sign in sign up
<<
Home , Kashmiri Muslims, Sarabjit Singh, Sikh Empire

Refugee Review Tribunal AUSTRALIA

RRT RESEARCH RESPONSE

Research Response Number: IND31365 Country: Date: 2 March 2007

Keywords: India – & – –Sikh Student Federation – Lashkar-e-Taiba – Security forces

This response was prepared by the Country Research Section of the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) after researching publicly accessible information currently available to the RRT within time constraints. This response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum.

Questions

1. Are the authorities targeting Sikh Student Federation members or Sikhs generally in Jammu? 2. Are Lashkar-e-Taiba targeting Sikh Student Federation or Sikhs generally in Jammu? 3. Can the authorities adequately protect Sikhs in Kashmir, or in Jammu? 4. Has there been any relevant activity reported in Badila? 5. Would it be correct to say that Sikhs involved with the Sikh Student Federation could freely live elsewhere in India as Indian nationals from Jammu?

RESPONSE

1. Are the authorities targeting Sikh Student Federation members or Sikhs generally in Jammu?

There were no reports in the available information regarding the authorities targeting Sikh Student Federation members in Jammu and Kashmir. The available information also does not suggest that Sikhs generally are a specific target of the authorities in Jammu and Kashmir, although there have been clashes between Sikhs and security forces. However, according to a number of government reports and human rights groups, there have been ongoing human rights abuses against civilians generally, by both security forces and militant groups. Members of the security forces continued to enjoy impunity for human rights violations.

Clashes between Sikhs and security forces The US Department of State reported that there had been violent clashes between Sikhs and police in 2001 as a result of perceived inaction over targeted killings of Sikhs. The report states:

Early in 2001, eight Sikhs were killed, allegedly by an obscure militant group. On February 3, 2001, two gunmen killed six Sikhs and wounded at least four others in …The Government sent a four-member team to Kashmir to investigate the killings; however, no one had been charged, and there was still no reported progress in the investigation of the killings as of the end of the period covered by this report. Sikhs protested the killings, which led to violent clashes with police (US Department of State 2003, International Religious Freedom Report for 2003 – India, 18 December, Section III – Attachment 1).

The Asian Centre for Human Rights (ACHR) report on human rights in India for 2006 states that security personnel continued to use “disproportionate force to control public protests.” An article dated 27 May 2001 in the Daily Excelsior reported that “[p]olice lobbed tear gas shells and used batons [in Srinigar] today to disperse stone-pelting demonstrators protesting the alleged ‘secret mission of police’ to kill a Sikh family in the area.” Various Kashmir separatist groups issued statements accusing the State Government of “using its forces to kill a Sikh family” and “sabotage” peace efforts in Jammu and Kashmir. The All India Sikh Student Federation demanded an investigation into the incident. An article dated 6 February 2001 details violent statewide clashes between protesting Sikhs and security forces, after six Sikhs were killed by unidentified gunmen. The clashes resulted in the death of one of the Sikh protesters when police fired into the crowd. Curfew restrictions were placed on a number of cities, and highways were closed (Asian Centre for Human Rights 2007, ‘India: Human Rights Report 2006’, ACHR website, January – Attachment 2; ‘People protest against Police bid to ‘kill’ Sikh family’ 2001, Daily Excelsior, 28 May http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/01may28/news.htm#4 – Accessed 19 February 2007 – Attachment 3; ‘Cremation of youth passes off peacefully’ 2001, , 7 February http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010207/main1.htm – Accessed 19 February 2007 – Attachment 4).

There were no recent reports in the available information of clashes between the Sikh community and security forces. However, human rights violations and the killing of civilians by security forces during counterinsurgency operations has continued. According to the latest US Department of State report on human rights in India:

During the year the killing of civilians continued in the course of counterinsurgency operations in Jammu and Kashmir. Human rights activists stated that accurate numbers were not available due to limited access to the region, but ACHR alleged that 733 civilians were killed in 2004.

The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) and the Disturbed Areas Act remained in effect in Jammu and Kashmir…The Disturbed Areas Act gives police extraordinary powers of arrest and detention, and the AFSPA provides search and arrest powers without warrants…Human rights groups alleged that security forces operated with virtual impunity in areas under the act.

…Security forces committed thousands of serious human rights violations over the course of the insurgency, including extrajudicial killings, disappearances, and torture (US Department of State 2006, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2005 – India, 8 March, Section 1 – Attachment 5).

The use of civilians as “human shields” by the security forces is detailed in reports by the US Department of State and the Asian Centre for Human Rights (US Department of State 2006, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2005 – India, 8 March – Attachment 5; Asian Centre for Human Rights 2007, ‘India: Human Rights Report 2006’, ACHR website, January – Attachment 2). A 2006 Human Rights Watch (HRW) report titled “Everyone lives in fear” – Patterns of impunity in Jammu and Kashmir details numerous human rights violations committed by security forces – police, army and paramilitary – in the state (Human Rights Watch 2006, “Everyone lives in fear” – Patterns of impunity in Jammu and Kashmir, September – Attachment 6).

The Amnesty International 2006 report on India states that in Jammu and Kashmir:

Civilians were repeatedly targeted by state agencies and armed groups.

• In July, four juveniles aged between 11 and 15 were shot dead by paramilitary Rashtriya Rifles in district. Local people said that the boys had participated in a marriage party and gone for a stroll but ran away when ordered to stop. They said that the army had been informed of possible movements of people attending the party late at night (Amnesty International 2006, Amnesty International Annual Report 2006 – India – Attachment 7.

The 2006 Freedom House report on India-administered Kashmir states that:

In a continuing cycle of violence, several thousand militants, security force personnel, and civilians are killed each year. Approximately 500,000 Indian security forces based in Kashmir, including soldiers, federal paramilitary troops, and the police, carry out arbitrary arrests and detentions, torture, “disappearances,” and custodial killings of suspected militants and alleged civilian sympathizers. From 3,000 to 8,000 people are estimated to have disappeared during the course of the insurgency. As part of the counterinsurgency effort, the government has organized and armed pro-government militias composed of former militants. Members of these groups act with impunity and have reportedly carried out a wide range of human rights abuses against pro-Pakistani militants, as well as civilians. Local activists report that human rights violations continue to occur at levels similar to those of previous years (Freedom House 2006, Freedom in the World – Kashmir [India] (2006) – Attachment 8).

Background Information The following includes information on Sikhs in Jammu and Kashmir, the Sikh Student Federation (SSF), and a brief background on the conflict in Jammu and Kashmir.

Sikhs in Jammu and Kashmir The available information indicates that Sikhs in Jammu and Kashmir experience difficulties in regards to employment, education and government representation, as well as access to adequate security.

An article dated 6 February 2006 reports that representatives of Sikh organisations were requesting measures that could fix some quota for Sikhs in government jobs along with allowing representation of Sikhs in the state legislature and in the state Cabinet. An article dated 6 February 2001, states that the “Sikh community in Jammu and Kashmir was facing immense problems of employment, education and feeling increasingly alienated” (‘Sikhs seek say in Indo-Pak talks’ 2006, Kashmir Today, 6 February http://www.kashmirtoday.com/ – Accessed 27 February 2007 – Attachment 9; ‘Give security to Sikhs: Talwandi’ 2001, The Tribune, 7 February http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010207/main1.htm – Accessed 19 February 2007 – Attachment 4).

A 2002 article details complaints made by Sikh groups, including the All India Sikh Student Federation (AISSF), that the State Government was discriminating against Sikhs. The article states: the participants said that Sikh youths are being discriminated against with regard to providing Government jobs, selection in professional colleges and recruitment in departments particularly in State Police.

