The following is a statement issued by the Asian Legal Resources Centre (ALRC), Hong Kong:
The opinion expressed by Justice K. G. Balakrishnan on encounter killings - a euphemism for extrajudicial executions in India - that 'encounter killings' are sometimes unavoidable is condemnable. That the former Chief Justice of India, now heads the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), paints a depressing picture for the victims of extrajudicial executions since the Chairperson has spoken his mind.
Addressing the press earlier this week, Justice Balakrishnan said that "... encounters are unavoidable sometimes ... the law and order problem is increasing. Criminals are taking law into their hands, attacking even the police. Police have to take control of the situation." Indeed he offered a concession by adding that there must be checks and balances to ensure that fake encounters do not take place.
To justify his position and elaborating his argument that extrajudicial executions could solve law and order issues, the Chairperson cited examples of the extrajudicial executions of persons suspected to be involved with the Mumbai underworld gangs and those alleged as Naxalites in Andhra Pradesh. Least to say, these comments are irresponsible and unbecoming of a judicial officer and public servant mandated to chair the NHRC, an institution that hundreds of victims approach seeking redress in cases of extrajudicial executions.
Certainly, the Chairperson of the NHRC is oblivious about the global condemnation of the summary execution policies followed by the US and the UK - two countries he quoted as having successfully implemented similar policies - and the draconian laws these countries have legislated to justify the killing of foreigners in alien soil in their fight against terrorism. Justice Balakrishnan is certainly unaware that states like Manipur and Kashmir have nothing in common with the UK or the US. Nor has he cared to understand the universal jurisprudence behind the strong views taken by the House of Lords in R v. Magee against draconian legislations and arbitrary methods that deny fair trail even against the most dreaded suspect. For sure, Justice Balakrishnan has not come across the words of US Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, who served as chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, convincing President Harry Truman that '(w)e could execute or otherwise punish (the Nazi leaders) without a hearing. But undiscriminating executions or punishments without definite findings of guilt, fairly arrived at, would ... not set easily on the American conscience or be remembered by children with pride." What justifies Justice Balakrishnan's departure from this universal norm of justice and fairness or is he proposing that Indians disserve a lower standard of justice than the Europeans and the Americans or suggesting India to follow the so-called Sri Lankan model?
The comment by Justice Balakrishnan, condoning extrajudicial execution makes a travesty of the country's justice framework. It is a challenge and insult upon the intellect of the average Indians who are apparently more informed about the country's police and the manner in which they operate than their former Chief Justice. The country's media is filled with news of the arrest and questioning of the former home minister of Gujarat state who is accused to have ordered extrajudicial executions of his former partner in an extortion syndicate and his wife. If it is for the country's police to decide who is a convict, who must be punished and by what means, then the institution Justice Balakrishnan led prior to assuming office at the NHRC, the Supreme Court of India and its subordinate courts, and the NHRC itself must be closed down.
Justice Balakrishnan's understanding about the Mumbai killings and the Andhra Pradesh Naxalite killings is seriously flawed. Extrajudicial executions are not a solution to law and order issues. Had it been so, Mumbai must have been free from criminal gangs and Naxalism should be history. States like Manipur and Jammu and Kashmir where extrajudicial executions happen routinely should have been a safe place to live in.
It is important for Justice Balakrishnan to introspect about how much does he know regarding the extent of extrajudicial executions happening in the country each year; as a former judge, the current Chairperson of the NHRC and above all as an Indian who is offered information through various means concerning what is daily happening in the country. Can Justice Balakrishnan guarantee that the government will follow the instructions issued by the Supreme Court of India and the NHRC concerning arrest, detention and extrajudicial executions?
Forget about extrajudicial executions. While Justice Balakrishnan was the Chief Justice of India in how many cases did he initiate suo motu actions against the police officers who were reportedly engaged in open violation of the directives issued by the Court in the D. K. Basu case? In how many cases did the NHRC demand from the government the report the governments are mandated to file in each case of extrajudicial execution? The Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) is aware that the NHRC has done so only in a very few instances.
What proof does the Chairperson have to form an opinion that in 'those cases that he considers are unavoidable' the victims were shot dead as an absolute necessity? In how many cases did the Chairperson have the opportunity to adduce evidence and adjudicate as a judge concerning the 'essentiality of a murder committed by a police officer to maintain control' and in how many of these cases did the Chairperson find that the officer was discharging his lawful duty by killing a suspect? To say the least, based on what statistics, study or information does the Chairperson advocate that extrajudicial execution is sometimes necessary?
The comment demonstrates a way of thinking. It is the mindset prevalent among the country's ruling and the educated classes. They think of serious abuses of human rights like extrajudicial executions, disappearances and torture as unavoidable. This mentality allows the police and other law enforcement agencies to engage in these acts with the excuse that these are unavoidable evils. This outlook demonstrates the lack of appreciation and the understanding of law, the inability to grasp the requirements of a strategy that is required to create a framework of rule of law and constitutionality; and also the absence of the commonsense to realize that to say something is unavoidable is to make it permissible.
That it should come from the former Chief Justice and the present Chairperson of the NHRC explains the reasons for India's failure to eradicate the deep evils that obstructs its constitutional system. Replacement of persons who possess this kind of mindset with a new leadership that is suitable for the challenges faced by India is a requirement for the very survival of the country as a law-abiding nation.
Justice Balakrishnan owes an apology to the country. His statement condoning extrajudicial execution negates the premises of the constitution that he has sworn allegiance to protect and fulfil. Through the statement he has proved that his legal intellect is unfit of leading a national institution that is mandated to protect, promote and fulfil human rights.
The Asian Legal Resource Centre is an independent regional non-governmental organisation holding general consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. It is the sister organization of the Asian Human Rights Commission. The Hong Kong-based group seeks to strengthen and encourage positive action on legal and human rights issues at the local and national levels throughout Asia.
Showing posts with label ALRC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ALRC. Show all posts
03 March, 2009
Structural breakdown of Indian justice system must be addressed, says ALRC
The Asian Legal Resources Centre, Hong Kong, in a statement says:
The reports that appeared yesterday in the Indian media quoting 'informed sources' that the Tamil Nadu state police has decided not to produce detainees in courts exposes the extent to which the justice institutions have broken down in India. According to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 it is the statutory duty of the state police to assist the courts in the country for its day-to-day functioning. It is also mandatory for the police to produce the detainees remanded to judicial custody before the courts, as and when required by the courts. Any decision by the police, express or implied, against this official duty must not go unpunished.
The decision of the Tamil Nadu state police is a wilful dereliction of official responsibility, negation of judicial supremacy and the very function of the police in maintaining law and order. The Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) and its sister concern the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) have been continuously reporting instances suggesting the systematic breakdown of rule of law in India, particularly concerning the police. The decision by the state police of Tamil Nadu to disregard the provisions of law, substantiates ALRC's position that there are apparent and deep-rooted problems affecting the rule of law in India.
