Era of army impunity ends

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

The immunity from prosecution which security personnel deployed in insurgency-hit areas have enjoyed under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) may become a thing of the past with the Supreme Court striking a decisive blow for freedom and accountability.

AFSPA, which is in force in parts of Jammu and Kashmir and the predominantly tribal states of the northeast, stipulates that there can be no legal proceedings against personnel acting under it. There has been a plethora of allegations of human rights violations by security forces and these have led to violent protests on several states.

In an 85-page judgment, delivered last Friday, a Supreme Court bench said every death caused by the armed forces should be thoroughly enquired into. “It does not matter whether the victim was a common person or a terrorist, nor does it matter whether the aggressor was a common person or the state. The law is the same for both and is equally applicable to both,” it declared.

Rejecting the government’s claim that denial of immunity would demoralise security personnel, the court said there was no concept of absolute immunity for an army person who committed a crime.

Every person who violated prohibitory orders in a disturbed area was not an enemy, it pointed out. Even if the person was an enemy there should be an enquiry to ascertain if excessive or retaliatory force had been used. It also drew a distinction between use of force in an operation and in other situations.

It entrusted the National Human Rights Commission with the responsibility of ordering enquiry into allegations against the security forces, and named the criminal investigation department of the police as the agency to conduct the enquiry.

AFSPA’s roots go back to the colonial era. The different versions of the law in force in various states are all based on the ordinance the British promulgated in 1942 to deal with the Quit India agitation which the Congress party launched even as the Indian National Army, formed by Subhas Chandra Bose to fight alongside Japan, was moving towards the eastern border from Singapore.

The ordinance was allowed to lapse after World War II. A few years after the country gained freedom it was resurrected to grant immunity to army and paramilitary personnel called out to deal with Naga insurgency in the eastern state of Assam. It is now in force, under the name AFSPA, in Nagaland, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh in the northeast and in J and K.

Ordinarily, AFSPA is applicable only in areas notified as “disturbed”. Most versions of the relevant law limit the “disturbed area” notification’s validity to six months. However, some areas have been kept under AFSPA continuously for half a century by repeatedly reissuing the notification.

J and K invoked AFSPA following a spurt in insurgency in 1992. The state’s Disturbed Areas Act lapsed in 1998 but AFSPA continues to this day. The National Conference government headed by Omar Abdullah wanted AFSPA to be withdrawn but the Centre did not oblige.

The People’s Democratic Party which heads the state government now also favours withdrawal of AFSPA, but the Bharatiya Janata Party, which heads the Central government and is PDP’s junior partner in the ruling coalition in the state, is a vocal supporter of the law.

The day the Supreme Court verdict on AFSPA came the security agencies announced the killing of 22-year-old Burhan Wani, said to be a home-grown Hizbul Mujahideen commander, and two associates in an encounter. At least 20 persons were killed and 200 injured as security forces fired on youths protesting against his killing.

The worst part of AFSPA is the security forces’ reluctance to part with it and the government’s readiness to honour their wishes. People in many states have been seeking the withdrawal of AFSPA for decades. Irom Sharmila, a young woman poet of Manipur, who began an indefinite fast in November 2000 demanding repeal of AFPSA and is kept alive through nasal feeding in a hospital, has become a global icon of the human rights movement.

The state of Punjab and the Union Territory of Chandigarh came under AFSPA in 1983 in the wake of the secessionist Khalistan movement. Under Congress and Akali Dal governments Punjab retained it until 1997. Chandigarh held on to it until the Punjab and Haryana High Court struck it down in 2012. Tripura’s Communist Party of India (Marxist) government lived with AFSPA for 14 years.

The apex court verdict has formally ended the era of army impunity. But more struggles in legal and other forums may be needed to make it a reality.--Gulf Today, July 12, 2016.

Extra-judicial killings: frightening administrative failure in Manipur

The following is a statement issued by the Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong:

The Commission of Inquiry, constituted by the Supreme Court of India, in Writ Petition (Criminal) 129 of 2012 [Extra Judicial Execution Victims Families' Association and Another (petitioners) Against Union of India and Others (respondents)] and Writ Petition (Civil) 445 of 2012 [Suresh Singh (petitioner) Against Union of India and Others (respondents)] has filed its report to the Court on 30 March 2012. The investigation by the Commission, chaired by Justice N. Santhosh Hegde (retired Judge to Supreme Court and former Solicitor General of India), having Mr. J. M. Lyngdoh (former Chief Election Commissioner of India) and Dr. Ajai Kumar Singh (former Director General of Police, Karnataka state) as members, has categorically shown the true face of law enforcement in Manipur. The Commission's report, a summary of which is reproduced below, confirms the ugly reality of impunity behind extra-judicial executions in Manipur.

In the seven cases that were inquired into, the commission has found:

(i) that in all cases the security forces have blatantly violated the law and procedure and have engaged in cold-blooded murder;

(ii) the use of disproportionate force against the victims by firing at them even at close range, repeatedly;

(iii) the negation of the legal procedures, even by administrative officers like the Executive Magistrates;

(iv) the open and uncontrolled possibility for wanton use of authority, including fabrication of or destruction or tampering of the evidence and the crime scene; and

(v) the abysmal failure of the draconian law, the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA), coupled with the perpetual imposition of emergency under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, that has perpetuated loss of faith of the people in their government and institutions and has in fact precipitated only more loss of life and violence in the state.