It was stated in the meeting that whenever the Government issued selection list of candidates, proper share was not given to Sikh community as a result of which youth of Sikh community are falling prey at the hands of anti-social elements.

The meeting passed resolutions demanding immediate completion of CBI inquiry into Chattisinghpora massacre, bringing an end to harassment of Sikh youth by State Police, [and] release of detained Sikhs (‘Discrimination with Sikh community alleged’ 2002, Daily Excelsior, 1 August http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/02aug01/state.htm#5 – Accessed 23 February 2007 – Attachment 10).

Sikh Student Federation (SSF) Little information was found regarding the activities or structure of the Sikh Student Federation (SSF) in Kashmir, although it (or the All India Sikh Student Federation [AISSF]) is mentioned in various articles. The relevant pages on the website detailing the organisation’s countrywide structure are in Punjabi (Sikh Student Federation website http://www.sikhstudentsfederation.com/ – Accessed 20 February 2007).

The SSF is also known as the All India Sikh Student Federation (AISSF). The most recent UK Home Office country information report on India includes the following background information on the group:

The AISSF was founded in 1944. Its founder President was Swarup Singh. It was the first body to pass a resolution seeking the formation of a separate Sikh homeland. Its other objectives were to promote and propagate amongst the college-going Sikh students. While the AISSF sought a separate Sikh homeland, it did not fight for it until militancy erupted under Bhindranwale in 1981. From then onwards, a number of AISSF members joined the ranks of the militants. The organisation was banned between 19 March 1984 and 11 April 1985. According to FCO advice in correspondence dated 18 August 2005, to the best of its understanding the AISSF was banned in 1984 and the ban was subsequently lifted in 1985:

“The AISSF has since split into various factions and is believed to be active in various universities in . The AISSF now operates in the name of Sikh Students Federation (SSF). The ‘All India’ was dropped in 1991. There were originally three factions, now there are two: the main SSF faction and the Bitto factions, the latter led by Mandhir Singh.”

It is thought that the current president of the SSF is Gurucharan Singh Grewal, and that the organisation is based in but now operates from district (address: 1756, Tehsil Road, Jagraon, Ludhiana, Punjab – 142 026). The SSF has a 100-member executive including 50 office bearers. Senior Vice Presidents are: Surendrapal Singh, Kulwant Singh Kamal, Sarabjit Singh and Paramjit Singh. General Secretaries are Major Singh, Shispal Singh and Jaspal Singh (UK Home Office 2006, Country of Origin Information Report: India, October, p. 204 – Attachment 11).

The Terrorist Portal includes the All India Sikh Student Federation (AISSF) in its list of ‘terrorist, insurgent and extremist groups’ in India (‘India – Terrorist, insurgent and extremist groups’ (undated), South Asia Terrorist Portal website – Accessed 8 September 2006 – Attachment 12). For more information on the SSF and splinter groups, see: RRT Country Research 2007, Research Response IND31165, 11 January – Attachment 13; see also Sikh Student Federation website http://www.sikhstudentsfederation.com/.

Religious demographic The US Department of State International Religious Freedom Report on India for 2006 states:

According to the 2001 Government census, constituted 80.5 percent of the population [in India], 13.4 percent, Christians 2.3 percent, Sikhs 1.8 percent, and others, including Buddhists, Jains, Parsis (Zoroastrians), Jews, and Baha’is, 1.1 percent. Slightly more than 90 percent of Muslims were Sunni; the rest were Shi’a…Hindus and Muslims were spread throughout the country, although large Muslim populations were found in the states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Kerala, and Muslims were the majority in Jammu and Kashmir…Sikhs were a majority in the state of Punjab [researcher emphasis added] (US Department of State 2006, International Religious Freedom Report for 2006 – India, September, Section 1 – Attachment 14).

Both Sikhs and Muslims are designated religious minorities recognised by India’s Constitution. are the regionally dominant community in Jammu and Kashmir. According to the Minority Rights Group International report they make up 60 per cent of the population, while Hindus constitute 33 per cent, and Buddhists 3 per cent [Sikhs constitute 4 per cent]. community is concentrated in Jammu, Buddhists in and Muslims in the Valley. These three areas currently constitute the state of Jammu and Kashmir (Chadda, Maya 2006, ‘Minority rights and conflict prevention: Case study of conflicts in Indian Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab and Nagaland’, Minority Rights Group International website, August – Attachment 15).

Jammu & Kashmir – Background As a background to the current situation in Jammu and Kashmir, a report by the Minority Rights Group International states that:

India is a land of myriad ethnic, religious, caste and linguistic minorities affiliated to distinct belief systems, sub-cultures and regions. Integration of these diverse communities – some large enough to aspire to a regional homeland and others content to remain as part of the Indian state – has been a central preoccupation of Indian governments since 1947…As border provinces, Kashmir [and] Punjab…were important to India’s security and international boundaries. The ethnic spread across the post-1947 borders, which were already disputed by , and Bangladesh, added a dangerous new dimension.” Two violent ethnic conflicts have continued through almost 60 years of post-independence history: the Kashmiri Muslim demand for the separation of the states of Jammu and Kashmir from India; and the Sikh struggle for an independent state in the Punjab region.

…The current Indian Punjab is a small part of the original Sikh ruled by Maharajah (1779–1839). In 1849, the British divided the and created the kingdom of Kashmir. The kingdom of Kashmir is thus a recent construct, although the culturally distinctive identity of Kashmir can be traced back over many centuries. With the creation of the kingdom, the cultural and territorial identities melded into an aspiration for a separate nation-state. The kingdom consisted of diverse ethnic-linguistic and religious communities (Chadda, Maya 2006, ‘Minority rights and conflict prevention: Case study of conflicts in Indian Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab and Nagaland’, Minority Rights Group International website, August – Attachment 15). Describing the conflict, the report states that:

There are two intertwined dimensions to this dispute, one over sovereign territorial jurisdiction between India and Pakistan, both claiming all of IJK and , and the second largely between the Valley Muslims and the Indian government over the issue of self- determination. The also represents [a] clash of ethnic, territorial and religious nationalism. Not all parts and communities of Kashmir desire independence… Generally, Ladakh and Jammu Hindus, who constitute a majority in Jammu, want to join the Indian Union; most Valley Muslims seek independence.

…The years of insurgency have turned IJK into a garrison state with widespread human rights abuses. The insurgency itself has been transformed from a genuinely home-grown revolt into externally driven Jihadi violence.

…From 1993 until 2003, the insurgency was driven first by Afghan and then Lashkar-e-Toiba elements, representing the uncompromising Islamic fundamentalist forces across the border in Pakistan. During this phase, attacks on minorities – Hindus and Sikhs – increased. Between 1989 and 2005, 571 political activists were killed in IJK, setting back many attempts to hold elections. Currently, the Hurriyat [a coalition of pro-Pakistani and pro-independence groups] leaders estimate the militant strength to be about 2,000 to 2,500, of which close to 1,500 are believed to be cross-border Lashkar elements (Chadda, Maya 2006, ‘Minority rights and conflict prevention: Case study of conflicts in Indian Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab and Nagaland’, Minority Rights Group International website, August – Attachment 15).