Lawyers engaged in professional misconduct, judges failing to perform duties and police officers committing crimes, assaulting persons and destroying property have become the defining characters of the justice dispensation system in the country. The structural breakdown is apparent. Yet, instead of gearing up to repair the ruptures, it appears that the government is forcing the people to get used to the reality.
The approval by the Government of India for recruiting, training and deploying Salwa Judum, in Chhattisgarh state, in the excuse of countering Naxalite activities in that state is an example. Salwa Judum is nothing but an armed mercenary group operating with impunity in Chhattisgarh. The Chhattisgarh state administration finds it convenient to arm a faction of organised civilians to fight anti-state movements like the Naxalites. By promoting Salwa Judum, the state is trying to absolve from its responsibility of maintaining law and order in its territory.
The Government of India, instead of preventing the Chhattisgarh state administration from continuing with the deployment of Salwa Judum, insisted yet another state administration, the Manipur state government, to resort to similar tactics in 2008. The same practice was implemented years ago in the state of Jammu and Kashmir during the time of rightwing BJP led government in India. Neither in Jammu and Kashmir, nor in Chhattisgarh or in Manipur, has the situation improved since then.
In the past two years, there has been an alarming increase in the number of extra-judicial executions reported from India. In the Indian context, such murders are referred to as 'encounter killings'. As of now, there is no legal framework in the country by which an impartial enquiry and investigation is possible in a case of encounter killing. The practice is, a superior officer and later the court, accepts a report sent in by the police involved in the murder and no further action is initiated. The murder is often rewarded by the administration, so much so, there are more than three dozen 'encounter specialists' serving as police officers in various parts of the country.
Impunity for the police to murder and the lack of punishment trivialises the practice of custodial torture in the country. The practice of torture is widespread and is accepted as an essential requirement for law enforcement.
On June 15 this year, the Speaker of the Kerala State Legislative Assembly, Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, declared at the annual conference of police officers of the state, that the use of third-degree methods by the state police cannot be condemned. The Speaker during his keynote address argued that it is ridiculous to insist that the police officers in India respect human rights. According to him, it is difficult to do policing and respect human rights at the same time. He made it clear that when the police investigate a crime, it is natural and often required for the investigating officer to use torture to prove the case. Among those listening to these remarks were the Director of the State Police Training College and the Director General of Police.
Breach of law by the law enforcement agencies in the country meets no bounds. Corruption, nepotism and the disregard to the law flourish within state agencies, particularly in the police. The society quivers under the writ of fear when the law enforcement agents commit crimes with impunity. In spite of repeated and legitimate requests from national and international human rights groups and the thematic mandates holders of the UN like the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, the Government of India has failed to criminalise the practice of torture or to ratify the Convention against Torture.
In fact, the government has failed in implementing the directives of its own Supreme Court. The directives of the Supreme Court in the Prakash Singh case are yet to be implemented in the country. The implementation of the Court's directives is important for improving the state of policing in India, since half of the issues concerning the police, including the practice of torture and participation in crimes by the police officers, are carried out at the behest of corrupt politicians in the country. Having a law against torture while the ultimate writ above the police entrusted with a corrupt politician will not improve policing in India.
It is in this context that the protest called in by the Tamil Nadu state police becomes relevant in exposing and addressing the situation of rule of law in India. The very fact that the police can intentionally negate the supremacy of law shows the vacuum of authority in the country. The incident illuminates the impunity that the police have enjoyed so far that they have now dared to openly challenge judicial supremacy.
Instead of actively engaging in the situation, the Tamil Nadu state government has allowed the police to continue with their follies. The police action on February 19 inside the compound of Madras High Court that injured police officers, lawyers, judges, court staff and ordinary persons is not of such triviality that it could be resolved by a fast declared by the state Chief Minister. The police-lawyer confrontation and the subsequent sequels of non-cooperation between three important limbs of the justice dispensation system of the country is not an issue that can be camouflaged with political gimmicks and ignored.
The February 19 incident is the clarion call for intervention by a system which is left to break down and disintegrate. The subsequent protest orchestrated by the state police refusing cooperation to the functioning of the judiciary is a failure of the constitutional machinery that require a legitimate intervention by the Government under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution. The failure of the Government of India to take affirmative actions to correct and revitalize its criminal justice system poses legitimate challenges to India's democracy and the country's position in the UN Human Rights Council.
# # #
About the ALRC: The Asian Legal Resource Centre is an independent regional non-governmental organisation holding general consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. It is the sister organisation of the Asian Human Rights Commission. The Hong Kong-based group seeks to strengthen and encourage positive action on legal and human rights issues at the local and national levels throughout Asia.
The reports that appeared yesterday in the Indian media quoting 'informed sources' that the Tamil Nadu state police has decided not to produce detainees in courts exposes the extent to which the justice institutions have broken down in India. According to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 it is the statutory duty of the state police to assist the courts in the country for its day-to-day functioning. It is also mandatory for the police to produce the detainees remanded to judicial custody before the courts, as and when required by the courts. Any decision by the police, express or implied, against this official duty must not go unpunished.
The decision of the Tamil Nadu state police is a wilful dereliction of official responsibility, negation of judicial supremacy and the very function of the police in maintaining law and order. The Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) and its sister concern the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) have been continuously reporting instances suggesting the systematic breakdown of rule of law in India, particularly concerning the police. The decision by the state police of Tamil Nadu to disregard the provisions of law, substantiates ALRC's position that there are apparent and deep-rooted problems affecting the rule of law in India.
Lawyers engaged in professional misconduct, judges failing to perform duties and police officers committing crimes, assaulting persons and destroying property have become the defining characters of the justice dispensation system in the country. The structural breakdown is apparent. Yet, instead of gearing up to repair the ruptures, it appears that the government is forcing the people to get used to the reality.
The approval by the Government of India for recruiting, training and deploying Salwa Judum, in Chhattisgarh state, in the excuse of countering Naxalite activities in that state is an example. Salwa Judum is nothing but an armed mercenary group operating with impunity in Chhattisgarh. The Chhattisgarh state administration finds it convenient to arm a faction of organised civilians to fight anti-state movements like the Naxalites. By promoting Salwa Judum, the state is trying to absolve from its responsibility of maintaining law and order in its territory.
The Government of India, instead of preventing the Chhattisgarh state administration from continuing with the deployment of Salwa Judum, insisted yet another state administration, the Manipur state government, to resort to similar tactics in 2008. The same practice was implemented years ago in the state of Jammu and Kashmir during the time of rightwing BJP led government in India. Neither in Jammu and Kashmir, nor in Chhattisgarh or in Manipur, has the situation improved since then.