The Commission, however, has not dealt with issues like psychological trauma that grips the population, when scores of people have been shot dead often in full public view by the state, constitutionally bound to provide safety and security to every citizen. Though the subject does not fall sensu stricto within the remit of the Commission, per the order from the Supreme Court, it is however a subject that needs to be understood and addressed in detail should there be any discussion regarding the possibility of finding solutions to the problems of the people in Manipur arising out of state-sponsored terror. The report also misses a vital issue, the gender component, i.e. the problems young widows and mothers face when a husband or son is shot dead by the state and accused a terrorist. That the Commission itself is the result of cases filed, including those by young widows in Manipur; it is an issue that warrants close and careful attention.

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) respects the effort of the Supreme Court of India, which has clinically exposed the flaws in state policy with regard to insurgency in Manipur. The AHRC also wishes to express its appreciation of the Justice N. Santhosh Hegde Commission for undertaking the enormous and complicated task of revealing the truth behind 'executive elimination' in Manipur. Both cases are pending at the Supreme Court, and it is expected that the Court will deliver its verdict ordering appropriate relief in the case so that Manipur and its people are no more at the mercy of gun-wielding security force officers, who shoot to kill without rhyme or reason, with impunity.

Extracts from the Commission's findings:

1. On the victims: "I did not know the identity of the deceased even after he was killed. I came to know the name of the deceased after the same was published in a newspaper." This is a witness statement in the inquiry, tendered by a state officer. The officer testified further: "… even if I had not made any enquiry I knew that he was a member of KCP."

The Commission has reported that there is no credible, organised, or satisfactory process through which the security agencies verify the information they receive about a suspect. In this particular case, concerning the murder of Mr. Akoijam Priyobrata, the officer deposed that he would assert that the victim is a member of the KCP since he was found in a place where members of the KCP allegedly reside.

This gross absence of reason or intelligence, against a person that the security agencies allege of terrorist affinities, underlines the common knowledge in Manipur that in a very high number of cases, the agencies shoot to kill persons for reasons ranging from mere suspicion to extortion and later label the incident as 'a terrorist killed in encounter.' This pattern of accusation of victims of murder finds support at the highest levels of state administration in Manipur, including by its Chief Minister, Mr. Okram Ibobi Singh.

Of the cases that the Commission has investigated, not a single case suggests that the murdered victim was, in fact, engaged in terrorist activities. Even high-ranking officers do not have information about the persons executed by their subordinates. In the case of Mr. Elangbam Kiranjith Singh, an officer deposed, "I was not told the name of the person who was to be encountered in the information given by Major Badoni." What is equally alarming is the fact that 'encountered' is a euphemism, used across India and in South Asia generally, for executive elimination. This illuminates the shocking reality that high-ranking officers issue orders to their subordinates to kill persons. Concepts like command responsibility have no meaning in such circumstances when the command itself instigates the crime.

Neither the Government of Manipur nor that of the Union have any data concerning the number of civilians killed or injured so far in Manipur in anti-terrorist operations. When the Commission ordered the government to provide such information, the government responded that there is no official record of such information. This suggests deep culpability of both the Union Government and that of the Government of Manipur in shocking events reported from Manipur. Such absence of information further indicates that the government has no policy in place to solve the Manipur crisis even today and is grossly irresponsible with regard to its constitutional mandate.

2. Concerning procedures: The Commission's findings clearly suggest that the security forces operating in Manipur negate all procedural mandates, including the various directives issued by the Supreme Court of India and the central command of units like the Assam Rifles. The instructions from the Court, first iterated in the D. K. Basu case, and further incorporated into the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by way of a substantive amendment, are not observed at all. The Dos and Don'ts, spelt out in the Naga People's case by the Court and further transcribed as an operational manual by the Assam Rifles, have been violated, in each case investigated by the Commission. In fact, some of the high-ranking officers who deposed before the Commission even expressed complete absence of knowledge on this.

In the Naga People's case, the Court directed that Section 4 of the AFSPA is no carte blanche for the exercise of unlimited power. Considered along with other facts and in interpretation of the law, the ratio decidendi concerning Section 4 was that the power conferred by the section should be used with exceptional caution, and that the security forces must use only the minimum force necessary to undertake the job at hand. Yet, the Commission's investigation reveals that the officers on the ground do not follow this even as an obiter dictum.

Instead what has been revealed is the gruesome fact that the government is extending the operation of Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as required under Section 4(a) of the AFSPA, almost perpetually in Manipur. This is complemented with the increase in the number of armed forces stationed in the state and the number of extrajudicial executions and/or other violent incidents in which the state forces are involved.

The moot point would be whether this has led to any improvement in the situation in Manipur? With a government that is unable to provide even the number of persons having so far lost their lives in Manipur at the hands of security forces, the rationale, or rather irrationality, of extending the operation of AFSPA and Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Manipur is more than questionable.

Or, as the Commission's findings strongly suggest, is it the very policy of the state not to have a sensible plan for Manipur to address prevailing issues through dialogue? If this is so, it negates the constitutional legitimacy of the government.

The absence of policies and practices, on administrative, procedural, legal, as well as disciplinary oversight that any government concerned about the peace and security of its people and the integrity of its territory should have in place, is further illuminated in the Commission's report.

Dr. Ajai Kumar Singh, former Director General of Police, as well as a member of the Commission, summarises this concern in the report as follows:

"It would appear that successive Governments at Centre as well as State have treated the problem mainly as an issue of public order to be controlled by force through harsh provisions of laws like the AFSPA. If there are prohibitory orders under ection 144 CrPC for decades at a stretch with the AFSPA in force, how are people supposed to carry out their daily activities with a sense of security and peace? There is an overwhelming sense of discrimination in the mind of people and lack of faith in the honesty of intentions of Central and State Governments."