2. Are Lashkar-e-Taiba targeting Sikh Student Federation or Sikhs generally in Jammu?

There were no reports in the available information of Lashkar e Taiba (LeT) (or any of the group’s other pseudonyms – see section below for details) targeting the Sikh Student Federation in Jammu and Kashmir. However, according to HRW, militant groups do target civilians whom they consider to be “traitors to the cause” or for expressing views contrary to one or another armed group. The report states: “[m]ilitant abuses have been brutal, plentiful, and continuous against anyone seen to be opposed to their agenda.” Political party workers and leaders are also targeted. The ACHR report states that armed opposition groups killed many people on alleged charges of being “police informers” and “[k]illings of political party workers and leaders by the armed opposition groups were also extensively reported”. Religious minorities are also specific targets. Sikhs have in the past been the subject of mass targeted killings – police claimed at the time that some of the perpetrators were members of LeT (Human Rights Watch 2006, “Everyone lives in fear” – Patterns of impunity in Jammu and Kashmir, September – Attachment 6; Asian Centre for Human Rights 2007, ‘India: Human Rights Report 2006’, ACHR website, January – Attachment 2).

Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) – Background information According to the available information, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) is an Islamic extremist party advocating jihad as the only way to liberate Kashmir from India. It is not affiliated with any political party, has no political goals in Kashmir, and opposes any negotiated peace settlement. According to a report by the BBC, the group has defined its agenda as the restoration of Islamic rule over all parts of India. After an LeT leader was captured in Iraq in 2004, an article in Jane’s Terrorism & Security Monitor took this view further, claiming that the group “ultimately aims to re-establish the Islamic ranging from Morocco to Indonesia” (‘Who are the Kashmir militants?’ 2005, BBC News, 6 April – Attachment 16; Blanche, E. 2004, ‘Lashkar-e-Taiba spreads its tentacles’ Jane’s Terrorism & Security Monitor, 1 September – Attachment 17).

The US Department of State Country Reports on Terrorism (2005) includes the following information on Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT):

Lashkar e-Tayyiba (LT) a.k.a. Al Mansooreen; Al Mansoorian; Army of the Pure; Army of the Pure and Righteous; Army of the Righteous; Jamaat ud-Dawa and Al Monsooreen; Lashkar e-Toiba; Lashkar-i- Taiba; Paasban-e-Ahle-Hadis; Paasban-e-Kashmir; Paasban-i-Ahle-Hadith; Pasban-e-Ahle- Hadith; Pasban-e-Kashmir.

Description LT began as the militant wing of the Islamic extremist organization Markaz Dawa ul-Irshad (MDI), which was formed in the mid-1980s. MDI changed its name to Jamaat ul- Dawa (JUD) in 2001, probably in an effort to avoid restrictions. The U.S. State Department designated Lashkar e-Tayyiba a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) in 2001, and Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf banned LT in 2002. The United Nations designated LT as an FTO in 2005.

LT is led by Hafiz Muhammad Saeed and is one of the three largest and best-trained groups fighting in Kashmir against India. It is not connected to any political party. The Pakistani Government banned the group and froze its assets in January 2002. Elements of LT and Jaish- e-Muhammed combined with other groups to mount attacks as “The Save Kashmir Movement.”

Activities The LT has conducted a number of operations against Indian troops and civilian targets in Jammu and Kashmir since 1993. The LT claimed responsibility for numerous attacks in 2001, including an attack in January on Srinagar airport that killed five Indians; an attack on a police station in Srinagar that killed at least eight officers and wounded several others; and an attack in April against Indian border security forces that left at least four dead. The Indian Government publicly implicated the LT, along with JEM [Jaish-e-Mohammed], for the attack in December 2001 on the Indian Parliament building, although concrete evidence is lacking. The LT is also suspected of involvement in the attack in May 2002 on an base in Kaluchak that left 36 dead. India blames the LT for an attack in New in October 2005 and an attack in Bangalore in December 2005. Senior al-Qaida lieutenant Abu Zubaydah was captured at an LT safe house in in March 2002, suggesting that some members were facilitating the movement of al-Qaida members in Pakistan.

Strength The LT has several thousand members in Azad Kashmir, Pakistan, in the southern Jammu and Kashmir and Doda regions, and in the . Almost all LT members are Pakistanis from madrassas across Pakistan or Afghan veterans of the Afghan wars. The group uses assault rifles, light and heavy machine guns, mortars, explosives, and rocket-propelled grenades.

External Aid Collects donations from the Pakistani community in the Persian Gulf and United Kingdom, Islamic NGOs, and Pakistani and other Kashmiri business people. The LT also maintains a Web site under the name Jamaat ud-Daawa through which it solicits funds and provides information on the group’s activities. The amount of LT funding is unknown. The LT maintains ties to religious/militant groups around the world, ranging from the Philippines to the Middle East and Chechnya, through the fraternal network of its parent organization Jamaat ud-Dawa (formerly Markaz Dawa ul-Irshad) (US Department of State 2006, Country Reports on Terrorism 2005, April, pp. 207-208 – Attachment 18).

Pakistan has conducted a proxy war in Jammu and Kashmir since the early 1990s, using militants, many from jihadi organisations, to undermine India’s control in the territory and tie down its forces there. In 1994 Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence organised the leading Kashmir insurgency groups into the United Jihad Council [Muttahida Jihad Council (MJC)]. The available information contains conflicting reports as to the status of LeT in recent years. It is variously stated: that the group was banned and its assets frozen in 2002 by the Pakistani government under pressure from the US; that it had subsequently changed its name to Jamaat-ud-Dawa (Party of the Calling) and continued to operate; that it had split into two factions, al-Mansurin and al-Nasirin; that elements of LeT combined with other groups to mount attacks as “The Save Kashmir Movement”; that it is again operating openly from Pakistan after playing a prominent role during the 2005 earthquake relief effort. Despite the conflicting reports, it is clear that the group is still known as Lashkar-e-Taiba (with variant spellings) and that it is still active. An article dated 12 February 2007 in The India Tribune reported that two LeT militants had been apprehended in Kashmir. It is unclear whether or not the group receives support from Pakistan. Over the years a number of reports have stated that Pakistan had recently ended its support of militia groups fighting in Kashmir, while a number of government and non-government organisations have refuted this. A BBC article dated 7 February 2007 states that “Pakistan has ended its long time covert support to jihadi militias, support it has never admitted giving.” However, according to the International Crisis Group (ICG), Pakistan’s military government has not ended support for Pakistan-based jihadi organisations such as LeT. ICG also states that jihadi attacks have increased in the wake of the earthquake in 2005. In its detailed report HRW lists a number of attacks carried out by the group over recent years in Jammu and Kashmir (‘Who are the Kashmir militants?’ 2005, BBC News, 6 April – Attachment 16; US Department of State 2006, Country Reports on Terrorism 2005, April – Attachment 18; ‘2 militants held’ 2007, The Tribune, 12 February http://www.tribuneindia.com/2007/20070213/j&k.htm – Accessed 13 February 2007 – Attachment 19; Plett, B. 2007, ‘Kashmir militants feel the squeeze’, BBC News, 7 February http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6319975.stm – Accessed 15 February 2007 – Attachment 21; International Crisis Group 2006, India, Pakistan and Kashmir: Stabilising a Cold Peace, ICG website, 15 June – Attachment 20; Human Rights Watch 2006, “Everyone lives in fear” – Patterns of impunity in Jammu and Kashmir, September – Attachment 6).

For more information on LeT, see: Blanche, E. 2004, ‘Lashkar-e-Taiba spreads its tentacles’, Jane’s Terrorism & Security Monitor, 1 September – Attachment 17; ‘Profile: Lashkar-e- Toiba’ 2006, BBC News, updated 17 March – Attachment 22; RRT Country Research 2006, Research Response PAK17773, 17 February – Attachment 23.