In the past two years, there has been an alarming increase in the number of extra-judicial executions reported from India. In the Indian context, such murders are referred to as 'encounter killings'. As of now, there is no legal framework in the country by which an impartial enquiry and investigation is possible in a case of encounter killing. The practice is, a superior officer and later the court, accepts a report sent in by the police involved in the murder and no further action is initiated. The murder is often rewarded by the administration, so much so, there are more than three dozen 'encounter specialists' serving as police officers in various parts of the country.
Impunity for the police to murder and the lack of punishment trivialises the practice of custodial torture in the country. The practice of torture is widespread and is accepted as an essential requirement for law enforcement.
On June 15 this year, the Speaker of the Kerala State Legislative Assembly, Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, declared at the annual conference of police officers of the state, that the use of third-degree methods by the state police cannot be condemned. The Speaker during his keynote address argued that it is ridiculous to insist that the police officers in India respect human rights. According to him, it is difficult to do policing and respect human rights at the same time. He made it clear that when the police investigate a crime, it is natural and often required for the investigating officer to use torture to prove the case. Among those listening to these remarks were the Director of the State Police Training College and the Director General of Police.
Breach of law by the law enforcement agencies in the country meets no bounds. Corruption, nepotism and the disregard to the law flourish within state agencies, particularly in the police. The society quivers under the writ of fear when the law enforcement agents commit crimes with impunity. In spite of repeated and legitimate requests from national and international human rights groups and the thematic mandates holders of the UN like the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, the Government of India has failed to criminalise the practice of torture or to ratify the Convention against Torture.
In fact, the government has failed in implementing the directives of its own Supreme Court. The directives of the Supreme Court in the Prakash Singh case are yet to be implemented in the country. The implementation of the Court's directives is important for improving the state of policing in India, since half of the issues concerning the police, including the practice of torture and participation in crimes by the police officers, are carried out at the behest of corrupt politicians in the country. Having a law against torture while the ultimate writ above the police entrusted with a corrupt politician will not improve policing in India.
It is in this context that the protest called in by the Tamil Nadu state police becomes relevant in exposing and addressing the situation of rule of law in India. The very fact that the police can intentionally negate the supremacy of law shows the vacuum of authority in the country. The incident illuminates the impunity that the police have enjoyed so far that they have now dared to openly challenge judicial supremacy.
Instead of actively engaging in the situation, the Tamil Nadu state government has allowed the police to continue with their follies. The police action on February 19 inside the compound of Madras High Court that injured police officers, lawyers, judges, court staff and ordinary persons is not of such triviality that it could be resolved by a fast declared by the state Chief Minister. The police-lawyer confrontation and the subsequent sequels of non-cooperation between three important limbs of the justice dispensation system of the country is not an issue that can be camouflaged with political gimmicks and ignored.
The February 19 incident is the clarion call for intervention by a system which is left to break down and disintegrate. The subsequent protest orchestrated by the state police refusing cooperation to the functioning of the judiciary is a failure of the constitutional machinery that require a legitimate intervention by the Government under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution. The failure of the Government of India to take affirmative actions to correct and revitalize its criminal justice system poses legitimate challenges to India's democracy and the country's position in the UN Human Rights Council.
# # #
About the ALRC: The Asian Legal Resource Centre is an independent regional non-governmental organisation holding general consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. It is the sister organisation of the Asian Human Rights Commission. The Hong Kong-based group seeks to strengthen and encourage positive action on legal and human rights issues at the local and national levels throughout Asia.
17 February, 2009
Manipur caught between the devil and the deep blue sea, says ALRC
The following is a written statement submitted by the Asian Legal Resource Centre, Hong Kong, to the UN Human Rights Council:
In July 2008, seven children were kidnapped from a public school in Manipur state, India. The school is just outside the city limits of the state capital, Imphal. Investigations by the Manipur state government revealed that about 30 children are being trained by two underground militant groups, the People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (Prepak) and the Prepak Cobra Task Force, operating in the state. Of the abducted children, 22 were reportedly taken from various parts of the state in a period of 45 days during June and July 2008. None of their parents had lodged a complaint with the authorities when their children went missing.
Abduction of children by militant groups operating in Manipur has become a common incident in the state. Often children are abducted while they go to school or on their way home. Militant groups justify the presence of children in their ranks, by claiming that the children joined them at their will and were neither forced nor abducted. As a measure to prevent child abduction, the Manipur state government at the behest of the national security forces operating in the state, issued a direction in August 2008, requiring children to be accompanied by their parents when they are in a public place. The authorities will detain a child found alone in a public place.
The facts stated above must raise a few questions. First, why were the security forces operating in the state not aware of the fact that the armed groups were abducting children from all over the state? Manipur, a state in the northeastern part of India has a huge presence of security forces deployed from various limbs of the Indian military and paramilitary forces since the past two decades. In fact, the number of security forces deployed in that state to maintain law and order is very high even in comparison to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Manipur also has the highest police-people ratio in the country, with 627 police officers for every 100,000 persons. Given this fact, it appears that the security forces were not acting upon information available to them to prevent the abduction of children or to rescue those who are already in the control of the underground militant groups.
Secondly, why are the parents who lost their children failing to complain to the authorities? It appears that the people, from their experience in the past, know that once they complain, there would not be any action by the security forces, and in addition, they run the risk of being accused by the security forces of having connections with the underground militants. This apart, the people also know from experience, that if they complain, they will antagonise the underground militant groups, against which in practical terms, there is no remedy in available.
The order issued by the security forces, that the parents must accompany their children in public places, illuminates the height of disregard for individual freedom by the state agencies in Manipur. It also suggests that they have no clue how to deal with the situation. Normal life has become impossible in Manipur, a state in India that fails to guarantee the least possible in terms of law and order.
This fact is apparent from the sheer number of incidents of extortion reported from the state. Places of worship, educational institutions, human rights organisations, hospitals and commercial establishments are brought systematically under the extortion net, run by almost all the militant outfits operating in the State.
On 30 March 2008, the state Chief Minister Mr. Okram Ibobi Singh, publically admitted that militant groups were extorting money. On 12 September 2008, the Kanan Devi Memorial School at Pangei in the Imphal East district was closed for an indefinite period due to a demand by the militant groups for a sum of 10,000 USD. Three days later, on 25 September, extortion demands forced the closure of two government colleges in Imphal. Hospitals have similarly been affected by the extortion networks. On 18 January 2008, two private hospitals, Langol View at Lamphel Sanakeithel and Imphal Hospital, in Imphal, were closed down due to extortion demands of 10,000 USD each, served on them by a militant group.
On 28 August 2008, hundreds of commercial establishments, including pharmacies, located on both sides of the Tiddim Road along National Highway - 150 from Keishampat to Kwakeithel in the Imphal West district remained closed to protest the unbearable monetary demands served on them by Kanglei Yawol Kanna Lup (KYKL) cadres. The KYKL is one of the most notorious militant groups operating in Manipur. Later, the shopkeepers along the Dingku Road of Imphal West district revealed that their businesses were divided into three categories by the militants - bigger shops were asked to pay 600 USD, middle size shops 400 USD each, while the small ones were asked to pay 200 USD. In a similar incident, on 29 October 2008, pharmacies in and around the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital at Lamphel in the Imphal West district remained closed for the day in protest against extortion threats. Extortion drives are backed with widespread intimidation of, assaults on and armed attacks against target groups of the population.
