PaRCha - JNU - AISA material - 2012 ID-32244
.
investigated. Therefore, the names of alleged perpetrators in a majority of cases are unknown. Further, due to the extensive work carried out by the IPTK in North Kashmir and around Srinagar, a pre-dominance of cases contained in this report are from these areas. .
It is also important to note that this report does not attempt to travel through the chain of command to establish the full list of all possible perpetrators who could be held responsible for specific crimes. Further investigations would be necessary to understand more comprehensively the role of superior authorities involved in these crimes. In general, only cases where names of alleged perpetrators exist have been included here. The purpose is to ensure transparency49. .
The focus is squarely on indictments against the Indian State and its functionaries. Within an occupation where authorities disregard the rule of law and criminalize the populace on the basis of their political aspirations, it is vital to first and foremost hold the authorities accountable. The IPTK is not unmindful of its responsibility to highlight other human rights violations. But, the Indian State does not even recognize the rights of belligerents in a conflict. All such actions by belligerents are immediately labeled as .anti-national.. These issues stem from the fact that the Indian State does not acknowledge the existence of an international or non-international / internal armed conflict. Therefore, it is difficult to correctly investigate and appreciate such crimes. .
This report, by and large, allows official documents to speak for themselves. The intention behind this choice was not to in anyway undermine the validity or significance of oral testimonies in speaking truth to power, but was seen as a way of confronting the State with facts that it itself would consider valid and beyond reproof. If official documents, produced by the States own functionaries and institutions tell the .Official Truth. the documents in this report repeatedly and conclusively certify the impossibility of justice in Jammu and Kashmir. The documents are of different types: FIRs, statements before police and /or magistrates, police final reports [closure reports or charge sheets], High Court petitions, objections, other documents forming a part of the court record such as compliance reports, status report, judicial enquiries, SHRC documents from complaints to objections, police submissions and final orders. Further, documents from other State sources and ministries such as the MHA, MOD and Government of Jammu and Kashmir have been considered where available and relevant. As far as possible, the IPTK sought to contact the victims/ their surviving family members and obtain signed statements regarding the circumstances under which killings or other violations were carried out. The families were also provided an opportunity to consent to the use of such information in this report. On occasion, particularly in widely reported cases, media reports have also been considered. Acknowledging that while the documentary and other sources unearthed by the IPTKs investigation points to damning evidence, it is not the conclusive establishment of guilt by a court of law, the IPTK has chosen to refer to specific officers and others named as .alleged perpetrators.50. .
To provide as authentic and relevant a report as possible, the IPTK submitted various queries under the RTI Act, 2009 to the Government of Jammu and Kashmir and under the RTI Act, 2005 to the Indian Government51. Further, in almost all the cases, information on every FIR number and High Court petition number referred to in the report has been sought under the RTI Act, 2009 from the concerned authorities. .
During the two years of preparing this report the IPTK has faced and learnt from numerous challenges. Limited human and monetary resources were a major challenge. This impacted on the ability of the IPTK to carry out extensive fieldwork and individual interviews on every case reported. The RTI process, that greatly enriched its quality, was often a time consuming and frustrating one due to the frequent obfuscation by governmental authorities and their personnel. .
A tabular summary provides an overview of the report. Chapter I specifically deals with cases where a strong and detailed indictment exists against the alleged perpetrators. Cases within each Chapter are listed chronologically. .
49 For an example of a report that also names alleged perpetrators, see generally: PUCL/PUDR, Who are the guilty?, 2003 [www.pucl.org/Topics/Religion-communalism/2003/who-are-gui...]. 50 In a majority of cases the names of the alleged perpetrators are listed. As far as possible, full names and accurate designations are provided. In some cases, incomplete information is provided, for example: only the designation of an officer. 51 RTIs were filed on the following areas, and no response has been received to date: information relating to all prosecutions against the police in Jammu and Kashmir from 1990 to 2011 and information relating to all .interrogation centres. in Jammu and Kashmir from 1989 to date was sought from the Government of Jammu and Kashmir and the Jammu and Kashmir Police. Information was sought from the Jammu and Kashmir Police on all encounters from 1989 to date in Jammu and Kashmir. Deficient information was provided. Information was sought from the Jammu and Kashmir Police on all FIRs filed against the police and armed forces in Jammu and Kashmir between 1989 and 2012. No information was provided. The police stated that they could not provide the information as per Section 8(1) (a) of the RTI Act, 2009 that provides an exemption for information that would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India or its other interests or as the information could lead to an incitement of an offence. But, in contrast, in a RTI seeking substantiation of a statement in the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly in 2012 that there had been 444 FIRs filed against the police and armed forces over the last three years in Jammu and Kashmir, information, albeit deficient, was provided [Annexure 25]. Information was sought from the Government of Jammu and Kashmir on suspensions and terminations of the police and the armed forces in Jammu and Kashmir from 1989 to 2012 for human rights violations and fratricides. No information was provided. Similar applications were made to the MHA and MOD for the agencies working under them. In the case of the MHA, the IB stated that there had been suspensions or terminations for human rights violations. The CRPF stated that they were exempted from providing information under the RTI Act, 2005 except in cases of human rights or corruption matters but that in the instant case the exception would not be relevant for the information sought. In the case of the MOD, it was stated that there had been 24 terminations from 1994 to 2012 [including 12 for rape, 3 for molestation and 3 for .death.]. Further, information had been sought on all inquiries conducted on the orders of the High Court in Jammu and Kashmir. Limited, deficient, but useful information was provided. .
alleged Perpetrators 16 IPTK/APDP .
.
