the most loved prime minister of the country, when few of his cabinet colleagues were accused of corruption. It was the media that had courage to expose the gruesome events during the Gujarat state-led pogrom of innocent Muslims in that State. Bringing out the fascist nature of the rightwing Hindutva groups leading the carnage was perhaps the singular achievement of the media, leading to the erosion of support for the politics of hatred in India.
Viewed in this context, the recent developments in the Indian media are worrying to say the least. This is in spite of the contributions the media have made in exposing corruption, for instance, the shady arms deal during the National Democratic Alliance regime by the Tehelka, the petrol pump allotment scam during the same period by the Indian Express and the telecom allocation scam by the current United Progressive Alliance regime.
Similarly unambiguous is the media’s role in fighting against communalism, by continuously reacting against the witch hunt of the minorities by some political groups. Equally substantial is the role the media played in publishing the criminal and financial backgrounds of many candidates, who contested and eventually lost, in the recently held parliament elections. While the media has definitely held its ground and stood true to its prestigious past, on many current issues it has been regularly faltering.
Unfortunately, the media do not appear to be caring for its own record when it comes to the reporting of acts of terror committed by the state, while it comes down heavily on those committed by non-state actors. The media, both electronic and print versions, have been instrumental in enlightening the citizenry about the use of dastardly and mindless violence committed by non-state actors upon innocent civilian populations.
The argument put forward by the media to condemn the violence is plain and simple, that there are no issues in a democracy which cannot be sorted out by deliberations and peaceful means of protest, and that dissent can always be dealt with politically and democratically and violence, not sanctioned by the law, is intolerable in a democratic set up.
The media however appear to be swallowing its logic by failing to give equal seriousness against state-sponsored violence. Extrajudicial executions, torturing of suspects, murder of prisoners and under trials, and disappearances are quite rampant in India. These characters of a failing state require equal treatment or probably more attention than that is given to violence committed by non-state actors. Yet, the media do not give enough time and space to discuss these issues.
India has witnessed more than 1184 deaths in police custody according to the data published by the National Human Rights Commission. The data is concerning cases reported to the Commission between April 2001 and March 2009. Of these, 601 custodial deaths have taken place in Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal, all peaceful states with no insurgency or other armed militia operating within. Yet, this news appeared in an almost invisible corner in the print media as a single column news in the inside pages. The electronic media ignored the news all together.
Similar is the case of fake encounters. Instead of condemning it and demanding prosecutions the media have actually been instrumental in the glorifying the killers in uniform. 'Encounter specialist and super cop' are media inventions in their attempt in showering accolades upon murderer police officers for 'successful' encounters. Some of these media heroes are now in jail or killed. For instance, the former Assistant Commissioner of Delhi Police, Mr. Rajbir Singh, was killed by a friend allegedly over disputes regarding his illegal investments, Mr. Daya Nayak of Maharashtra police, is in jail facing corruption charges and for his alleged nexus with the underworld. Mr. D.G. Banjara, Deputy Inspector General of Gujarat Police is in jail for his proven role in fake encounters. Even after the exposure of the real faces of these murderers in uniform, the media have singularly failed to get its act together barring a few exceptions.
After all, just how many times can one find such brazen acts of lawlessness like a live recording of the murder of two civilians by the police as it happened in Manipur? Just how many times the police, paramilitary forces and the army will let the media impartially cover their operations exposing their utter disregard for the rule of law as well as the constitution?
Any act of terror, violence, and extrajudicial executions is a crime against humanity. The question who did it is irrelevant. No law or ideology can legitimise the killings of innocent civilians, unfortunately caught between the state and its opponents. Murder or other forms of violence by the non-state actors based on whatever justifications - religion, ethnicity or ideology - should be unambiguously condemned. So should be the case with extrajudicial and illegal killings and other forms of violence committed by the state.
For one fact, unlike the non-state actors, the state warrants even sterner criticism for torture, killings and disappearances of its citizens as it is the state's duty to protect, promote and fulfil constitutional guarantees. The state deserves a far stricter scrutiny as it derives the legitimacy to use force by being the custodian of the law, guaranteeing to use it only for the protection of the citizens and not for killing them.