There are about 18 underground militant groups operating in Manipur. Most of them do not have an established chain of command or any form of organisational structure. Many thrive on extortion money or from the income generated by illegal drug traffic between India and Burma. Most of them have their hideouts in Burma, along the Indo-Burma border. Places like Moreh, a small town along the Indo-Burma border about 110 kilometres from the state capital Imphal, have become hotspots for militant activity. Though the Moreh border outpost is manned by the security forces, owing to the corruption among its ranks, militants openly deal with contraband articles in the town.
The militant groups demonstrate their power, as has been the trend in previous years, by issuing numerous 'decrees'. On 31 January 2008, the KYKL reiterated its ‘decree’ of using Meetei Mayek language on signboards of shops, offices and institutions in the four valley districts - Imphal West, Imphal East, Bishnupur and Thoubal. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA), yet another notorious underground militant group in Manipur, 'banned' the export of rice or paddy outside Manipur with effect from 12 December 2008, to discourage the growing of cash crops. With the state's ability to provide security to its citizens virtually non-existent, any refusal to fall in line with these decrees has proven fatal. On 17 March 2008, at least seven non-Manipuri traders selling tobacco products and betel leaf, which were 'banned' by the PLA, were shot dead by PLA militants at Mayang Imphal Hanglun in the capital.
The response of the Government of India to the insurgent activities has thus far remained ineffective for obvious reasons. It is virtually impossible for anyone to approach the state police to file a complaint against a threat from an underground militant group. The state police lack the basic infrastructure to properly investigate crimes. With facilities to function scarce, the alarming trend within the state police is to discourage by threat and intimidation anyone who wishes to lodge a complaint. The most commonly used tactic is to accuse the complainant of having connections with the underground groups.
In addition to discouraging the complainants through various means, the state police as well as the security forces are engaged in extrajudicial executions in the state. According to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, 483 persons were killed in Manipur in 2008. The Ministry however claims that 347 of them were insurgents. This is in addition to the death of 16 persons from the security forces. Of the 483 persons, an estimated 420 persons lost their life in ‘encounters’ with the state agencies. Not a single case was subjected to independent enquiry. As of now in Manipur, or for that matter in any part of India, such a process does not exist. The practice is to accept, without a question, whatever report an officer sends to the superiors after an incident of encounter killing.
In this context, instances of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, illegal detention and other forms of violation of fundamental rights is on the raise in Manipur. In fact 92.51 percent of persons detained in prisons in Manipur are those awaiting trial. Given the current pace of disposal of cases in India, these persons will stay in pre-trial detention for a period ranging from four to ten years.
The imposition of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, a draconian law pressed to use in several parts of India, in the states of Manipur and Jammu and Kashmir in particular, provides statutory impunity to the state agencies. The vires of this law was repeatedly challenged before the Supreme Court of India. Each time the Court dismissed the petition. Caught between two equally inhuman forces, the underground militants and the state agencies, the people of Manipur live as if they are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.
Concerns have been expressed about this situation by domestic and international agencies. For example, the National Human Rights Commission of India has repeatedly requested the Government of India and the state administration to deal with the situation of law and order in Manipur on several occasions. The annual reports of the Commission for the past four years consistently reflect this fact.
Justice B. P. Jeeven Reddy Commission, deputed to study and report to the Government of India about the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 has also highlighted this fact, in addition to recommending to the Government of India an immediate withdrawal of the law from the state. The Commission filed its report to the Government in 2005. The Prime Minister of India responded by stating in a press conference that the law will be withdrawn as early as possible. Since then nothing is heard about the government’s plan to withdraw the law.
International human rights organisations have also expressed similar concerns. The Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) and its sister concern the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has been reporting cases of human rights violations committed by the security forces in Manipur. In most cases the authorities have been taking cover under this draconian law. In spite of all these, there has been no substantial intervention by any UN agencies on issues concerning Manipur.
As of now, the people of Manipur are left at the mercy of two diagonally opposing forces – the state security agencies and the underground militant organisations. Time and again it has been proved that help at the domestic level is almost impossible without an external strong intervention. In this context an intervention by the UN Human Rights Council, particularly emphasising upon the Government of India’s voluntary pledge promising to protect and promote human rights, thereby bringing order and rule of law in Manipur gains importance.
The ALRC therefore requests the Council to:
1) Encourage the Government of India to immediately withdraw the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958;
2) Suggest the government to constitute an independent agency to investigate and prosecute cases of human rights violations committed by the state agencies in Manipur;
3) Recommend the government to implement the recommendations made by the Justice B. P. Jeevan Reddy Commission submitted to the government in 2005;
4) Urge the government to simultaneously find a political solution to the problems affecting the rule of law in Manipur though a process of interactive dialogue with the people and their leaders, thereby creating an environment of mutual respect and understanding.
# # #
About ALRC: The Asian Legal Resource Centre is an independent regional non-governmental organisation holding general consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. It is the sister organisation of the Asian Human Rights Commission. The Hong Kong-based group seeks to strengthen and encourage positive action on legal and human rights issues at local and national levels throughout Asia.
In July 2008, seven children were kidnapped from a public school in Manipur state, India. The school is just outside the city limits of the state capital, Imphal. Investigations by the Manipur state government revealed that about 30 children are being trained by two underground militant groups, the People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (Prepak) and the Prepak Cobra Task Force, operating in the state. Of the abducted children, 22 were reportedly taken from various parts of the state in a period of 45 days during June and July 2008. None of their parents had lodged a complaint with the authorities when their children went missing.
Abduction of children by militant groups operating in Manipur has become a common incident in the state. Often children are abducted while they go to school or on their way home. Militant groups justify the presence of children in their ranks, by claiming that the children joined them at their will and were neither forced nor abducted. As a measure to prevent child abduction, the Manipur state government at the behest of the national security forces operating in the state, issued a direction in August 2008, requiring children to be accompanied by their parents when they are in a public place. The authorities will detain a child found alone in a public place.
The facts stated above must raise a few questions. First, why were the security forces operating in the state not aware of the fact that the armed groups were abducting children from all over the state? Manipur, a state in the northeastern part of India has a huge presence of security forces deployed from various limbs of the Indian military and paramilitary forces since the past two decades. In fact, the number of security forces deployed in that state to maintain law and order is very high even in comparison to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Manipur also has the highest police-people ratio in the country, with 627 police officers for every 100,000 persons. Given this fact, it appears that the security forces were not acting upon information available to them to prevent the abduction of children or to rescue those who are already in the control of the underground militant groups.