With regard to extremism and suggesting a sensible way of dealing with it, Dr. Singh has said:

"he extremists have succeeded in creating an impression that the Central and State Governments are not serious about solving the problems of the people and want to operate only through brutal force of Army, Para-Military and Police. They (the extremists) then use violence as "the language of the oppressed." Tribal insurgents are perceived as defender of the ethnic identities. People find it next to impossible to communicate with the Armed Forces or Police about disappearances of their kith and kin. The encounters enquired into by this Commission support the perception of the people about brutality of the Police and Security Forces. Extremism is often the outcome of perception (whether true or not) of injustice, oppression and discrimination."

Summarising the findings on the Assam Rifles, Dr. Singh noted that:

"n their write-ups about themselves, Assam rifles claim to be "Friends of the Hill people". They also claim to undertake "People centric projects and schemes". There was nothing in their presentation etc., that would support these claims. The thoroughly unsatisfactory functioning of the tate police has been brought out in the report itself."

The Commission further found, in terms of the procedures to be followed under Section 176 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, concerning magisterial enquiry to be conducted in all cases of death in police custody or police action, that enquires are being undertaken after the lapse of couple of years. The Commission’s investigation also found that judicial enquiries take years to be completed. Such exorbitant delay kills the purpose of the enquiry. The Commission further concluded that the absence of any procedural discipline provides substantial opportunities for state agencies to tamper with and/or destroy the scene of crime.

The Commission has highlighted the callousness with which the authorities deal with accusations against victims killed in encounter. To prove this, the Commission cited a case that it investigated, where the charge against the deceased was that he was suspected of unlawful activities. However, the charge was made after the execution of the suspect, and the case, according to government records is still under investigation against the deceased. The Commission concludes that the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, are abused in Manipur. Anyone shot dead or anyone authorities wish to investigate is charged under the provisions of this draconian law, without reason.

Concerning forensic examinations, the Commission concluded that it is routine practice for such examinations be delayed for days. In not a single case has there been an attempt to undertake a forensic examination of the crime scene. In fact, the state officers who deposed before the Commission were not aware that this is an investigative requirement in each case of extrajudicial execution. In most cases, autopsy examinations are undertaken after long delays.

3. Patterns: In all cases, the Commission found that the state officers did not have any credible, verified, and specific information concerning the identity of the victims. The encounters took place in such fashion that in all cases the security forces have received generic and vague information about a suspect, who, upon being approached by the state agencies, tried to escape and in the process fired at the officers, often one to three shots, using a 9 millimetre pistol, and in retaliation, the officers fired at the suspect thereby killing him.

Often, victims were found to have been fired upon from behind, at a close range, sometimes as close as within 2 feet. All victims have suffered multiple gunshot wounds, ranging from half a dozen to 32 gunshot wounds. In none of the cases, has any security force officer, their equipment, or their vehicle suffered injury or damage. In all the cases, the body has been sent to the hospital and a case registered against the victim, often under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

In not a single case has an investigation, as to the background of the firing that resulted in the death of a person, been conducted by the agencies. In at least two occasions, independent judicial enquiries have revealed that the story proposed by the state agencies was wrong and concocted. Yet, no officer or agency has been asked to provide explanation and no prosecution has been initiated against the officers involved. In all instances, high-ranking officers participated in the action, often sitting in their vehicle at a distance, not direct witness, with messages relayed to the officer through a constable or other low-ranking officer.

Read and understood in detail, these are more than just indications of state-sponsored terror, committed with impunity. It means that Manipur is under the grip of state terror, where executive elimination of citizens is rife. It is a consequential damage, to be expected from such a condition, that the people in the state have become alienated from their government, for which the Union as well as state government must be held answerable. At the very least, the government owes an apology to the people of Manipur for what its agencies have carried out in the name of security.

The state of affairs in Manipur is summarised in the following words of Dr. Singh:

"f one innocent person is killed by police or other security forces in a fake encounter, it creates tremendous upsurge of hatred… people always accurately know who was innocent. People even know whether an innocent person was killed by mistake or deliberately."

The findings of the Court, reflects the collective conscience of the people of Manipur. The deep trauma caused by extreme forms of violence in Manipur, will run through generations, for India and its people, including those who call Manipur home, will have to pay a price. A government that is honest to its constitutional promise has a heavy responsibility to end this violence now, and answer the questions posed in the report, to the satisfaction of the country.

For now, the case before the Supreme Court continues.

The complete copy of the Court's report is available for downloading here.

Is Justice K.G. Balakrishnan holding a devil's brief, asks ALRC

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.

EKTA demands inquiry into killing of Azad and journalist

The following is a statement issued by Sukla Sen for EKTA (Committee for Communal Amity), Mumbai:

EKTA hereby gravely notes that the killing of Cherukuri Rajkumar alias Azad, who reportedly stood at no. 3 in the CPI (Maoist) hierarchy, along with a freelance journalist Hemchandra Pandey, at Adilabad district in Andhra Pradesh on July 2 – coming on top of a series of killings involving civilians, security personnel and Maoist insurgents – has further vitiated the ambience. If one goes by the statement issued by the CPI (Maoist) on July 3, the prospects of peace talks, which Swami Agnivesh for a while is making serious bid to make happen, has suffered a serious jolt.

EKTA expresses its serious concern over such development, the government’s utter lack of concern in this regard and the mainstream media presenting the deaths as some sort of trophy won.