Targeting of Sikhs by militant groups According to the Asian Centre for Human Rights (ACHR) 2006 report, religious minorities of Jammu and Kashmir are specific targets of militant groups. Many militant groups from across the border, including LeT, have the specific aim of converting Jammu and Kashmir into an Islamic state by ousting non-Muslims from the state. Hindus constitute around 30 percent of the population, and so are more frequently and visibly targeted for “ethnic cleansing”. However, Sikhs (who constitute around 4 percent) and other religious minorities are also targeted. The ACHR report states:

The armed opposition groups like Save Kashmir Movement, Harket-i-Jehad Islami Tehreek- Jehadi Islami, Laskar-e-Toiba, Hizbul- etc were responsible for blatant violations of international humanitarian laws by resorting to medieval forms of torture, kidnapping, and killing (Asian Centre for Human Rights 2007, ‘India: Human Rights Report 2006’, ACHR website, January – Attachment 2; see also Gupta, P. 2006, ‘More terror in Jammu and Kashmir’, Organiser website, 28 May – Attachment 24).

The 2004 US Department of State report on International Religious Freedom states:

Targeted killings against the Sikh community, the most recent of which were in 2001, increased fears among remaining religious minorities in Kashmir and prompted many Sikhs, especially young persons to leave the Valley. In Kashmir the militant group Lashkar-e-Jabbar ordered Muslim women to dress in burqas, Hindu women to wear bindis, and Sikh women to wear identifying saffron headscarves. Some women followed these orders when they were first issued; however, compliance since has declined. There were a number of violent incidents that are believed to have been carried out by Muslim militants (US Department of State 2004, International Religious Freedom Report for 2004 – India, 15 September, Section III – Attachment 25).

The 2003 US Department of State report on International Religious Freedom states:

Jammu and Kashmir continued to be a focus of violence. Pan-Islamic militants committed atrocities against Hindus and other Muslims, and security forces often used excessive force to suppress them…Mass killings in Kashmir, targeted against the Sikh community, increased fears that the remainder of Kashmir’s minorities may be forced to leave. There was an exodus of many from the Sikh community, particularly of the young, during 2001.

…Early in 2001, eight Sikhs were killed, allegedly by an obscure militant group. On February 3, 2001, two gunmen killed six Sikhs and wounded at least four others in Srinagar…The Government sent a four-member team to Kashmir to investigate the killings; however, no one had been charged, and there was still no reported progress in the investigation of the killings as of the end of the period covered by this report. Sikhs protested the killings, which led to violent clashes with police. The February 2001 incident was the first attack against the Kashmir Valley’s minority Sikh population since the March 2000 killing of 35 Sikh men in the village of Chatti in south Kashmir (US Department of State 2003, International Religious Freedom Report for 2003 – India, 18 December, Section III – Attachment 1).

Chatti Singhpora The March 2000 massacre mentioned in the above US Department of State reports was the worst targeted attack on the Sikh community. Although police initially blamed LeT, the perpetrators are still unknown, due to police corruption and government inaction. According to HRW, most independent investigations by human rights groups have concluded that the Sikh villagers at Chattisinghpora were killed by militants. The attack and subsequent incidences are detailed in the HRW report:

On March 20, 2000…armed men in Indian army uniforms entered the village of Chattisinghpora in district at night. The villagers, most of them Sikhs, were told that it was a routine investigation and identity check. Male residents were asked to come out of their homes with their identification cards. Once they were lined up outside, however, the gunmen opened fire, killing thirty-six and injuring several others.

The killings shocked many . India immediately blamed Pakistan and the Islamist groups based there. Others claimed that the killings were in fact carried out by Indian troops.

In August 2000, the government said that it had evidence that the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e- Toiba was behind the killings. In response to a notice from the National Human Rights Commission, the director general of police of Jammu and Kashmir, Gurbachan Jagat, said a case had been registered and investigations were in progress. The commission said that according to information received from the government of India:

Of the twenty accused persons identified in connection with the killing of 35 Sikhs, 6 were killed in subsequent encounters; 2 were further detained under the Public Safety Act and 12 were absconding. A charge sheet has been filed in the case on 13 November 2000. The report stated three Pakistani nationals belonging to Lashkar-e- Toiba had confessed their involvement in the killings.

This was a partial representation of the facts. After the murders of the Sikhs, the government ordered an inquiry and combing operation to locate those responsible. On March 25, 2000, the security forces claimed that five militants responsible for the massacre had been killed in an armed encounter at Pathirabal. The encounter was later found to have been fabricated; the dead men were ordinary villagers. On April 3, 2000, security forces opened fire on a demonstration in Brakpora to protest the killing of the five villagers, this time killing eight civilians (Human Rights Watch 2006, “Everyone lives in fear” – Patterns of impunity in Jammu and Kashmir, September – Attachment 6).

For more information on events following the massacre, see Question 3.

Militants targeting civilians As previously mentioned, the Amnesty 2006 report states that civilians were repeatedly targeted by state agencies and armed groups. For example, in May, armed fighters threw a grenade just as children were leaving their school in Srinagar, killing two women who had come to pick up children and injuring 50 others, including 20 pupils (Amnesty International 2006, Amnesty International Annual Report 2006 – India – Attachment 7).

Hindus, as well as Sikhs and other religious minorities are targeted by militant groups. Numerous examples are detailed in reports by the US Department of State and human rights groups (US Department of State 2006, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2005 – India, 8 March, Section 1 – Attachment 5; Asian Centre for Human Rights 2007, ‘India: Human Rights Report 2006’, ACHR website, January – Attachment 2; Freedom House 2006, Freedom in the World – Kashmir [India] (2006) – Attachment 8; International Crisis Group 2006, India, Pakistan and Kashmir: Stabilising a Cold Peace, ICG website, 15 June – Attachment 20; Human Rights Watch 2006, “Everyone lives in fear” – Patterns of impunity in Jammu and Kashmir, September – Attachment 6).

The HRW report “Everyone Lives in Fear” – Patterns of Impunity in Jammu and Kashmir states that:

Militants have been responsible for a long string of massacres, attacks on minority Hindus and Sikhs, bombings, killings and attacks on schools. The most recent massacre was in May 2006, when thirty-five Hindus were killed in remote hamlets of Doda and Udhampur districts; police blamed the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Toiba.

Despite their scale and frequency, abuses by militants in Jammu and Kashmir are seldom carefully documented. One reason for this is that militant groups are not state actors. Even the State Human Rights Commission says that it concentrates on abuses by state agencies. Another reason is that Pakistan seems beyond the reach of Kashmiri NGOs and victim groups. Another explanation is that within Jammu and Kashmir there is greater political sympathy for the militants’ cause than for the government. Violations by armed groups are rarely opposed as vociferously as those committed by Indian security forces.

But a key reason for the lack of attention is less widely discussed: people are afraid that they too will be targeted. In interviews with Human Rights Watch, ordinary Kashmiris, as well as journalists and human rights defenders, said that there was deep fear in Jammu and Kashmir of the militants. Militant abuses have been brutal, plentiful, and continuous against anyone seen to be opposed to their agenda [researcher emphasis added] (Human Rights Watch 2006, “Everyone lives in fear” – Patterns of impunity in Jammu and Kashmir, September – Attachment 6).

3. Can the authorities adequately protect Sikhs in Kashmir, or in Jammu?

The available information suggests that state protection is inadequate for Hindus, Sikhs, other religious minorities, and civilians generally in Jammu and Kashmir.