Secondly, why are the parents who lost their children failing to complain to the authorities? It appears that the people, from their experience in the past, know that once they complain, there would not be any action by the security forces, and in addition, they run the risk of being accused by the security forces of having connections with the underground militants. This apart, the people also know from experience, that if they complain, they will antagonise the underground militant groups, against which in practical terms, there is no remedy in available.
The order issued by the security forces, that the parents must accompany their children in public places, illuminates the height of disregard for individual freedom by the state agencies in Manipur. It also suggests that they have no clue how to deal with the situation. Normal life has become impossible in Manipur, a state in India that fails to guarantee the least possible in terms of law and order.
This fact is apparent from the sheer number of incidents of extortion reported from the state. Places of worship, educational institutions, human rights organisations, hospitals and commercial establishments are brought systematically under the extortion net, run by almost all the militant outfits operating in the State.
On 30 March 2008, the state Chief Minister Mr. Okram Ibobi Singh, publically admitted that militant groups were extorting money. On 12 September 2008, the Kanan Devi Memorial School at Pangei in the Imphal East district was closed for an indefinite period due to a demand by the militant groups for a sum of 10,000 USD. Three days later, on 25 September, extortion demands forced the closure of two government colleges in Imphal. Hospitals have similarly been affected by the extortion networks. On 18 January 2008, two private hospitals, Langol View at Lamphel Sanakeithel and Imphal Hospital, in Imphal, were closed down due to extortion demands of 10,000 USD each, served on them by a militant group.
On 28 August 2008, hundreds of commercial establishments, including pharmacies, located on both sides of the Tiddim Road along National Highway - 150 from Keishampat to Kwakeithel in the Imphal West district remained closed to protest the unbearable monetary demands served on them by Kanglei Yawol Kanna Lup (KYKL) cadres. The KYKL is one of the most notorious militant groups operating in Manipur. Later, the shopkeepers along the Dingku Road of Imphal West district revealed that their businesses were divided into three categories by the militants - bigger shops were asked to pay 600 USD, middle size shops 400 USD each, while the small ones were asked to pay 200 USD. In a similar incident, on 29 October 2008, pharmacies in and around the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital at Lamphel in the Imphal West district remained closed for the day in protest against extortion threats. Extortion drives are backed with widespread intimidation of, assaults on and armed attacks against target groups of the population.
There are about 18 underground militant groups operating in Manipur. Most of them do not have an established chain of command or any form of organisational structure. Many thrive on extortion money or from the income generated by illegal drug traffic between India and Burma. Most of them have their hideouts in Burma, along the Indo-Burma border. Places like Moreh, a small town along the Indo-Burma border about 110 kilometres from the state capital Imphal, have become hotspots for militant activity. Though the Moreh border outpost is manned by the security forces, owing to the corruption among its ranks, militants openly deal with contraband articles in the town.
The militant groups demonstrate their power, as has been the trend in previous years, by issuing numerous 'decrees'. On 31 January 2008, the KYKL reiterated its ‘decree’ of using Meetei Mayek language on signboards of shops, offices and institutions in the four valley districts - Imphal West, Imphal East, Bishnupur and Thoubal. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA), yet another notorious underground militant group in Manipur, 'banned' the export of rice or paddy outside Manipur with effect from 12 December 2008, to discourage the growing of cash crops. With the state's ability to provide security to its citizens virtually non-existent, any refusal to fall in line with these decrees has proven fatal. On 17 March 2008, at least seven non-Manipuri traders selling tobacco products and betel leaf, which were 'banned' by the PLA, were shot dead by PLA militants at Mayang Imphal Hanglun in the capital.
The response of the Government of India to the insurgent activities has thus far remained ineffective for obvious reasons. It is virtually impossible for anyone to approach the state police to file a complaint against a threat from an underground militant group. The state police lack the basic infrastructure to properly investigate crimes. With facilities to function scarce, the alarming trend within the state police is to discourage by threat and intimidation anyone who wishes to lodge a complaint. The most commonly used tactic is to accuse the complainant of having connections with the underground groups.
In addition to discouraging the complainants through various means, the state police as well as the security forces are engaged in extrajudicial executions in the state. According to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, 483 persons were killed in Manipur in 2008. The Ministry however claims that 347 of them were insurgents. This is in addition to the death of 16 persons from the security forces. Of the 483 persons, an estimated 420 persons lost their life in ‘encounters’ with the state agencies. Not a single case was subjected to independent enquiry. As of now in Manipur, or for that matter in any part of India, such a process does not exist. The practice is to accept, without a question, whatever report an officer sends to the superiors after an incident of encounter killing.
In this context, instances of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, illegal detention and other forms of violation of fundamental rights is on the raise in Manipur. In fact 92.51 percent of persons detained in prisons in Manipur are those awaiting trial. Given the current pace of disposal of cases in India, these persons will stay in pre-trial detention for a period ranging from four to ten years.
The imposition of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, a draconian law pressed to use in several parts of India, in the states of Manipur and Jammu and Kashmir in particular, provides statutory impunity to the state agencies. The vires of this law was repeatedly challenged before the Supreme Court of India. Each time the Court dismissed the petition. Caught between two equally inhuman forces, the underground militants and the state agencies, the people of Manipur live as if they are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.
Concerns have been expressed about this situation by domestic and international agencies. For example, the National Human Rights Commission of India has repeatedly requested the Government of India and the state administration to deal with the situation of law and order in Manipur on several occasions. The annual reports of the Commission for the past four years consistently reflect this fact.
Justice B. P. Jeeven Reddy Commission, deputed to study and report to the Government of India about the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 has also highlighted this fact, in addition to recommending to the Government of India an immediate withdrawal of the law from the state. The Commission filed its report to the Government in 2005. The Prime Minister of India responded by stating in a press conference that the law will be withdrawn as early as possible. Since then nothing is heard about the government’s plan to withdraw the law.
International human rights organisations have also expressed similar concerns. The Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) and its sister concern the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has been reporting cases of human rights violations committed by the security forces in Manipur. In most cases the authorities have been taking cover under this draconian law. In spite of all these, there has been no substantial intervention by any UN agencies on issues concerning Manipur.
As of now, the people of Manipur are left at the mercy of two diagonally opposing forces – the state security agencies and the underground militant organisations. Time and again it has been proved that help at the domestic level is almost impossible without an external strong intervention. In this context an intervention by the UN Human Rights Council, particularly emphasising upon the Government of India’s voluntary pledge promising to protect and promote human rights, thereby bringing order and rule of law in Manipur gains importance.
The ALRC therefore requests the Council to:
1) Encourage the Government of India to immediately withdraw the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958;
2) Suggest the government to constitute an independent agency to investigate and prosecute cases of human rights violations committed by the state agencies in Manipur;
3) Recommend the government to implement the recommendations made by the Justice B. P. Jeevan Reddy Commission submitted to the government in 2005;
4) Urge the government to simultaneously find a political solution to the problems affecting the rule of law in Manipur though a process of interactive dialogue with the people and their leaders, thereby creating an environment of mutual respect and understanding.