The studied silence maintained by the media, in this context, is unfortunate. A single murder, unsanctioned by the law, committed by state agents should let the press hit the panic button. 1184, is an exception. Yet the country's media chose to observe blissful silence. This prevents the possibility of exposing the countless unreported ones, which the media could have exposed.
The Asian Human Rights Commission expects that this silence is not from complicity, and that the Indian media will wake up to its legacy of standing by the people and the truth that they have the right to know.
In the past 12 months, the government has intensified its engagement with the separatist and extremist forces operating in the country. Unfortunately, the tone of engagement is that of violence. The commonly used tactic is to let the state agents engage in murder with impunity, popularly known in the country as encounter killing, a euphemism for extrajudicial executions. The apparent logic is that violence will be dealt with violence.
The alarming number of lives lost in the anti-Naxalite operations in states like Orissa, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh so far, stands proof to the systematic execution of this logic. On the contrary, the continuance of extreme leftist operations in these states and the unabated disruptive activities by non-state actors in states like Manipur proves that this logic is wrong.
The state's engagement in violence has come with a cost. The police and paramilitary units are engaged in open, arbitrary and brutal use of force throughout the country with impunity. The police firing in Narayanpatana in Orissa and the July 23 killing in Imphal Manipur are just two examples. In spite of widespread condemnation of the two incidents, the officers involved are not punished. There have been no investigations into these incidents.
The use of extreme violence by the state has pushed the people further away from the government. In fact, there were several isolated as well as nationwide protests against the use of violence by the state in the country in this year.
As early as 14 December 1993, the National Human Rights Commission of India (NHRC) instructed the Chief Secretaries of the states to ensure that every case of custodial death and rape is reported to it within twenty-four hours of occurrence, failing which an adverse inference would be drawn by the Commission. On 10 August 1995, the Commission requested the Chief Ministers to ensure that post-mortem examinations of deaths in custody be videographed. On 27 March 1997, Chief Ministers were again requested to adopt a Model Autopsy Form, prepared by the Commission, and to use for this purpose.
None of these instructions are followed by the state agencies. Neither has the NHRC taken any steps to ensure the compliance of its directives. As of today, the NHRC has deteriorated to a namesake entity in the country, fated to function for the past two years without a Chairperson or adequate resources.
The recent conduct of the NHRC like the condoning of extrajudicial executions, torture and starvation deaths and rejecting complaints after accepting government reports, has become a reason for concern. It raises suspicion about the impartiality of the Commission as a national human rights body. The performance of the NHRC has deteriorated to such degree that it appears that the Commission is developing its expertise in summarily dismissing complaints, an action that negates the Commission's statutory mandate.
The state agencies on the other hand are exploiting this expanded space of impunity available to them. For instance, the use of torture is endemic in the country. The government's response to torture is a mere Bill. The Bill if enacted as a law is destined to fail. The ulterior intention of the government to continue providing impunity to its agents is clear from the Bill. For instance, the proposed definition of torture in the Bill does not meet the standards as prescribed in Article 1 (1) of the International Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Equally disturbing is the fate of the Dalit community in the country. Brutal forms of caste based discrimination are practiced in India. Of particular concern is the laxity with which the government has dealt with the practice of manual scavenging so far, facilitating its unabated continuity. This is despite series of legislations enacted over a period spanning 62 years prescribing statutory prohibition to the practice. Even the administration in the national capital has failed to deal with the problem.
Caste based discrimination is also one of the important impediment in realising the right to food in India. Today, the government of India does not have any reliable data concerning the number of poor persons in the country. Over the years, the government has resorted to shameless gerrymandering of the statistical data to prove that conditions of the poor in India are improving.
Experts like Mr. Dilip D'Souza argue that systematic data corruption has adversely affected the possibility of the poor in receiving government assistance. At the same time observations made by experts like Professor Utsa Patnaik that the per-capita food availability in India as of today is worse than the 1943 Bengal famine is ignored by the government.
Dishonesty of the government is one of the reasons for the continuity of starvation and malnutrition in India. It is most evident in cases of starvation deaths. It is the practice of the government to deny that deaths have occurred from starvation or malnutrition. Even worse is the reaction of the national bodies like the NHRC that accepts such denial as evidence and dismisses complaints from victims instead of helping them.