The HRW report states that “Kashmiris are trapped in an armed conflict between abusive Indian government forces and armed militant groups waging a brutal separatist struggle with the backing of the Pakistani government.” According to reports by human rights groups, state protection in Kashmir would have to involve protection of civilians against Pakistan based and financed militants, local separatist militants, Indian army forces and local security personnel (police and paramilitary groups). Over the course of the conflict, civilian fatalities have been generally three times that of security personnel. According to the latest US Department of State human rights report, between 30 and 40 thousand people are estimated to have died during the conflict. As detailed previously, both the armed opposition groups and the authorities – the security forces – continue to target civilians and to commit human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir. The army and the paramilitaries are not under the control of the civilian authorities in Srinagar. In addition, the available information indicates that a culture of corruption and impunity has developed in the government and the military after decades of armed conflict. Rigged and fraudulent elections, and government corruption, contributed to a complete breakdown of the democratic process between 1987 and 2002. The popular revolt against India became dominated by Islamic fundamentalist forces from across the border. In 2002 a coalition government of the Congress Party and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) were democratically elected, despite boycotting by separatist groups and threats by militants. More than 800 people, including more than 75 political activists and candidates were killed during the campaign period. The new government promised to address issues of human rights violations and corruption. According to Freedom House, “[a]fter initial signs of improvement during the new government’s honeymoon period, the incidence of both violence and human rights violations rose to previous levels.” ICG also states that violence diminished somewhat in 2004, but it is again on the rise, amid concerns that it could reach earlier levels with Pakistani support. An article dated 28 May 2006 detailing recent attacks in Jammu and Kashmir reported the “crumbling law and order situation in the state” and the indifferent approach of the government towards security (Human Rights Watch 2006, “Everyone lives in fear” – Patterns of impunity in Jammu and Kashmir, September – Attachment; 6 US Department of State 2006, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2005 – India, 8 March, Section 1 – Attachment 5; Chadda, Maya 2006, ‘Minority rights and conflict prevention: Case study of conflicts in Indian Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab and Nagaland’, Minority Rights Group International website, August – Attachment 15; Freedom House 2006, Freedom in the World – Kashmir [India] (2006) – Attachment 8; International Crisis Group 2006, India, Pakistan and Kashmir: Stabilising a Cold Peace, ICG website, 15 June – Attachment 20; Gupta, P. 2006, ‘More terror in Jammu and Kashmir’ Organiser website, 28 May – Attachment 24).

Protection for Sikhs As mentioned above, the available information suggests that state protection is inadequate for religious minorities in Jammu and Kashmir, including Sikhs. The authorities have also failed to adequately investigate and identify those responsible for past attacks on Sikhs.

After the targeted killings of Sikhs in 2000 and 2001, there was an exodus of many members of the Sikh community. Complaints were made about the lack of security provided by the government, and the increasing alienation felt by the Sikh communities. According to an article dated 6 February 2001, “[t]he attacks on the Sikh community in Srinagar and Jammu had compelled them to actively consider migrating out of the sensitive border state as the state government was not doing anything to protect their interests…This had arisen because the Abdullah government had failed to provide security despite gory incidents like the one in Chittisingpura in March last year” (‘Give security to Sikhs: Talwandi’ 2001, The Tribune, 7 February http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010207/main1.htm – Accessed 19 February 2007 – Attachment 4).

The last mass killings of Sikhs in Jammu and Kashmir occurred in 2001. Those actually responsible for these massacres have never been identified, whilst the AISSF has continuously called for independent investigations. An article dated 6 February 2001 states: “The Kashmir unit of the All-India Sikh Students Federation (AISSF) has called for a joint probe by Muslims and Sikhs in Kashmir into the killings to ‘expose those agencies that are behind the killings’” (‘Cremation of youth passes off peacefully’ 2001, The Tribune, 7 February http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010207/main1.htm – Accessed 19 February 2007 – Attachment 4).

An article dated 21 March 2002 reports that:

Two years after the massacre of 35 Sikhs at Chattisingpora, the AISSF today demanded an “impartial” inquiry into the killings. Alleging that the government had so far not fulfilled its promise made on several occasions for an impartial probe, the Sikh students’ body also sought inquiries into the killing of Sikhs in Mehjoornagar, Poshkeri and .

“The Sikh community in general and the AISSF in particular have failed to understand the silence of the government over the issue of inquiry into the massacres”, its general secretary Mr Manjeet Singh, said in a statement (‘AISSF demands impartial probe’ 2002, The India Tribune, 21 March http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020321/j&k.htm#5 – Accessed 22 February 2007 – Attachment 26).

A news brief dated 9 February 2007 states that again a spokesman of the AISSF has “appealed the government to probe all such killings from Chittisinghpora to Larnoo and bring the culprits to book” (‘AISSF expresses solidarity’ 2007, Greater Kashmir News Service, 9 February http://www.greaterkashmir.com/Home/NewsInBrief.asp?Issueid=142&Arch=Arch – Accessed 23 February 2007 – Attachment 27).

Government The US Department of State (2006) reported that “[a]ccountability by the Jammu and Kashmir government remained a serious problem. Human rights groups estimated that 30 to 35 thousand persons died during the two decades of conflict in Jammu and Kashmir, but there were no reliable estimates of the number of deaths resulting directly from abuses.” Freedom House states that:

An International Crisis Group report noted that official corruption is “widespread,” and corruption cases are seldom prosecuted. Much corrupt behavior and illegal economic activity can be traced directly to political leaders and parties and to militant groups. The new state government made a commitment to address issues of corruption and governance; however, progress in improving both has been slow, and government opacity remains a major concern (US Department of State 2006, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2005 – India, 8 March, Section 1 – Attachment 5; Freedom House 2006, Freedom in the World – Kashmir [India] (2006) – Attachment 8).

Amnesty International’s 2006 report states that “the State Human Rights Commission, which had registered 3,187 cases of human rights violations since its inception in 1991, reiterated its earlier complaint that government departments failed to implement its recommendations.” According to the US Department of State, “the Jammu and Kashmir human rights commission charged the state government, particularly the deputy commissioners, of diluting its authority and brushing aside its recommendations” (Amnesty International 2006, Amnesty International Annual Report 2006 – India – Attachment 7).

Encounter Killings Recently the frequent practice of faked “encounter killings” by security forces (including police) have made headlines. In these cases the security forces are alleged to have fabricated a story about having killed a “militant” in self-defence or in battle when in fact the person was executed in custody, sometimes after having been abducted. Police are often given cash rewards for having killed “militants”.

According to an article in The New York Times, “[a] suspected militant’s body, after all, comes with a handsome cash reward.” The article states:

Among the most infamous of [these] cases were the March 2000 killings in the southern village of Pathirabal of five men, whom the army identified as foreign terrorists responsible for a massacre of Sikh civilians. The men, whose bodies had been burned and badly mutilated, turned out to be civilians abducted by the army, according to relatives and a subsequent federal investigation.

In a rare instance of prosecution, five Indian soldiers were charged with the killings, but the case remains stuck in the courts nearly seven years later, and the accused remain on the job. The army insists that they be tried by an internal court martial, and not a civilian court (Sengupta, S. 2007, ‘Indian Army and Police Implicated in Kashmir Killings’, The New York Times, 6 February – Attachment 28).

Many more cases have come to light, indicating serious corruption within the police and security forces. A BBC article dated 22 February 2007 reports that there have been recent protests and strikes in Kashmir over “staged killings” and extrajudicial killings by the security forces. Despite the promises of “harsh punishments” for those involved, these fake encounter killings have been ongoing, pervasive, and are rarely prosecuted. As noted by the New York Times article, those charged over the killings in 2000 are still on the job (‘Kashmiri was civilian – DNA tests’ 2007, BBC News, 22 February http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6386141.stm – Accessed 26 February 2007 – Attachment 29; Sengupta, S. 2007, ‘Indian Army and Police Implicated in Kashmir Killings’, The New York Times, 6 February – Attachment 28. An article dated 19 February 2007 in The Kashmir Times states that:

Though the police force throughout the country has become notorious for its corrupt and brutal elements, in Jammu and Kashmir, the problem is far deep-rooted because of the armed conflict which has enabled the administration to give a free hand to the police and legitimise the ruthlessness of the police personnel, like the other security forces, under the garb of counter insurgency operations…The police personnel have thus become a law unto themselves…and have been given absolute powers but know nothing about their responsibility (‘More custodial killings’ 2007, The Kashmir Times, 19 February http://www.kashmirtimes.com/edit.htm – Accessed 19 February 2007 – Attachment 30).