# # #
About ALRC: The Asian Legal Resource Centre is an independent regional non-governmental organisation holding general consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. It is the sister organisation of the Asian Human Rights Commission. The Hong Kong-based group seeks to strengthen and encourage positive action on legal and human rights issues at local and national levels throughout Asia.
16 October, 2008
ALRC criticizes India’s opposition to civil society participation in international fora
The following is a statement issued by the Asian Legal Resource Centre, Hong Kong:
The deliberations of senior Indian politicians during the National Integration Council Meeting held in New Delhi on 13 October contradict India's positions in international forums like the UN. The council of ministers who met in New Delhi this week resolved that the country will protect, at all costs, the foundations of secularism, equality, social, economic and political justice and fraternity among all communities. The meeting was held in the context of increasing violent incidents of religious and caste intolerance in India.
The above cited statement contradicts the view expressed by the Indian Government’s delegation at the UN. In a recent meeting held at the UN, India opposed the participation of national and international NGOs working against racial and other contemporary forms of discrimination. This includes caste-based discrimination in the forthcoming Durban Review Conference.
During the PrepCom meetings for the Durban Review Conference held in Geneva between 6-17 October, the Indian delegation vehemently opposed the accreditation of national human rights organisations like the National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights (NCDHR), Swadikar and the international advocacy group the International Dalit Solidarity Network (IDSN).
India's opposition was on the grounds that caste-based discrimination does not fall under the scope of the International Convention against Racial Discrimination (CERD.) The activities of the organisations, therefore, do not fall under the objectives of the Durban Review Conference as such. India ratified the CERD on 3 December 1968. This means that India is bound by the treaty obligation to prevent all forms of racial discrimination, both domestically and internationally. Ratification of the treaty also means that India is bound to promote the scope of the operation of the treaty and the further development of the jurisprudence associated with the treaty.
One such document that affirms that caste discrimination falls under the scope of the term 'descent' mentioned in Article 1(1) of the CERD is General Recommendation 29 issued by the CERD Committee in 2002. The General Recommendation categorically states "that discrimination based on 'descent' includes discrimination against members of communities based on forms of social stratification such as caste [emphasis added] and analogous systems of inherited status which nullify or impair their equal enjoyment of human rights...." The full text of the General Recommendation is available here. This position has been reaffirmed several times by the Committee, the latest being an examination of India in 2007, and report by the Special Rapporteur on racism.
The opposition to accrediting NGOs working on caste-based discrimination contravenes the voluntary pledge made by the country promising the promotion, protection and fulfilment of human rights and human values. The pledge was made during India's contest to the UN Human Rights Council. Of specific relevance in this context is the part where India reiterates that it "will continue to encourage efforts by civil society seeking to protect and promote human rights." A complete text of the pledge is available here.
The opposition however did not succeed. The NCDHR, Swadikar and the IDSN were accredited in the PrepCom session with support from the EU spearheaded by the French delegation. France, on behalf of the EU, argued that this form of discrimination does fall under the objectives of the Durban Review Conference. NGOs working on these issues should not be excluded on these grounds. One delegation even mentioned that this would be “discriminatory” and “against the spirit of the Durban Review Conference”. Several other states called for broad civil society participation. The discussion was broadcast live by the UN, of which a summarised text of the discussion is available here.
During the discussions in this meeting, India claimed that it is willing to engage in discussions with members of the civil society at home concerning issues that must be discussed during the Durban Review Conference. However, according to information at the Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC), no such consultations to date have not been formally organised by the Indian government. There has been no invitation to mainstream NGOs, working on caste-based and other contemporary forms of discrimination, to present their views in preparation for the Durban Review Conference.
India's lack of interest in fostering international human rights mechanisms is further exposed by it’s refraining from promoting universally accepted norms at the domestic level. India has thus far not extended an open invitation to any of the mandate holders under the UN special procedure mechanisms. They have not responded to the questions put forward by the CERD Committee following the examination of India's report in 2007, as otherwise required. This fact adds more credibility to the argument that India, like some other poorly performing member states in the UN uses international human rights mechanisms only for short-term political gains and discreditation of opposing states.
India desperately tries to portray an image of a state that promotes pluralism, equality and fraternity. In comparison to its immediate neighbours, like Sri Lanka, Nepal, Pakistan, China and Afghanistan, India might be ahead on many fronts. However, the perpetual curse of India, from which most of its inequalities and double standards emanate, is the practice of caste.
A society that has its roots embedded in a caste system cannot easily move forward in ensuring democratic values. The meaning of democracy does not begin or end with an election - the concept of democracy implies much more. A caste system, on the other hand, is not only an impediment to democratic values but is also the legitimisation of inequality shrouded with religion. The mere signing of a human rights document or the making of pledges promising the protection and promotion of human values are of no use in ending discriminatory practices.
What India requires is a strong political will to neutralise this 3000 year-old inhuman practice. But this is what India clearly lacks. Opposing participation by the civil society in discussion forums is most certainly not the way to go forward.
# # #
About the ALRC: The Asian Legal Resource Centre is an independent regional non-governmental organization holding general consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. It is the sister organization of the Asian Human Rights Commission. The Hong Kong-based group seeks to strengthen and encourage positive action on legal and human rights issues at the local and national levels throughout Asia.
The deliberations of senior Indian politicians during the National Integration Council Meeting held in New Delhi on 13 October contradict India's positions in international forums like the UN. The council of ministers who met in New Delhi this week resolved that the country will protect, at all costs, the foundations of secularism, equality, social, economic and political justice and fraternity among all communities. The meeting was held in the context of increasing violent incidents of religious and caste intolerance in India.
The above cited statement contradicts the view expressed by the Indian Government’s delegation at the UN. In a recent meeting held at the UN, India opposed the participation of national and international NGOs working against racial and other contemporary forms of discrimination. This includes caste-based discrimination in the forthcoming Durban Review Conference.
During the PrepCom meetings for the Durban Review Conference held in Geneva between 6-17 October, the Indian delegation vehemently opposed the accreditation of national human rights organisations like the National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights (NCDHR), Swadikar and the international advocacy group the International Dalit Solidarity Network (IDSN).
India's opposition was on the grounds that caste-based discrimination does not fall under the scope of the International Convention against Racial Discrimination (CERD.) The activities of the organisations, therefore, do not fall under the objectives of the Durban Review Conference as such. India ratified the CERD on 3 December 1968. This means that India is bound by the treaty obligation to prevent all forms of racial discrimination, both domestically and internationally. Ratification of the treaty also means that India is bound to promote the scope of the operation of the treaty and the further development of the jurisprudence associated with the treaty.