Even more disturbing is the fact that serious and credible allegations have been levelled that those two slain had actually been murdered by the AP Police and was subsequently packaged as “encounter death”. It has also been alleged that this has been done deliberately to torpedo the peace efforts.

Under the circumstances, EKTA demands that given the seriousness of the case an open judicial enquiry headed by at least a sitting High Court judge be instituted to unearth the truth without any further delay.

Confrontation between state and poor acquiring dimension of civil war

SUMANTA BANERJEE
Sanhati.com

It is understandable that human rights/civil liberties organizations should come out with statements deploring the killing of security forces (e.g. PUDR press statement on the wiping out of 75-odd CRPF personnel in Chhattisgarh on April 6) on the purely humanitarian ground that any loss of life is deplorable. But civil society groups or individuals who view the issue from a larger perspective need to take a more rigorous and clear-cut stand. If they agree that the fundamental issues raised by the Maoists are right, even if they do not accept their tactics (in other words, if they are well-disposed towards the basic Maoist critique of the present exploitative system and sympathize with their efforts to build up alternative structures of egalitarian governance in their areas of control, without supporting their tactics of indiscriminate killings of innocent civilians), they have to recognize the stark reality.

The stark reality is that the confrontation between the recalcitrant Indian state (which is adopting an oppressive neo-liberal model of development) and its opponents (the rural poor and tribal villagers who are facing displacement by that model) is fast acquiring the dimensions of a civil war. In such a war situation, the liberal-bourgeois pacifists can condemn both the disputing parties, and wash their hands off, shouting: “plague on both houses.” But can we afford to withdraw and refuse to take sides in this war?

If we are opposing the Indian state’s neo-liberal model of development and its oppressive policies to impose it on our people by displacing them from their homes, we should define our position with regard to the various popular protest movements that are breaking out in different forms – ranging from Gandhian non-violent types like the Narmada Banchao Movement or the anti-steel plant agitation in Kalinganagar on the one hand, to armed resistance by forest-dwellers and tribal people organized under Maoist leadership on the other. The mainstream media propaganda builds up a peculiar dichotomy between these two types of movements – describing the former as part of `democratic’ protest, and denouncing the latter as `terrorism’ – as if the Maoist movement is not democratic. It is as if protests and agitations can be termed democratic only if they are non-violent. But what if thousands of people in a particular area, comprising the majority of the population, decide to opt for armed resistance, after their non-violent forms of protest are violently suppressed by the state ? This is what is happening in Chhattisgarh. The reasons why the tribal people in Dandakaranya have taken up arms have been well-documented – not only by human rights activists, but also by no less an important body than the Planning Commission Experts Group in its report on extremist-affected areas a few years ago. For years together, their basic needs had not only been ignored by the state, but whenever they tried to assert their economic demands through peaceful democratic avenues – like demonstrations asking for higher prices for tendu leave collection, or access to forest produce – they were ruthlessly suppressed by the police.

What needs to be asserted – and which is deliberately suppressed by the mainstream media – is that even the non-violent protest movements (accepted as `democratic’ by the bourgeois-liberals) are violently opposed by the state through the use of military force (witness the experience of the Narmada Banchao movement, or of the Gandhian Himangshu whose ashram in Chhattisgarh was destroyed by the police). If the followers of these non-violent movements, after their disillusionment with the `peaceful’ means of constitutional protest, take up arms tomorrow to protect their homes and occupations, should we denounce them as `terrorists’?

The Home Minister, P. Chidambaram, says that the Naxalites have forced a war on the Indian state and its people. It’s the other way round. The Indian state has forced a war on the Indian poor by imposing on them a corporate sector-induced model of development – threatening wide sections of rural people ranging from the villages of Orissa, Jharkhand in the east to Rajasthan and Haryana in the north, who are being ousted from their lands. They are breaking out in protest demonstrations. The state responds by resorting to violence to suppress them. It has built up a well-structured a military network consisting of a variety of forces going under the names of CRPF, CISF, Special Operation Group, Eastern Frontier Rifles, etc. in various states. Exposures by independent reporters (in magazines like TEHELKA) have revealed how the senior officials and their juniors in these para-military forces have been consistently killing innocent people in false encounters, raping women, burning villages, not only in Maoist-dominated villages of Chhattisgarh, but also in Manipur and other parts of the north-east. The CRPF in particular has earned a notoriety for atrocities in areas wherever they had been deployed. The national media may shed tears for the death of the 75-odd CRPF soldiers in Chhattisgarh. But then, these soldiers, by being cannon-fodders of the Indian state, however tragic it might be, suffered the fate that – I’m sorry to say – they deserved. Should the bourgeois-liberals and human rights activists shed tears for the young dedicated Nazi soldiers (who massacred the Jews), and were killed in reprisal by the Soviet Red Army ? Surely, there should be a limit to the tolerance that bourgeois-liberalism allows!

To come back to the latest incident of the Maoist attack on the CRPF camp in Chhattisgarh…. if we accept it as a part of a civil war, such killings are inevitable (just as the CRPF killings of Maoists) in a violent system that has been institutionalized by the Indian state. The difference between the CRPF violence (involving `false encounters’, raping of tribal women, burning their homes, etc.) on the one hand, and the Maoist violence on the other (which means attacks on oppressive landlords and the police and para-military forces like the CRPF which come to the aid of the landlords) - has to be distinguished by civil society groups.