Human rights violations in the police and security forces are further compounded by the recruitment of former militants. Surrendered militants are being used by the State Police in counter insurgency operations. ICG states that:

Anti-insurgency operations in J&K are often conducted by poorly trained paramilitary forces, as well as the so-called “renegades”, former militants who have, willingly or by compulsion, joined the security forces and are responsible for some of the worst atrocities

…[although] the human rights situation has improved in the cities and the district capitals…for most Kashmiris, particularly those in the rural areas, it remains largely unchanged. Some units of “renegades” have been disbanded but others remain active; some have joined the army, the Border Security Forces, or the police, and some have even rejoined the militants (International Crisis Group 2006, India, Pakistan and Kashmir: Stabilising a Cold Peace, ICG website, 15 June – Attachment 20).

HRW states that soldiers, paramilitaries and police are routinely shielded by both their uniformed and civilian superiors in Jammu and Kashmir. In addition, the Jammu and Kashmir Disturbed Areas Act and the Armed Forces Special Powers Act provide effective immunity from civilian prosecution. “Everyone lives in fear” – Patterns of impunity in Jammu and Kashmir reports that there are many occasions in which:

Indian security forces have shot civilians under the authority of laws such as the Jammu and Kashmir Disturbed Areas Act and the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, which allow lethal force to be used “against any person who is acting in contravention of any law or order for the time being in force in the disturbed area.” For example, on February 23, 2006, soldiers in shot at a group playing cricket, suspecting that a militant was hiding among them, and killed four boys, including an eight-year-old (Human Rights Watch 2006, “Everyone lives in fear” – Patterns of impunity in Jammu and Kashmir, September – Attachment 6).

ICG states that human rights violations are inevitable so long as there is a heavy presence of security forces in the state. More and more Kashmiris are coming to view the Indian army as an occupying force. Currently there are approximately half a million Indian security forces based in Kashmir, including soldiers, federal paramilitary troops, and the police (International Crisis Group 2006, India, Pakistan and Kashmir: Stabilising a Cold Peace, ICG website, 15 June – Attachment 20; Freedom House 2006, Freedom in the World – Kashmir [India] (2006) – Attachment 8).

4. Has there been any relevant activity reported in Badila?

One report mentioning Badila was found in the available information. A Daily Excelsior article dated 3 November 2000 states that “[a]midst reports of continued infiltration from the International Border in RS Pura sector, police today recovered two large consignments of arms, ammunition and explosives from Magowali and Badila villages.” The article further reports that massive searches were going on in all border villages with the help of army and security forces to apprehend militants who had infiltrated the border (‘Another haul of arms, explosives in RS Pura’ 2000, Daily Excelsior, 3 November http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/00nov04/news.htm#4 – Accessed 27 February 2007 – Attachment 31).

Badila is in the R S Pura sector, on the Jammu frontier of the international border with Pakistan. R S Pura is mentioned in various articles, reporting incidences of arrests of people trying to cross the border. Fake ‘encounter killings’ were also reported in the area in 2005. A 2001 article reported gunfights between Kashmir security forces and Pakistani militants in this area, and border villages again being searched for militants (‘Eight Bangladeshis arrested in J&K’ 2006, Kashmir Observer, 23 December http://www.kashmirobserver.com/index.php?id=1423 – Accessed 27 February 2007 – Attachment 32; ‘Killing of 4 Jammu porters as militants’ 2005, Daily Excelsior, 4 October http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/web1/05oct04/news.htm – Accessed 27 February 2007 – Attachment 33; ‘Islamic Front ultra shot dead’ 2001, Daily Excelsior, 28 September http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/01sep18/news.htm – Accessed 27 February 2007 – Attachment 34; ‘Two SPOs among 6 killed’ 2005, Kashmir Today, 5 September http://www.kashmirtoday.com/pressscans/september/prssep0508.htm – Accessed 27 February 2007 – Attachment 35).

5. Would it be correct to say that Sikhs involved with the Sikh Student Federation could freely live elsewhere in India as Indian nationals from Jammu?

There was limited information available regarding the current situation for those relocating from Jammu and Kashmir to other parts of India. Included below is general information relating to relocation in India, the situation of those displaced by the Kashmir conflict, and relocation of Sikhs generally.

In September 2004, the ‘Relocation in India’ standard paragraph was updated by RRT Country Research. General information on relocation in India has not changed since the update and there exists freedom of movement from one state to another. However, differences may apply to people from certain ethno-religious groups such as Sikhs, or Muslims or Christians, and from certain regions, such as the State of Jammu and Kashmir (RRT Country Research 2004, ‘Relocation in India’, September – Attachment 36).

Membership of the SSF could create problems for people relocating to other parts of India, as the authorities remain alert to the potential threat posed by Sikh militant groups. However, the UK Home Office states that there are no reports of members of the SSF (or AISSF) being specifically targeted or discriminated against as a result of their membership of the organisation. On the other hand, according to an IRB report, “Sikhs, and some other people who move for relocation from troubled peripheries of India have been subject to suspicions...If that happens, police and other intelligence agencies that work more underhandedly become active and can make it very difficult for those seeking relocation” (UK Home Office 2007, Operational Guidance Note: India, 20 February, pp. 4-7 – Attachment 37; Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 2005, IND43555.E – India: The situation of Sikhs in non-Sikh areas of India, including the relationship between Sikhs and non-Sikhs; whether there is (are) a place(s) within India to which Sikhs can relocate comfortably and safely, 31 May – Attachment 38). The latest US Department of State report on human rights in India states that “[t]he law provides for freedom of movement, and the government generally respected this in practice; however, in certain border areas the government required special permits.” The report also details those internally displaced by the conflict:

According to the Norwegian Refugee Council, at least 650 thousand persons were displaced due to conflicts in Jammu and Kashmir, Gujarat, and the northeast…There was no progress on the plight of approximately 300 thousand Kashmiri Pandits (Hindu Brahmins) forced to flee the Kashmir Valley in the early 1990s after the outbreak of separatist violence. The Pandits remained in refugee camps in Jammu and New Delhi, some 15 years after the start of the insurgency, and were unable to return to their homes in Jammu and Kashmir because of safety concerns, including the on-going killings of Hindus in the state.

According to home ministry statistics, there were 55,476 registered families living in Jammu, 34,088 in Delhi, and 19,338 in other states receiving government support. Government-managed camps housed 5,778 families in Delhi and Jammu. The government provided monthly cash relief of $70 (Rs. three thousand) and basic dry rations to the 14,869 families in Jammu. In Delhi, authorities provided $75 (Rs. 3,200) to 4,100 families.

The Indo-American Kashmir Forum claimed there were 350 thousand internally displaced Pandits living outside the valley. In August 2004 the Jammu and Kashmir government announced plans to help displaced Kashmiri Pandits return to the valley, but at year’s end, no Kashmiri had done so (US Department of State 2006, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2005 – India, 8 March, Section 2 – Attachment 5).