One such document that affirms that caste discrimination falls under the scope of the term 'descent' mentioned in Article 1(1) of the CERD is General Recommendation 29 issued by the CERD Committee in 2002. The General Recommendation categorically states "that discrimination based on 'descent' includes discrimination against members of communities based on forms of social stratification such as caste [emphasis added] and analogous systems of inherited status which nullify or impair their equal enjoyment of human rights...." The full text of the General Recommendation is available here. This position has been reaffirmed several times by the Committee, the latest being an examination of India in 2007, and report by the Special Rapporteur on racism.
The opposition to accrediting NGOs working on caste-based discrimination contravenes the voluntary pledge made by the country promising the promotion, protection and fulfilment of human rights and human values. The pledge was made during India's contest to the UN Human Rights Council. Of specific relevance in this context is the part where India reiterates that it "will continue to encourage efforts by civil society seeking to protect and promote human rights." A complete text of the pledge is available here.
The opposition however did not succeed. The NCDHR, Swadikar and the IDSN were accredited in the PrepCom session with support from the EU spearheaded by the French delegation. France, on behalf of the EU, argued that this form of discrimination does fall under the objectives of the Durban Review Conference. NGOs working on these issues should not be excluded on these grounds. One delegation even mentioned that this would be “discriminatory” and “against the spirit of the Durban Review Conference”. Several other states called for broad civil society participation. The discussion was broadcast live by the UN, of which a summarised text of the discussion is available here.
During the discussions in this meeting, India claimed that it is willing to engage in discussions with members of the civil society at home concerning issues that must be discussed during the Durban Review Conference. However, according to information at the Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC), no such consultations to date have not been formally organised by the Indian government. There has been no invitation to mainstream NGOs, working on caste-based and other contemporary forms of discrimination, to present their views in preparation for the Durban Review Conference.
India's lack of interest in fostering international human rights mechanisms is further exposed by it’s refraining from promoting universally accepted norms at the domestic level. India has thus far not extended an open invitation to any of the mandate holders under the UN special procedure mechanisms. They have not responded to the questions put forward by the CERD Committee following the examination of India's report in 2007, as otherwise required. This fact adds more credibility to the argument that India, like some other poorly performing member states in the UN uses international human rights mechanisms only for short-term political gains and discreditation of opposing states.
India desperately tries to portray an image of a state that promotes pluralism, equality and fraternity. In comparison to its immediate neighbours, like Sri Lanka, Nepal, Pakistan, China and Afghanistan, India might be ahead on many fronts. However, the perpetual curse of India, from which most of its inequalities and double standards emanate, is the practice of caste.
A society that has its roots embedded in a caste system cannot easily move forward in ensuring democratic values. The meaning of democracy does not begin or end with an election - the concept of democracy implies much more. A caste system, on the other hand, is not only an impediment to democratic values but is also the legitimisation of inequality shrouded with religion. The mere signing of a human rights document or the making of pledges promising the protection and promotion of human values are of no use in ending discriminatory practices.
What India requires is a strong political will to neutralise this 3000 year-old inhuman practice. But this is what India clearly lacks. Opposing participation by the civil society in discussion forums is most certainly not the way to go forward.
# # #
About the ALRC: The Asian Legal Resource Centre is an independent regional non-governmental organization holding general consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. It is the sister organization of the Asian Human Rights Commission. The Hong Kong-based group seeks to strengthen and encourage positive action on legal and human rights issues at the local and national levels throughout Asia.
08 May, 2008
India's assistance to Myanmar must reflect its regional role, says ALRC
The following is a statement issued by the Asian Legal Resources Centre, Hong Kong:
The Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) appreciates the initiative taken by the Government of India in responding to the catastrophe that has devastated Myanmar. According to India's Ministry of External Affairs, India has dispatched two ships, INS Rana and INS Kirpan from the Indian Navy's Eastern Fleet, which has reached Yangon today with relief and medical supplies. India is also considering sending two Indian Air Force aircrafts with additional relief materials, which is also scheduled to reach Myanmar today.
India is a nation that is well aware of the intensity of devastation a natural calamity could bring to a country. India knows the pain and the loss such calamities could bring upon a populace. India is aware of what poverty means and has experience in dealing with the suffering of a poverty-stricken population after natural disasters. One of the founding doctrines of the Indian Constitution is alleviation of poverty. India being a state that was elected to UN Human Rights Council with the maximum number of votes has a moral as well as legal responsibility to reach out to Myanmar and its people.
Amidst the chaos and confusion in Myanmar after the tragedy; the urgent requirements for help of the ordinary people and the allegations and suspicions about the fairness and efficiency in distributing relief supplies; it is imperative that the Government of India must also ensure using its good offices so that the relief supplies in fact find those who are in immediate need. The healthy relationship between the two countries must be an added advantage for India to deal with this issue.
The latest reports from Myanmar suggest that the actual death toll might be much higher than 22,500, a figure that is reported by the military administration in Myanmar. The fact that an estimated 50,000 or more persons are currently reported missing, the massive loss of property and farmlands and the absence of safe drinking water sources are suggestive denominators to the reality that more persons are likely to die in the following days or are already dead.
Additionally, a large proportion of the general population in Myanmar is reported to be suffering from acute malnutrition much prior to cyclone Nargis devastating the country. The poor state of health of the people in Myanmar and poverty is yet another factor that might contribute to a high death toll in the coming days.
It is in times of extreme necessities like the devastation that has hit Myanmar, that any administration must encourage a joint effort from all fronts to provide help to the victims. Probably the Government of India, having sixty years of experience of working in a multi-party democratic system would be a good candidate to guide the administration in Myanmar to take an all inclusive approach in dealing with the current situation. India being a strategic member of sub regional groupings like the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMST-EC) and the Mekong Ganga Cooperation, could guide the administration in Myanmar with relative ease towards achieving this end.
Any improvement in the situation in Myanmar will not only help the people in that country but will also benefit the Indo-Myanmar relationship. India's stake in the bilateral trade between the two countries which stands slightly more than 425 million USD will only benefit from the assistance India offer to Myanmar at this juncture. In addition to the Government of India there are other groups in India like the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) that would be willing to help both the Government of India and the administration in Myanmar in improving the current situation.
The CII must be consulted to generously contribute to increase the current rate of supply of pharmaceuticals to Myanmar, an essential requirement for relief operations in that country. The CII which has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Union of Myanmar Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry (UMFCCI) could collaborate with the UMFCCI to ensure the proper distribution of medical supplies in Myanmar.
It is reported that the cyclone has devastated the minimal infrastructure that existed in Myanmar for transport. The Indian Border Roads Organisation that successfully completed the 160 kilometer India-Myanmar Friendship Road in Myanmar in 2001, which also holds a contact to maintain this road for a period ending in this year must be mobilised to repair the damages caused to the transportation facilities in Myanmar after the cyclone.