Courtesy: Countercurrents

Call to stop killings in the name of countering Maoism

The following is a statement issued by eight activists on alleged encounter killings of some Maoist leaders:

We, the undersigned, strongly condemn the recent killings of senior CPI (Maoist) leaders Sakhamuri Appa Rao and S. Kondal Reddy in ‘encounters’ by the Andhra Pradesh police.

While the AP police has claimed that they were killed in gun battles in two different incidents in Prakasam and Warangal districts, there are strong grounds to believe that the two Maoist leaders were arrested in Maharashtra, taken to AP and shot in cold blood.

The use of assassination, kidnapping and torture by the forces of the Indian state to contain the Maoist insurgency is not new or surprising but remains even now, as before, an illegal, immoral and reprehensible strategy.

Firstly, the use of such methods by the Indian police, paramilitary forces or army -- under whatever pretext -- go against basic provisions of the Indian Constitution and puts them on par with ordinary criminals or even terrorists. The fact that the Maoists do not believe in the Indian Constitution does not mean the Indian government should also abandon its commitment to the only consensus document that gives it its legitimacy. The Indian state has a duty to uphold the Constitution, irrespective of the opponents it faces, and failure to do so robs it of its entire claim to represent ‘Indian law’.

Secondly, there is enough evidence to show that the use of such dirty methods, once justified by the political masters, unfortunately becomes a bad habit, making the Indian security forces a threat to the lives of millions of ordinary Indian citizens. The fact that India has one of the world’s highest numbers of custodial deaths and ranks extremely high in the list of countries using torture is testimony to this dubious phenomenon. The people at the receiving end of such violations of law by the Indian state on a day-to-day basis are the Dalit, Adivasi, Muslim, poor communities as also the people of Kashmir and the North-East, and this is completely unacceptable.

We demand that the Home Minister of India and the Indian government put an immediate end to the use of abduction, torture and fake encounter killings to tackle the Maoist and other armed insurgencies. Lawless governance and impunity for wrongdoers in uniform leads to loss of faith in democracy. The institutional failures that give rise to insurgencies also need to be understood and tackled in a political manner for any lasting solutions.

A.Marx, Academic/Activist, Chennai
Bhaskar Vishwanathan, Activist, Chennai
Amit Bhaduri, Economist, New Delhi
Dilip Simeon, Academic/Activist, New Delhi
Satya Sivaraman, Journalist, New Delhi
Aseem Srivastava, Economist, New Delhi
Amit Sengupta, Journalist, New Delhi
Rabin Chakrabarty, Academic/Activist, Kolkata

Distributed by Countercurrents.org

Jamiat Teachers' Solidarity Association's website

The Jamiat Teachers’ Solidarity Association, which has been trying to keep alive the issue of the so-called encounter at Batla House, Delhi, has set up a regular website.

It outlines its stand in these words:
For Democracy, Justice and Human Rights.
Against Terrorism, Repression and Authoritarianism

URL: http://www.teacherssolidarity.org/

This is what the Association says about itself:

The events of 19th September and subsequent days left the Jamia community shocked, aggrieved and fearful. In particular the manner and the suspicious circumstances in which young boys, many of them students of Jamia Millia Islamia, were picked up by the special Cell, and pronounced “dreaded terrorists” by a trial by an utterly sensationalist and prejudiced media, created an atmosphere of fear and suspicion.

We as teachers felt that we could not afford to isolate ourselves in intellectual ivory towers. There was an urgent need to reach out to the community, which lives at our doorstep, and where a large number of teachers, administrative staff and our students reside. Jamia Teachers Solidarity Group was thus formed under these circumstances. The need for a civil society campaign on this was further underscored when various contradictions in the police theories emerged.

Through a number of initiatives, including a Jan Sunwai in Batla House area, march to Parliament to demand police probe into the ‘encounter’. A demonstration against Special Cell, and public discussions on the role of the media, Supreme Court guidelines on encounter killings, etc., we believe we have managed to create a wedge, however small, in the prevailing discourse—a discourse that questions the nationalism and patriotism of people who ask uncomfortable questions. We believe that true foundation of a democracy can only be justice. Anyone with an interest in deepening and strengthening Indian democracy should raise voice against this brazen witch-hunt in the name of fighting terror.

In July 2009, Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Group was registered as an ‘association’ and formally became Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Association.
Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Association (JTSA) stands committed to the upholding of democratic and human rights, to the safeguard of justice, condemns terrorism of all kinds, including State terror, and shall oppose authoritarianism.

Encounter killing and custodial torture a disgrace for the nation, says AHRC

The following is a statement issued by the Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong:

India will celebrate its 62nd year of independence tomorrow. While politicians and national leaders celebrate the Independence Day, delivering speeches and attending dinners, they will have to struggle to explain why often men and women in the country lose their life each year in encounters with the law enforcement agencies. The policy makers of the largest democracy of the world will also find it difficult to explain why the people's confidence about their law enforcement agencies is at an all time low.

This argument is highlighted in an incident that happened in Imphal, the capital of Manipur state on 23 July. On that day, two persons were shot dead by the Manipur Police Commando Unit in Imphal in broad daylight. Of the two persons killed, one was a woman, seven-months pregnant, who was shot in front of her three-year-old son. Five more persons were injured, four of them seriously, when the police indiscriminately fired at the crowd, with total disregard to the safety and life of the civilians they are bound to protect.

The shame of Manipur was brought to an all time high when the Chief Minister of the state, shamelessly readout in the Manipur State Assembly, a statement prepared by his police chief. The Chief Minister said that "there is no other way to deal with terrorists other than killing them", to establish peace in the state.