On the question of the relocation of ethnic minority groups from Jammu and Kashmir, in 2002 the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada reported:

…the United States Committee for Refugees (USCR) country report on India estimated that:

As many as 350,000 Kashmiris, mostly Hindu Pandits, have been displaced since 1990 as a result of long-standing conflict in Kashmir.... Some 250,000 displaced Kashmiris are living in or near the city of Jammu, both in camps for the displaced and in their own homes. An estimated 100,000 Kashmiris are displaced elsewhere in India, primarily in the New Delhi area (2001).

The SATP reports that official Indian records indicate that there are 216,820 “migrants” in Jammu and another 143,000 in Delhi (2001). Thus far, the Indian government has not officially recognized those displaced in the Kashmir conflict as internally displaced persons (IDPs), but refers to them as migrants (Global IDP Project 30 Jul. 2001, 65; ibid. 14 Dec. 2000, 56; USCR 2000). In Forced Migration, Mahendra P. Lama notes that:

Estimating the number of IDPs in India is problematic. Regular monitoring is not possible in such a huge country, which lacks a central authority responsible for coordinating data from central and state governments. ... Political sensitivities at state level prevent release of data on the exact nature and extent of displacement (Aug. 2000, 24) (Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 2002, IND38457.E – India: Current information on the situation in Jammu and Kashmir; the ethnic groups that are experiencing difficulties and recourse available to them; whether members of these groups can relocate to another area of India, 6 March – Attachment 39.

Relocation for Sikhs Regarding safe relocation within India for Sikhs, a 2005 response by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada states: According to the human rights activist and writer who currently works for the Human Rights and Peace Studies Programme of the South Asia Forum for Human Rights,

[t]heoretically, Sikhs can, like others, move and relocate themselves in any part of India that does not come under excluded or restricted zones like some parts in the northeast of India. The constitutional provisions and their judicial interpretations recognize the individual’s right to do so. However, Sikhs, Kashmirs and some other people who move for relocation from troubled peripheries of India have been subject to suspicions.... If that happens, police and other intelligence agencies that work more underhandedly become active and can make it very difficult for those seeking relocation. For example, they ma[y] go up [to] those who may have provided employment or housing and scare them enough to close their doors on those seeking relocation. I suppose persons without sufficient financial means and social clout would mainly be the victims.

I don’t think there is anything like a safe heaven for the Sikhs in any part of India (24 May 2005).

Based in the United States, ENSAAF Inc. is a non-profit organization “that fights impunity for human rights abuses, ...engage[s] in advocacy and outreach, document[s] violations, and creat[es] public awareness about human rights abuses in India” (24 Jan. 2005). An open letter written on 24 January 2005 to the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) of Canada by the Executive Director and the Legal and Policy Director of ENSAAF, and posted on the organization’s Website, declared that “Sikh survivors of human rights abuse cannot live safely or securely in any part of India” (ENSAAF 24 Jan. 2005) (Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 2005, IND43555.E – India: The situation of Sikhs in non-Sikh areas of India, including the relationship between Sikhs and non-Sikhs; whether there is (are) a place(s) within India to which Sikhs can relocate comfortably and safely, 31 May – Attachment 38).

The latest UK Home Office report on India contains a section on Internal Relocation for Sikhs. The information focuses mainly on Sikhs relocating from Punjab, but parts are relevant to relocation of Sikhs in general:

19.172 As noted in an IRB report dated January 2006, the Indian Constitution allows for freedom of movement of citizens. A human right activist stated that “theoretically, Sikhs can, like others, move and relocate themselves in any part of India that does not come under excluded or restricted zones like some parts in the northeast of India.”

19.173 A further IRB response paper dated 18 January 2006, after consulting various sources, records that:

“Although the majority of Sikhs in India reside in Punjab state…there are many Sikh communities in India located outside of Punjab state… In correspondence to the Research Directorate, a specialist in Indian affairs reported that Sikhs are located in every state in India, and in 579 districts out of a total of 593 districts (23 Nov. 2005). After Punjab state, the next greatest numbers of Sikhs reside in northern state (1,170,662 persons), northern Rajasthan state (818,420 persons), north central Uttar Pradesh state (678,059 persons), northern Delhi union territory (555,602 persons), northern Jammu and Kashmir state (207,154), central Maharashtra state (215,837 persons), north central Uttaranchal state (212, 025 persons) and central Madhya Pradesh state (150,772 persons). Statistics on the Sikh population in India received by the Research Directorate from the World Sikh Organization (WSO), which are drawn from the results of the 2001 Indian census, corroborate the information that most Sikhs live in the states cited above by the specialist in Indian affairs, though the numbers of Sikhs reported by WSO are slightly lower in each state, except for Jammu and Kashmir state, in which the number of Sikhs is considerably higher at 500,000 people… Minorities at Risk, a University of Maryland research project that monitors and analyzes ethnic conflict worldwide, also indicates the presence of Sikhs in the capital Delhi, as do news articles…A professor of Asian studies, with extensive experience in India, commented in a telephone interview with the Research Directorate that Sikh communities are ‘doing quite well’ in various states in India and that they consider these places their home (14 Nov. 2005).”

19.174 The IRB report continues: “Citizens are not required to register their faith in India. Several oral sources consulted for this response commented that Sikhs are able to practise their religion without restriction in every state of India. The central Indian government recognizes Sikhs as one of five religious minority groups and as such, Sikhs are provided access to ‘various Constitutional guarantees’ for the protection of the rights of religious minorities.”

Sikhs hold prominent positions in India, Manmohan Singh is India’s first non-Hindu Prime Minister. (Canadian IRB 18 January 2006)

19.175 According to an IRB response dated 18 January 2006, there are no checks on a newcomer to any part of India arriving from another part of India, even if the person is a Punjabi Sikh. Local police forces have neither the resources nor the language abilities to perform background checks on people arriving from other parts of India. There is no system of registration of citizens, and often people have no identity cards, which in any event can be easily forged.

“Sikhs relocating from Punjab state to other parts of India do not have to register with the police in their area of relocation, unless they are on parole…” (Canadian IRB response dated 18 January 2006)

19.176 According to the Danish Immigration Service fact-finding report 2000, “The Director of the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre believed that a high-profile person would not be able to move elsewhere in India without being traced, but that this would be possible for low-profile people”…

19.177 The US Citizenship and Immigration Services, in a response to a query (updated on 22 September 2003), noted that:

“Observers generally agree that Punjab police will try to catch a wanted suspect no matter where he has relocated in India. Several say, however, that the list of wanted militants has been winnowed [whittled] down to ‘high-profile’ individuals. By contrast, other Punjab experts have said in recent years that any Sikh who has been implicated in political militancy would be at risk anywhere in India. Beyond this dispute over who is actually at risk, there is little doubt that Punjab police will pursue a wanted suspect. ‘Punjab police and other police and intelligence agencies in India do pursue those militants, wherever they are located, who figure in their lists of those who were engaged in separatist political activities and belonged to armed opposition groups in the past,’ a prominent Indian human rights lawyer said in an e- mail message to the Resource Information Center (RIC) (Indian human rights lawyer 4 May 2003).”

19.178 The Canadian IRB indicated in a response paper dated 18 January 2006 that: “A professor of Asian studies, commented that in pursuing a wanted individual, it is unlikely that the central Indian authorities will attempt to locate the person in another state, and this is the case with Sikhs…such pursuits have more to do with the profile of the individual than with the faith the individual subscribes to.” A human rights activist consulted said he was not aware of any police sweeps or searches of Sikhs in India on the basis of their religion. 19.179 The Canadian IRB indicated in a response paper dated 18 January 2006 that,: Punjabi, which is the Sikh language, closely resembles Hindi and is also spoken by Hindus and Muslims living in Punjab state. Opinion differs as to whether Sikhs would be understood in all other states as they would understand Hindi, or English; however others argue that Sikhs would only be understood in certain areas and if the individual only spoke Punjabi then they would only be understood in northern and eastern parts of India, so would have to learn the local language.