The expertise of the Indian Railways could also be called upon to repair the damages caused to the rail lines in Myanmar. The helicopter squadron leased out to Myanmar by India must be pressed into relief operations with immediate effect. Without facilities for transportation no relief operation can proceed and the chances are that with a failed transportation infrastructure, the relief supplies arriving in Yangon will remain in Yangon. In the past, when similar catastrophes hit Bangladesh, India has spared no resources in reaching out to that country.
In addition, India being one of the immediate neighbours of Myanmar that has experienced professionals in dealing with the causalities arising out of natural calamities could provide further manpower to assist the relief operations in Myanmar. The Government of India could also consider relocating persons who are seriously injured for better treatment to hospitals in India. The fact that the Government of India and the administration in Myanmar has a good working relationship might make India's offer to help more acceptable to the relatively secretive administration in Myanmar.
While the equitable and timely distribution of relief supplies is important, the Government of India also must encourage the administration in Myanmar to welcome other offers of help extended to Myanmar. There are several non-governmental organisations operating from India and abroad that have expressed earnestness and preparedness in helping Myanmar. However, it is reported that these offer for help has been treated with great suspicion by the administration in Myanmar. The Government of India could also explore its possibilities in engaging with the administration in Myanmar to accept such help.
India being the largest regional democratic power must lead way in the relief operations conducted in Myanmar. The Indian initiatives in Myanmar must not be reduced to a spontaneous action out of mere compassion. It must reflect India's much asseverated pragmatism and its diplomatic and political strength.
# # #
About the ALRC: The Asian Legal Resource Centre is an independent regional non-governmental organisation holding general consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. It is the sister organisation of the Asian Human Rights Commission. The Hong Kong-based group seeks to strengthen and encourage positive action on legal and human rights issues at the local and national levels throughout Asia.
The Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) appreciates the initiative taken by the Government of India in responding to the catastrophe that has devastated Myanmar. According to India's Ministry of External Affairs, India has dispatched two ships, INS Rana and INS Kirpan from the Indian Navy's Eastern Fleet, which has reached Yangon today with relief and medical supplies. India is also considering sending two Indian Air Force aircrafts with additional relief materials, which is also scheduled to reach Myanmar today.
India is a nation that is well aware of the intensity of devastation a natural calamity could bring to a country. India knows the pain and the loss such calamities could bring upon a populace. India is aware of what poverty means and has experience in dealing with the suffering of a poverty-stricken population after natural disasters. One of the founding doctrines of the Indian Constitution is alleviation of poverty. India being a state that was elected to UN Human Rights Council with the maximum number of votes has a moral as well as legal responsibility to reach out to Myanmar and its people.
Amidst the chaos and confusion in Myanmar after the tragedy; the urgent requirements for help of the ordinary people and the allegations and suspicions about the fairness and efficiency in distributing relief supplies; it is imperative that the Government of India must also ensure using its good offices so that the relief supplies in fact find those who are in immediate need. The healthy relationship between the two countries must be an added advantage for India to deal with this issue.
The latest reports from Myanmar suggest that the actual death toll might be much higher than 22,500, a figure that is reported by the military administration in Myanmar. The fact that an estimated 50,000 or more persons are currently reported missing, the massive loss of property and farmlands and the absence of safe drinking water sources are suggestive denominators to the reality that more persons are likely to die in the following days or are already dead.
Additionally, a large proportion of the general population in Myanmar is reported to be suffering from acute malnutrition much prior to cyclone Nargis devastating the country. The poor state of health of the people in Myanmar and poverty is yet another factor that might contribute to a high death toll in the coming days.
It is in times of extreme necessities like the devastation that has hit Myanmar, that any administration must encourage a joint effort from all fronts to provide help to the victims. Probably the Government of India, having sixty years of experience of working in a multi-party democratic system would be a good candidate to guide the administration in Myanmar to take an all inclusive approach in dealing with the current situation. India being a strategic member of sub regional groupings like the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMST-EC) and the Mekong Ganga Cooperation, could guide the administration in Myanmar with relative ease towards achieving this end.
Any improvement in the situation in Myanmar will not only help the people in that country but will also benefit the Indo-Myanmar relationship. India's stake in the bilateral trade between the two countries which stands slightly more than 425 million USD will only benefit from the assistance India offer to Myanmar at this juncture. In addition to the Government of India there are other groups in India like the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) that would be willing to help both the Government of India and the administration in Myanmar in improving the current situation.
The CII must be consulted to generously contribute to increase the current rate of supply of pharmaceuticals to Myanmar, an essential requirement for relief operations in that country. The CII which has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Union of Myanmar Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry (UMFCCI) could collaborate with the UMFCCI to ensure the proper distribution of medical supplies in Myanmar.
It is reported that the cyclone has devastated the minimal infrastructure that existed in Myanmar for transport. The Indian Border Roads Organisation that successfully completed the 160 kilometer India-Myanmar Friendship Road in Myanmar in 2001, which also holds a contact to maintain this road for a period ending in this year must be mobilised to repair the damages caused to the transportation facilities in Myanmar after the cyclone.
The expertise of the Indian Railways could also be called upon to repair the damages caused to the rail lines in Myanmar. The helicopter squadron leased out to Myanmar by India must be pressed into relief operations with immediate effect. Without facilities for transportation no relief operation can proceed and the chances are that with a failed transportation infrastructure, the relief supplies arriving in Yangon will remain in Yangon. In the past, when similar catastrophes hit Bangladesh, India has spared no resources in reaching out to that country.
In addition, India being one of the immediate neighbours of Myanmar that has experienced professionals in dealing with the causalities arising out of natural calamities could provide further manpower to assist the relief operations in Myanmar. The Government of India could also consider relocating persons who are seriously injured for better treatment to hospitals in India. The fact that the Government of India and the administration in Myanmar has a good working relationship might make India's offer to help more acceptable to the relatively secretive administration in Myanmar.
While the equitable and timely distribution of relief supplies is important, the Government of India also must encourage the administration in Myanmar to welcome other offers of help extended to Myanmar. There are several non-governmental organisations operating from India and abroad that have expressed earnestness and preparedness in helping Myanmar. However, it is reported that these offer for help has been treated with great suspicion by the administration in Myanmar. The Government of India could also explore its possibilities in engaging with the administration in Myanmar to accept such help.
India being the largest regional democratic power must lead way in the relief operations conducted in Myanmar. The Indian initiatives in Myanmar must not be reduced to a spontaneous action out of mere compassion. It must reflect India's much asseverated pragmatism and its diplomatic and political strength.
# # #
About the ALRC: The Asian Legal Resource Centre is an independent regional non-governmental organisation holding general consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. It is the sister organisation of the Asian Human Rights Commission. The Hong Kong-based group seeks to strengthen and encourage positive action on legal and human rights issues at the local and national levels throughout Asia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)