The statement of the Chief Minister vouch for the fact that after 62 years of independent existence, Indians are engaged in murdering themselves for a multitude of reasons, including that of safety and security. The number of people losing their life to law enforcement agencies each year in the country is higher than the statistics during the British rule. In the past eight months alone an estimated 463 persons have lost their life to state agencies in 'encounter killings'.

The sentiment expressed by the Chief Minister of Manipur after the July 23 incident echo the 'official' position regarding dealing with crime and maintaining law and order throughout the country. Murder with impunity has become so common that it is no more of 'news value' to the media. In fact the country's media have even started using terms like 'encounter specialist' for murderer police officers, in an attempt to glorify their misdeeds.

Each case of encounter killing is a further dent to democracy and the rule of law. The existing legal framework, as envisaged in the Constitution, does not allow encounter killings. Such a concept cannot coexist with constitutionalism, the rule of law and the principles of democracy.

Every case of murder at the hands of the law enforcement agencies is an act of crime committed by the state and a negation of the principles of natural justice. Encounter killing or in whatever euphemist way such murders are referred to, is a denial of justice to a suspect. It is a violation of the fundamental right to be presumed innocent and until tried by an impartial court. Encounter killing is a denial of the fundamental right to life.

Often such murders leave a traumatised family who would never have an opportunity to prove the guilt of a murderer police officer and the innocence of the deceased. The murder encourages violence and creates psychopaths within the law enforcement agencies. Yet, state and central governments in the country encourages their law enforcement agencies to commit murder with statutory impunity. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 is one such law.

Encounter killing is the cancer that has grown into the organisational psyche of the law enforcement agencies. It is the product of the long practice of custodial torture, as cancer is to smoking.

Custodial torture is viewed as the only tool for law enforcement in the country. Like in the case of murder, torture too is a crime committed by the law enforcement agencies. Yet, police officers of all ranks and the politicians justify torture as an essential tool for law enforcement in India. These arguments date back to the period of Spanish inquisition and have no place in a democracy. On those terms, the 2009 India is administered by mindsets that predate independence.

Neither murder nor the practice of torture has been attempted to be prevented in India. Instead, the governments so far have denied the existence of these state sponsored evil and further promoted it, both openly and clandestinely.

Absoluteness of arbitrary authority, to kill or torture persons with impunity, has been retained and preserved with the law enforcement agencies, so that politicians and bureaucrats could continue using the law enforcement agencies to silence the populace. The resistance to root-out this cancer need no further reference other than the proposed legislation against torture. The draft bill could be viewed here.

The practice of torture and the alarming number of extrajudicial executions remain the central deficit affecting the rule of law and democracy in India. Each day ahead, failing to address this cancer that has isolated the populace from the government will, in the coming years, result in a complete failure of law and order in the country.

August 15 must be an occasion for the government and the civil society to revisit the promises the founding fathers of the nation have resolved to realise 62 years before. Failing to do so will not only push the nation into chaos, but will also water the seeds of disintegration of a country that has paid a heavy price for its freedom six decades ago.


About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.

Call for national protest against fake encounters

The Jamia Teachers Solidarity Association, along with other organizations, has called for a National Day of Protest on Friday, August 14, against the continuing trend of ‘encounter’ killings by state forces, arbitrary arrests of Muslim youth and blatant whitewashing of such crimes by state agencies. All this in the name of ‘national security’ and ‘war against terror’.

The cold-blooded murder of Chungkham Sanjit, a 27-year old Manipur youth in broad daylight on July 23 by Manipur Police Commandos, barely 500 meters from the state assembly building in Imphal, has once again highlighted the sordid truth about ‘encounter’ killings in India. While MPC had claimed initially that Sanjit had been killed while escaping during a routine screening operation, their lie was nailed by a series of photographs published by the Tehelka magazine, which showed the unarmed, peaceful youth was shot by the commandos without provocation. In addition, a pregnant woman, Mrs. Rabina and the child in her womb were also killed, while five others were wounded.

Last year on September 19 the Delhi police had carried out a similar ‘encounter’ against alleged ‘terrorists’ of the Indian Mujahideen at Batla House in New Delhi. This would have been another routine ‘encounter’ if not for the nationwide outcry from human rights groups, students and academics.

While the Delhi High Court appointed the National Human Rights Commission to carry out an independent and fair inquiry into the encounter killings, the NHRC has chosen to further sully its already stained reputation by presenting a partisan report absolving the Delhi Police of any human rights violation. The NHRC did not bother to visit the families of the two ‘terrorists’ killed by the Delhi police, talk to eye witnesses or even visit the site of the ‘encounter’, basing their conclusions on the statements of the Delhi Police, the accused party!

This was only a repeat of the shameful exoneration of the security forces by the one-man enquiry commission in the brutal Shopian rape and murder case. In Gujarat the Sohrabuddin ‘encounter’ is returning to haunt the Narendra Modi government as evidence points to yet another cold-blooded murder by a highly communalized state police.

These murders by the killers in uniform are then legitimized and glorified as ‘encounters’. Large sections of our citizenry—Muslims, Kashmiris, peoples from the Northeast, Adivasis and Dalits—are condemned to be ‘encounterable’. These are people who can be killed, and their killings justified and explained through recourse to a warped security discourse. These people exist not in the framework of fundamental human rights but in that of national security alone. The security forces are afforded impunity and immunity as long as they can introduce the “Terror” word. In different parts of the country, Muslim youth are still being arrested and tortured on trumped up charges of links to ‘terrorism’. The large-scale detention of Muslim youth in Karnataka following communal riots in Mysore recently is a case in point of double standards followed by the state police, which is mysteriously soft on hardline Hindutva advocates like Pramod Muthalik who openly advocates attacks on women and members of the Christian and Muslim minorities.