19.180 Sikhs would have unlimited access to housing in localities outside Punjab state to whatever extent they could afford it, as the main factor limiting access to housing is financial rather than religion, according to two sources consulted by the Canadian IRB in their response dated 18 January 2006. The report continues to state that Muslims experience the greatest discrimination in housing, not Sikhs, and although there may be isolated instances of discrimination against Sikhs in terms of housing, it is by no means a common occurrence. Citizens may buy agricultural land only in their state of residence except for Punjab state, where agricultural land may be purchased by Indian citizens living in any Indian state. It was thought by one source that the application of this law was mainly used against Sikhs and other religious minorities. (Canadian IRB, 18 January 2006)

19.181 The same source noted that upon relocation Sikhs would have indiscriminate access to employment dependent on their skill level. There may be isolated instances where an individual feels discriminated against because of a tendency by some firms to employ locally born and educated people. Sikhs would also have indiscriminate access to health care in states outside of Punjab although access depends largely on their financial situation and their proximity to an urban location. It was also agreed by two sources that Sikhs would have access to education outside of Punjab and again poverty is the main obstacle to education and proximity to an urban area affects the availability of education (UK Home Office 2006, Country of Origin Information Report: India, October, pp. 118-120 – Attachment 11).

List of Sources Consulted

Internet Sources:

Google search engine http://www.google.com.au/

Databases: FACTIVA (news database) BACIS (DIMA Country Information database) REFINFO (IRBDC (Canada) Country Information database) ISYS (RRT Country Research database, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, US Department of State Reports) RRT Library Catalogue

List of Attachments

1. US Department of State 2003, International Religious Freedom Report for 2003 – India, 18 December.

2. Asian Centre for Human Rights 2007, ‘India: Human Rights Report 2006’, ACHR website, January http://www.achrweb.org/reports/india/AR06/INDIA-AR2006.pdf – Accessed 1 February 2007.

3. ‘People protest against Police bid to ‘kill’ Sikh family’ 2001, Daily Excelsior, 28 May http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/01may28/news.htm#4 – Accessed 19 February 2007.

4. ‘Cremation of youth passes off peacefully’ & ‘Give security to Sikhs: Talwandi’ 2001, The Tribune, 7 February http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010207/main1.htm – Accessed 19 February 2007.

5. US Department of State 2006, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2005 – India, 8 March.

6. Human Rights Watch 2006, “Everyone lives in fear” – Patterns of impunity in Jammu and Kashmir, HRW website, September http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/india0906/india0906webwcover.pdf – Accessed 13 September.

7. Amnesty International 2006, Amnesty International Annual Report 2006 – India.

8. Freedom House 2006, Freedom in the World – Kashmir [India] (2006) http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&country=7100&year=2006 – Accessed Fri, 17 Nov 2006.

9. ‘Sikhs seek say in Indo-Pak talks’ 2006, Kashmir Today, 6 February http://www.kashmirtoday.com/ – Accessed 27 February 2007.

10. ‘Discrimination with Sikh community alleged’ 2002, Daily Excelsior, 1 August http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/02aug01/state.htm#5 – Accessed 23 February 2007.

11. UK Home Office 2006, Country of Origin Information Report: India, October.

12. ‘India – Terrorist, insurgent and extremist groups’ (undated), South Asia Terrorist Portal website – Accessed 8 September 2006. (CISNET India CX161255)

13. RRT Country Research 2007, Research Response IND31165, 11 January.

14. US Department of State 2006, International Religious Freedom Report for 2006 – India, September.

15. Chadda, Maya 2006, ‘Minority rights and conflict prevention: Case study of conflicts in Indian Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab and Nagaland’, Minority Rights Group International website, August http://www.minorityrights.org/admin/Report/pdf/IndiaMacro2006.pdf – Accessed 6 November 2006. 16. ‘Who are the Kashmir militants?’ 2005, BBC News, 6 April http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4416771.stm – Accessed 26 February 2007.

17. Blanche, E. 2004, ‘Lashkar-e-Taiba spreads its tentacles’, Jane’s Terrorism & Security Monitor, 1 September. (RRT Library)

18. US Department of State 2006, Country Reports on Terrorism 2005, April.

19. ‘2 militants held’ 2007, The Tribune, 12 February http://www.tribuneindia.com/2007/20070213/j&k.htm – Accessed 13 February 2007.

20. International Crisis Group 2006, India, Pakistan and Kashmir: Stabilising a Cold Peace, ICG website, 15 June http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/asia/south_asia/b51_india_pakistan_an d_kashmir_stabilising_a_cold_peace.pdf – Accessed 20 February 2007.

21. Plett, B. 2007, ‘Kashmir militants feel the squeeze’, BBC News, 7 February http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6319975.stm – Accessed 15 February 2007.

22. ‘Profile: Lashkar-e-Toiba’ 2006, BBC News, updated 17 March http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3181925.stm – Accessed 26 February 2007.

23. RRT Country Research 2006, Research Response PAK17773, 17 February.

24. Gupta, P. 2006, ‘More terror in Jammu and Kashmir’ Organiser website, 28 May. (CISNET India CX154521)

25. US Department of State 2004, International Religious Freedom Report for 2004 – India, 15 September.

26. ‘AISSF demands impartial probe’ 2002, The India Tribune, 21 March http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020321/j&k.htm#5 – Accessed 22 February 2007.

27. ‘AISSF expresses solidarity’ 2007, Greater Kashmir News Service, 9 February http://www.greaterkashmir.com/Home/NewsInBrief.asp?Issueid=142&Arch=Arch – Accessed 23 February 2007.

28. Sengupta, S. 2007, ‘Indian Army and Police Implicated in Kashmir Killings’, The New York Times, 6 February. (FACTIVA)

29. ‘Kashmiri was civilian – DNA tests’ 2007, BBC News, 22 February http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6386141.stm – Accessed 26 February 2007.

30. ‘More custodial killings’ 2007, The Kashmir Times, 19 February http://www.kashmirtimes.com/edit.htm – Accessed 19 February 2007.

31. ‘Another haul of arms, explosives in RS Pura’ 2000, Daily Excelsior, 3 November http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/00nov04/news.htm#4 – Accessed 27 February 2007.

32. ‘Eight Bangladeshis arrested in J&K’ 2006, Kashmir Observer, 23 December http://www.kashmirobserver.com/index.php?id=1423 – Accessed 27 February 2007. 33. ‘Killing of 4 Jammu porters as militants’ 2005, Daily Excelsior, 4 October http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/web1/05oct04/news.htm – Accessed 27 February 2007.

34. ‘Islamic Front ultra shot dead’ 2001, Daily Excelsior, 28 September http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/01sep18/news.htm – Accessed 27 February 2007.

35. ‘Two SPOs among 6 killed’ 2005, Kashmir Today, 5 September http://www.kashmirtoday.com/pressscans/september/prssep0508.htm – Accessed 27 February 2007.

36. RRT Country Research 2004, ‘Relocation in India’, September.

37. UK Home Office 2007, Operational Guidance Note: India, 20 February.

38. Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 2005, IND43555.E – India: The situation of Sikhs in non-Sikh areas of India, including the relationship between Sikhs and non- Sikhs; whether there is (are) a place(s) within India to which Sikhs can relocate comfortably and safely, 31 May. (REFINFO)

39. Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 2002, IND38457.E – India: Current information on the situation in Jammu and Kashmir; the ethnic groups that are experiencing difficulties and recourse available to them; whether members of these groups can relocate to another area of India, 6 March. (REFINFO)