Asian Centre for Human Rights is dedicated to promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Asian region by: n providing accurate and timely information and complaints to the National Human Rights Institutions, the United Nations bodies and mechanisms as appropriate; INDIA n conducting investigation, research, campaigning and lobbying on country HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT situations or individual cases; n increasing the capacity of human rights defenders and civil society groups through relevant trainings on the use of national and international human rights procedures; n providing input into international standard setting processes on human rights; n providing legal, political and practical advice according to the needs of human rights defenders and civil society groups; and n by securing the economic, social and cultural rights through rights-based approaches to development. ASIAN CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS C-3/441-C, Janakpuri, New Delhi 110058 INDIA Phone/Fax: +91 11 25620583, 25503624 Website: www.achrweb.org Email: [email protected] ASIAN CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS INDIA HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT ASIAN CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS India Human Rights Report 2009 Edited by: Suhas Chakma, Director, Asian Centre for Human Rights Published by: Asian Centre for Human Rights C-3/441-C, Janakpuri, New Delhi 110058, INDIA Tel/Fax: +91 11 25620583, 25503624 Website: www.achrweb.org Email: [email protected] First published May 2009 ©Asian Centre for Human Rights, 2009 No part of this publication can be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, without prior permission of the publisher. Cover photo: Voters for the 2009 general elections; Source: http://www. guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2009/apr/16/indian-elections-2009- india?picture=346039566 ISBN : 978-81-88987-19-1 Price Rs.: 695/- PREFACE ............................................................iv ANDHRA PRADESH ........................................ 1 ARUNACHAL PRADESH ...............................13 ASOM................................................................ 19 C BIHAR .............................................................. 34 CHHATTISGARH............................................ 46 DELHI .............................................................. 55 O GUJARAT ......................................................... 61 HARYANA ........................................................ 69 HIMACHAL PRADESH .................................. 76 N JAMMU AND KASHMIR ................................ 79 JHARKHAND .................................................. 90 KARNATAKA ................................................... 98 KERALA ......................................................... 106 T MADHYA PRADESH .....................................111 MAHARASHTRA ........................................... 119 MANIPUR ...................................................... 127 E MEGHALAYA ................................................. 139 MIZORAM ..................................................... 143 NAGALAND ................................................... 149 N ORISSA ........................................................... 152 PUNJAB .......................................................... 163 RAJASTHAN .................................................. 168 TAMIL NADU ................................................ 172 T TRIPURA ........................................................ 180 UTTARAKHAND ........................................... 184 UTTAR PRADESH ......................................... 187 S WEST BENGAL.............................................. 199 Preface Address the Naxal Crisis and Impunity The Asian Centre for Human Rights prevent non-state actors from taking the law (ACHR) publishes its 2009 Annual Report into their own hands and allowed the space on Human Rights in India as the Congress for armed opposition groups to proliferate. led United Progressive Alliance government assumes its second term following the State failure to address human elections. rights violations including torture and extrajudicial executions by the The findings of the report are a clear challenge security forces to the new government. ACHR argues that The 2009 ACHR annual report reveals the new government must find new answers that widespread human rights violations to the growing security problem arising out continue to take place across India. These of the Naxalism. Current security-driven are particularly serious in conflict afflicted responses are not working; indeed they may areas, and often result in crimes against the even be counter-productive. civilian population. The report documents the ongoing use of torture and death The report suggests that the root causes following torture of detainees by members of Naxal violence, discrimination, of the security forces. marginalisation and exclusion must be addressed. There is an imperative need As with other years, there were for the government to address security persistent claims by the security forces that concerns. However, security responses of the insurgents had been shot in encounters. government, whether state or central, have Some of these undoubtedly happened. But been resulting in human rights violations some of them did not. The courts have against local populations; this state violence repeatedly challenged many of these claims has been feeding support for Naxalism. and ruled that, contrary to Indian law, people were detained and then summarily executed State failure to address discrimination by the security forces. and exclusion The report documents very high levels of But despite repeated exposure the security societal violence and discrimination faced by forces continue to make these claims. Such religious and ethnic minorities, indigenous is usage of the technique that it even has its and tribal peoples and members of the Dalit own vocabulary: fake encounters. community. Killing civilians in this manner is a serious The report reveals the failure of the Central crime and should be punished as any other government and state level authorities to crime. But the consequences go wider. address these violations. The abuses include ‘Faking’ encounters undermines all other the failure of the state to address economic actions of the security forces. One ‘mistake’ and social grievances. The government has means that all actions by the security forces are regularly failed to provide adequate public treated with suspicion by local populations. security for these groups and failed to No matter how genuine an encounter may iv ACHR have been the ‘mistake’ provides the forces persons in Naxal conflict in comparison to opposed to the state the opportunity to 1,666 in North East and 1,195 in Jammu whip up discontent amongst local people. If and Kashmir. the state is fighting to preserve the rule of law it should set the example, not break its The methods of the Naxal movement include own laws. violence of extraordinary brutality, including the gouging out of eyes, bludgeoning to death Growing insecurity and abuses by the and slitting of throats of those suspected of AOGs colluding with the State. The purpose is to The failure of security responses can be strike fear into local populations. Naxals’ measured by the growth of Naxalism. Naxals killing and torture of civilians contravenes are now active in more than 13 states. As international humanitarian law. ACHR the report notes, five years ago there were condemns Naxal violence unreservedly. only three active Naxal groups in Jharkhand. Today there are six. Apathy amongst the main political parties The 2009 general elections have been India’s political parties appear unwilling dominated by Naxal violence as never to examine and address root causes of before. Earlier in April 2006, Prime Minister Naxalism. Manmohan Singh stated that the Maoists represent India’s biggest internal security The political parties propose much in threat. But the Naxal violence continues to the way of new powers to be given to the grow. “The Maoist violence is a grave challenge security forces. They offer little in the way before the country” - stated Ashwini Kumar, of accountability. spokesman for the Congress Party, after attacks by the Naxals killed seventeen people An approach that stresses only security on 24 April 2009. denies, against all the available evidence, the relationship between human rights violations Further, according to the Ministry of Home and the deteriorating security environment Affairs of the government of India, a total and insurgency. of 920 persons including 490 civilians, 231 security forces and 199 Naxalites were killed Lessons from elsewhere: Nepal in the Naxal violence during 2008. In the For the long term consequences India needs past four years (2005-2008), more security only to look at Nepal. Like India the Maoist forces and civilians were killed in Naxal movement there was born largely out of violence than in Jammu and Kashmir or economic and social injustice and violence. North East. While the number of security Like India, Nepal ignored the causes and forces killed decreased from 189 in 2005 relied on a security driven policy. to 75 in 2008 in Jammu and Kashmir, the number of security forces killed in the North There is little disagreement among analysts East decreased from 71 in 2005 to 46 in that the Nepal Army’s perpetration of 2008. During the same period, the number grave violations of human rights, and the of security forces killed in the Naxalite State’s failure to address impunity for