PaRCha - JNU - AISA material - 2012 ID-32244
.
investigated. Therefore, the names of alleged perpetrators in a majority of cases are unknown. Further, due to the extensive work carried out by the IPTK in North Kashmir and around Srinagar, a pre-dominance of cases contained in this report are from these areas. .
It is also important to note that this report does not attempt to travel through the chain of command to establish the full list of all possible perpetrators who could be held responsible for specific crimes. Further investigations would be necessary to understand more comprehensively the role of superior authorities involved in these crimes. In general, only cases where names of alleged perpetrators exist have been included here. The purpose is to ensure transparency49. .
The focus is squarely on indictments against the Indian State and its functionaries. Within an occupation where authorities disregard the rule of law and criminalize the populace on the basis of their political aspirations, it is vital to first and foremost hold the authorities accountable. The IPTK is not unmindful of its responsibility to highlight other human rights violations. But, the Indian State does not even recognize the rights of belligerents in a conflict. All such actions by belligerents are immediately labeled as .anti-national.. These issues stem from the fact that the Indian State does not acknowledge the existence of an international or non-international / internal armed conflict. Therefore, it is difficult to correctly investigate and appreciate such crimes. .
This report, by and large, allows official documents to speak for themselves. The intention behind this choice was not to in anyway undermine the validity or significance of oral testimonies in speaking truth to power, but was seen as a way of confronting the State with facts that it itself would consider valid and beyond reproof. If official documents, produced by the States own functionaries and institutions tell the .Official Truth. the documents in this report repeatedly and conclusively certify the impossibility of justice in Jammu and Kashmir. The documents are of different types: FIRs, statements before police and /or magistrates, police final reports [closure reports or charge sheets], High Court petitions, objections, other documents forming a part of the court record such as compliance reports, status report, judicial enquiries, SHRC documents from complaints to objections, police submissions and final orders. Further, documents from other State sources and ministries such as the MHA, MOD and Government of Jammu and Kashmir have been considered where available and relevant. As far as possible, the IPTK sought to contact the victims/ their surviving family members and obtain signed statements regarding the circumstances under which killings or other violations were carried out. The families were also provided an opportunity to consent to the use of such information in this report. On occasion, particularly in widely reported cases, media reports have also been considered. Acknowledging that while the documentary and other sources unearthed by the IPTKs investigation points to damning evidence, it is not the conclusive establishment of guilt by a court of law, the IPTK has chosen to refer to specific officers and others named as .alleged perpetrators.50. .
To provide as authentic and relevant a report as possible, the IPTK submitted various queries under the RTI Act, 2009 to the Government of Jammu and Kashmir and under the RTI Act, 2005 to the Indian Government51. Further, in almost all the cases, information on every FIR number and High Court petition number referred to in the report has been sought under the RTI Act, 2009 from the concerned authorities. .
During the two years of preparing this report the IPTK has faced and learnt from numerous challenges. Limited human and monetary resources were a major challenge. This impacted on the ability of the IPTK to carry out extensive fieldwork and individual interviews on every case reported. The RTI process, that greatly enriched its quality, was often a time consuming and frustrating one due to the frequent obfuscation by governmental authorities and their personnel. .
A tabular summary provides an overview of the report. Chapter I specifically deals with cases where a strong and detailed indictment exists against the alleged perpetrators. Cases within each Chapter are listed chronologically. .
49 For an example of a report that also names alleged perpetrators, see generally: PUCL/PUDR, Who are the guilty?, 2003 [www.pucl.org/Topics/Religion-communalism/2003/who-are-gui...]. 50 In a majority of cases the names of the alleged perpetrators are listed. As far as possible, full names and accurate designations are provided. In some cases, incomplete information is provided, for example: only the designation of an officer. 51 RTIs were filed on the following areas, and no response has been received to date: information relating to all prosecutions against the police in Jammu and Kashmir from 1990 to 2011 and information relating to all .interrogation centres. in Jammu and Kashmir from 1989 to date was sought from the Government of Jammu and Kashmir and the Jammu and Kashmir Police. Information was sought from the Jammu and Kashmir Police on all encounters from 1989 to date in Jammu and Kashmir. Deficient information was provided. Information was sought from the Jammu and Kashmir Police on all FIRs filed against the police and armed forces in Jammu and Kashmir between 1989 and 2012. No information was provided. The police stated that they could not provide the information as per Section 8(1) (a) of the RTI Act, 2009 that provides an exemption for information that would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India or its other interests or as the information could lead to an incitement of an offence. But, in contrast, in a RTI seeking substantiation of a statement in the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly in 2012 that there had been 444 FIRs filed against the police and armed forces over the last three years in Jammu and Kashmir, information, albeit deficient, was provided [Annexure 25]. Information was sought from the Government of Jammu and Kashmir on suspensions and terminations of the police and the armed forces in Jammu and Kashmir from 1989 to 2012 for human rights violations and fratricides. No information was provided. Similar applications were made to the MHA and MOD for the agencies working under them. In the case of the MHA, the IB stated that there had been suspensions or terminations for human rights violations. The CRPF stated that they were exempted from providing information under the RTI Act, 2005 except in cases of human rights or corruption matters but that in the instant case the exception would not be relevant for the information sought. In the case of the MOD, it was stated that there had been 24 terminations from 1994 to 2012 [including 12 for rape, 3 for molestation and 3 for .death.]. Further, information had been sought on all inquiries conducted on the orders of the High Court in Jammu and Kashmir. Limited, deficient, but useful information was provided. .
alleged Perpetrators 16 IPTK/APDP .
.