To raise a concerted voice against the culture of encounters, which violates the fundamental rights provided by the Indian Constitution, to demand accountability of state forces, we call upon all those who value Indian democracy to come forward and join the National Day of Protest on August 14 in all parts of the country.

Manisha Sethi (9811625577),
Adeel Mehdi (9990923027), and
Ambarien Al Qadar (9810946273)
for Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Association (JTSA)

Malem Ningthouja (9899925345)
Campaign for Peace and Democracy, Manipur (CPDM)

All India Students’ Association (AISA)

ANHAD and

The Other Media

All those who wish to join the protest in New Delhi are requestws to assemble at the ITO Chowk at 3.30 p.m.

Activists question NHRC report on alleged encounter at Batla House

The following is a statement issued by concerned citizens on the National Human Rights Commission’s report on the alleged encounter at Batla House:

On 20th May, the Delhi High Court, acting on a petition filed by the
People’s union for democratic rights and Anhad, had asked the National
Human rights commission to conduct their own inqury into the alleged
Batla House encounter of September 2008 and give a report upon it.

This order came after the High Court was shown reports of four independent organizations into the encounter, including the report of People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR), the Delhi Union of Journalists, the Jamia Teachers Solidarity group, all of which seriously questioned the version of the Delhi police regarding the encounter. These reports and the petition filed by the PUDR had pointed out several specific problems with the version of the Delhi police. In particular, the following questions were raised about the version of the Delhi police.

1. If these boys were killed in a genuine encounter, how did the
17-year-old boy Sajid have four bullet holes on the top of his head,
which could only happen if the boy was made to sit down and shot from
above?

2. How is the skin peeled off from Atif’s back? This was clearly
visible in the photograph taken before his burial which is annexed to
the PUDR petition. Obviously Atif had been tortured before being
killed.

3. How are the other blunt injuries on the bodies of the boys
explained by the police version of the encounter?

4. If the police knew in advance (as they claimed) that these boys
in the flat were the terrorists involved in the Delhi and other bomb
blasts, why did Inspector Sharma go in without a bullet proof vest?

5. How could two of the boys escape from the flat which had only one
exit (two doors next to each other) and from a building which had only
one exit?

It was expected that in these circumstances, the NHRC, would conduct
its own investigation into the matter. The report dated 20th July 2009
of the NHRC given to the High Court on 22nd July, however shows that
far from conducting any investigation into the matter, the NHRC has
merely relied upon the Police reports for their report. They have not
even examined or investigated the above questions which were squarely
raised in the PUDR petition on which the High Court order was issued
to the NHRC. They have not even examined Saif, the third boy picked up
by the police from the flat, nor even any of the witnesses of the Batla House area who had deposed before the People’s Tribunal. They have just swallowed the police version hook, line and sinker. And this despite the fact that there has been no independent police investigation or even a magisterial enquiry into the encounter as mandated by the NHRC’s own guidelines.

It is extremely unfortunate that the premier human rights body set up
to investigate human rights violations is becoming a rubber stamp for
the police.

The same attitude of the NHRC was evident when the Supreme Court asked the NHRC to investigate allegations of rape and murder against the Salwa Judum. The NHRC sent a team of essentially police officers who spoke mainly to the local police and other officials and gave a white-washing report.

The time has come to seriously re-examine the manner of appointment of
members of the NHRC and its powers. The present system of appointment
by a committee of Prime Minister, Home Minister, Speaker and Leader of
Opposition etc. is not working satisfactorily. All of them seem to
want a toothless and tame body which will not question those in power.

Since the NHRC report does not address or answer the disquieting
questions raised by the several independent fact finding reports about
encounter, it is essential that there be an investigation into the "encounter" by an SIT appointed by the Delhi HIgh Court.

Signed by:
Shabnam Hashmi (Anhad)
Moushumi Basu (Secretary, PUDR)
Dr. Anoop Saraya (Jan Hastakshep)
Harsh Mander (Director, Center for Equity Studies)
Sreerekha & Tanvir Fazar (Jamia Teachers Solidarity Group)
Colin Gonsalves (Director, Human Rights Law Network)
Arundhati Roy (Writer)
Kavita Krishnan (CPI ML Liberation)
Kamini Jaiswal (Advocate)
Mehtab Alam (Association for the protection of democratic rights)
Prashant Bhushan (Advocate)
Harsh Dobhal (Human Rights Law Network)

AHRC poser to India: will the public behave differently from the government?

The following is a statement issued by the Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong:

Expressing concern about the decrease in the number of civil disputes filed in the courts in the country, the Chief Justice of India, Justice K. G. Balakrishnan, on Saturday said that the people prefer to settle disputes resorting to extra-constitutional methods. Clarifying his position, Justice Balakrishnan said that the judiciary is worried about the absence of new cases in the courts, indicating that the litigants are resorting to illegal means for dispute resolution. The Chief Justice also said that in a period where the average citizen is more aware of his rights and thus the chances of having disputes between persons high, the lesser number of cases filed in the courts means that the people have found ways to settle disputes outside the due process of law.