Yet, these are issues that a democracy can resolve. The solution however depends upon peoples' participation. While the civil society can play a vital role in organising the people, it is the responsibility of the government to guarantee that the peoples' voices are reflected in government's actions.
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) calls upon the government of India to find means and occasions to encourage the people to engage in constructive dialogues with the state. December 10, the International Human Rights Day could be one such occasion.
For this reason, it has been designated the official theme of this Human Rights Day, which occurs every year on the anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. And for this and many other reasons it should be an unofficial theme every day, every year, for everyone.
Twenty-six of the Universal Declaration’s 30 Articles begin with the words “Everyone…” or “No one…” Everyone should enjoy all human rights. No one should be excluded. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Non-discrimination must prevail.
Today, we have a whole range of rights-based international treaties imbued throughout with the concept of non-discrimination. These include, for example, Conventions on the rights of the child, rights of people with disabilities, rights of refugees and of migrant workers; Conventions dedicated to the elimination of racial discrimination and discrimination against women; as well as treaties dealing with labour, health and religion. These legally binding standards are complemented by important UN declarations detailing minority rights and the rights of indigenous peoples.
These international laws and standards are supported by thousands of national and regional laws and institutions. Quite a few countries now have truly universal education, and a smaller number have universal public health systems. Taken together all of this marks an extraordinary celebration of humankind’s ability and aspiration to create a world of equal opportunity and equal treatment under the law. And many millions of people have benefited as a result.
People of all sorts have something to offer. When we embrace diversity, we bring extra richness and depth to our societies.
Yet discrimination is still rampant.
Women work two-thirds of the world’s working hours and produce half of the world’s food, yet earn only 10 percent of the world’s income and own less than one percent of the world’s property. Despite significant improvements over the past century, women and girls are still discriminated against to some degree in all societies and to a great degree in many. Every day countless numbers of women are sexually or physically abused, and the vast majority of their abusers go unpunished and future abuse is undeterred.
Minorities in all regions of the world continue to face serious threats, discrimination and racism, and are frequently excluded from fully taking part in the economic, political, social and cultural life available to the majorities in the countries or societies where they live.
Similar problems face the estimated 370 million indigenous people who make up five percent of the world’s population, but 15 percent of its poorest people. They are often marginalized, deprived of many fundamental rights – including land and property – and lack access to basic services.
Racial and ethnic discrimination are also to be found all across the planet, and remain one of the most dangerous forms of discrimination. Left unchecked, or actively fanned, they can all too easily lead to hatred, violence, and – in the worst cases – push on up the scale to full-blown conflict, crimes against humanity and genocide.
Discrimination based on religion or belief can be equally destructive. In certain countries, members of certain groups are restricted in how they can exercise their religion or belief and deprived of their fundamental rights. In extreme cases such conditions may lead to sectarian violence, killing and conflict. Stereotyping can lead to stigmatization and isolationism.
Refugees and migrants are widely discriminated against, including in rich countries where men, women and children who have committed no crime are often held in detention for prolonged periods. They are frequently discriminated against by landlords, employers and state-run authorities, and stereotyped and vilified by some political parties, media organizations and members of the public.
Many other groups face discrimination to a greater or lesser degree. Some of them are easily definable such as persons with disabilities, stateless people, gays and lesbians, members of particular castes and the elderly. Others may span several different groups and find themselves discriminated against on several different levels as a result.
Those who are not discriminated against often find it hard to comprehend the suffering and humiliation that discrimination imposes on their fellow individual human beings. Nor do they always understand the deeply corrosive effect it has on society at large.
Discrimination feeds mistrust, resentment, violence, crime and insecurity and makes no economic sense, since it reduces productivity. It has no beneficial aspects for society whatsoever. Yet we continue to practice it – virtually all of us – often as a casual reflex, without even realizing what we are doing.
I would therefore like to encourage people everywhere – politicians, officials, businesses leaders, civil society, national human rights institutions, the media, religious leaders, teachers, students, and each and every individual – to honour Human Rights by embracing diversity and resolving to take concrete and lasting actions to help put an end to discrimination.