In an ideal scenario, a person settling disputes outside the realm of the court is good. But this proposition is suitable only if the means for dispute resolution is within the acceptable norms of justice and equality. But in India, the means resorted to are of hiring thugs and criminals to bully and threaten the opponent, thereby forcing a settlement. It is been so since the past decade. Even though late, it appears that the Indian judiciary is waking up to the reality, and is willing to admit that the average Indian litigant has less faith in the country's judiciary. Thus, the Chief Justice's concern is not out of place, but is relevant in addressing concerns related to the justice process in the country.

The mistrust of the general public in the due process indicates that the justice machinery of the country has failed to serve its purpose. While long delays in judicial process is disheartening enough for a serious litigant for not approaching the court, delay is just one reason why the people prefer to keep away from the courts. The lack of quality in professional service is yet another reason why the people shy off from the courts. For instance, it is a challenging task for a litigant to find a good lawyer at an affordable price.

To make matters worse, professional ethics among the lawyers in the country is as good as non-existent. Breach of professional ethics and morale is so common in the country, that a lawyer accepting money from both sides is no more news. Often lawyers prefer adjournments of cases since each day of hearing fetch them money. Corruption is however not limited to the lawyers, as the lawyers are just one component of a larger machinery.

Corruption within the judicial service is of such nature that even if a judge is not corrupt, a case could still be stalled due to a corrupt court staff. Officers ranging from the court registrar to the process server demand and accept bribes. It is almost impossible for papers to be processed in the court registry unless the court staffs are paid bribes. The judges often are aware of the corruption, but never initiate action against their own staff. Corruption is omnipresent, from the Munsiff's Court to the Supreme Court. The only difference is the amount of money demanded and paid. Even some of the judges in the country are corrupt.

Expressing the importance of a judge's role in sorting the issues within the justice system, the Chief Justice said that the judiciary requires judges who are committed to social values. For this, the Chief Justice emphasised on training for the judges. The Chief Justice however denied admitting that a value system a judge is not used to in his life outside the judge's chamber cannot be inculcated into an officer by mere training.

Some practices within the judiciary are as if the judiciary is alien to the very concept of decency and human and professional dignity. There are customary practices within the Indian judiciary that will shame feudal lords. For instance, it is a common practice for senior judges to direct subordinate judicial officers to serve as an orderly to the senior judge when the senior judge happens to visit a place with his family within the jurisdiction of the subordinate officer. Such practices of mere show and egotist vulgarity cannot be changed by training, but could be stopped, if the members of the judiciary are willing to realise that a judge's office is to be placed at a higher pedestal than that of a corrupt politician in the country who is arguably more prone to public show. What determines a judiciary's character is not the mere 'social value concept' of the judge, but his knowledge and skill in applying the law. A judge who is morally degraded by his superior officers cannot be expected to be blind and impartial while applying the law.

The standard of the Indian judiciary has arguably degenerated in the past three decades. The degradation process is rapid during the past ten years. This contradicts the fact that in the past ten years, the service conditions of the judges have improved considerably. An Indian judge is no more a poorly paid public servant as opposed to the service conditions in the past. Yet, cases implicating the members of the judiciary in corruption and other scandals are on the increase in the recent years.

The fact that judges are increasingly prone to corruption is only a mere indicator of the widespread prevalence of corruption in the society. For instance, some judges allegedly turn a blind eye to accusations that their relatives are accepting bribes in the judge's name for fixing cases. The continuation of such practices generates a public perception that the judge is corrupt. One cannot expect an ordinary litigant to trust a system that the judge is not committed to.

The government is also not committed to developing the Indian justice system. The judiciary receives negligible support from the government in terms of financial commitment. Vacancies are left unfilled and infrastructure sparingly made available. For example, during the past sixty years, the government's spending on justice institutions is a negligible minimum in comparison to what the government has spent on ministerial projects or on defence. This neglect is intentional. The more a justice system is smothered out of its life, the better the prospects for a corrupt politician, a class that is found in plenty in the country.

The worst dent is upon the criminal justice administration. For example, the service conditions of the public prosecutors are of such nature that this office does not attract professionals of any quality. Appointments to this office are publicly auctioned, where the highest bidder for payment of bribe is offered the post. Such payment is no more made in secrecy. It is a common practice among the public prosecutors and the government pleaders to demand bribes from the litigants. When the normative quotient for appointment to these important offices are determined by political affinities and the amount of bribes paid, replacing merits and skill, it is natural for the other elements within the criminal justice machinery also to degenerate.

During the past five years the number of extra judicial executions has increased to alarming levels in the country. It is estimated that in 2008 alone there has been 422 cases of extra judicial executions carried out in India. This includes cases involving the state police and other enforcement units like the para-military units deployed in various parts of the country.

Murderer officers are publically acknowledged as 'encounter specialists' as if they possess a higher technical skill, rare and coveted, in the law enforcement service. Even the media recognise these officers' skill of murdering suspects by referring to them as some form of specialist and elite officers within the system, conveniently neglecting the fact that the officer is a psychopath who murders people with impunity. Not a single judge from the Indian judiciary, including the Chief Justice, has questioned this practice. The argument in support of these murderers is that often when a suspect is brought to the trail, he escapes conviction, thereby becoming a continuing threat to the society. What is conveniently forgotten is the fact that often an acquittal is the result of poor investigation and appalling prosecution. An encounter killing is a blatant negation of the principles of the rule of law.

A criminal case in essence is a dispute between the state and an accused. In a country where the state itself practices extra-constitutional means for resolving the dispute with an accused in a crime, by encouraging state officers to murder the suspect in a fictitious encounter, can a litigant in a civil dispute expected to be different?
# # #

About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.