India Shining III: Land Rights!

There is an apparent irony in today's paper. On the front page you have a half page story talking about India's investment and how Mukesh Ambani is the world's richest man (63 billion $ is a lot). On how the sensex has risen 1000 points in 14 days and the top 5 companies have contributed to it.

A few pages afterwards we have a story about 25,000 people marching to the capital to demand land rights and stressing that they have been betrayed by corporates, rich landlords and the likes of them. I was aware that this march was being organised during my stay in the Gandhi Peace Foundation. This march is no joke and I was witnessed the people at ekta parishad planning out everything to the detail.

The above above two instances tell us the story of the Indian Nation. Those who get rich do so at the cost of thousands of others. The Planning commission has released a document stating that the issue of naxalism is directly linked to land rights of the poor. Helloo!!!!! "did you take that long to realise it?". The Prime Minister says that he shall form a committee to look into this land issue. Now that he's made the statement the poor will be 'packed off'. That's how diplomacy works in this country. Give them an assurance, a ray of hope and there shall be no issue in the future. The same was with the Gujjars too. Ah well! nobody seems to realise the gravity of the situation. I can just imagine 25000 people coming from gwalior to Delhi on foot just to hear this statement without understanding that 7 Race Course Roadmight hardly do anything. They have bigger things to do; remember the Nuclear deal and saving the coalition!

That is the irony of India Shining. We see it, we know it, but most of us don't raise a voice about it.

The reality of free speech: The Gujarat episode

----------------
Now playing: Neil Young - We r in control
via FoxyTunes

The recent events in Gujarat are tattering to an Indian's heart. It's not just the Tehelka tapes that have come out in the open; the banning of TV news channels in Gujarat, disgusting comments by the Press and politicians are all a consequence of it which further saddens me.

Mirza in an wonderful read pens down the responses,

BJP spokesman Prakash Javadekar said “This sting has rendered Tehelka as the investigative wing of the Congress”. BJP leader Rajiv Pratap Rudy said “Definitely the sting operation and its content are suspect, because we are aware for sometime that there are detractors against Modi in Gujarat and there is the Congress party, which has lost all ground in the state.” They talk about everything but not about the inhuman brutality. Vir Sanghvi wrote very aptly regarding this in 2002 “I was not surprised when the political establishment scrambled to look for conspiracies: the CIA was behind it, the ISI sponsored Tehelka…My point then, as now, was simple enough: let us first deal with the revelations and then worry about Tarun’s so-called backers.”

Today Chandan Mitra, the editor of the 143 year old newspaper Pioneer and a BJP supported Rajya Sabha MP, invoked the third and the fifth point; Modi has won various elections and why do you take out dead issues now. This is the editor of one of the oldest national newspapers of India! In which moral system and when was justice decided by the street? If someone wins elections does it exonerate them? Mr. Mitra, is the state of journalism going down to this level in India? And since when did we start forgetting about injustices on the pretext of moving ahead? Should we have said the same to the Sikhs who were hounded in 1984? Should we have said the same to the utterly vulnerable Jews who were brutalized and killed in millions by the Nazis? That it will be all decided in the court of law and forget about it in the social aspect.

When I myself went to Ahmedabad last december, I was shocked to learn about and see the ghettoization of the Muslims; rich and the poor in the officially put 'world class city'. But the other issue was, whoever I met (hindus only), were sort of equating Modi to Gabriel as a messenger of god.

And what about free speech? The governments decision to ban all the TV channels that showed the news clip is now a rider to the free speech clause in the Constitution. Hah! gone are the days when Article 19 1(a) was the ultimate sword for the press. If my readers are interested, I'd request you to read Express Newspapers v. Union of India; an amazing case that exposed the link between Gov action and free speech in 1985 and the Delhi riots. (A related article here)

We seem to live in a world of our own. Assuming time and again that Governmental action is free from violence, where as it is so evident in such situations. Those who know that law or are learning it, refuse to budge a little and understand it in terms of its impact on the society. The incidents show a fallacy in the law. That rights in India are only meant to be in thick Constitutional law books and when it comes to situations like Gujarat and media exposes, they seem to vanish into thin air.

There are means that cannot be excused. And I should like to be able to love my country and still love justice. I don’t want just any greatness for it, particularly a greatness born of blood and falsehood. I want to keep it alive by keeping justice alive.

That was Albert Camu, from Resistance, Rebellion and Death on the French conduct in Algeria. The Indian Express in an editorial writes,

What a sting operation in 2007 says has been in the public sphere since 2002. We have always known that the state in Gujarat allowed the gruesome violence to play out, when it didn’t actively collude in the killings. But there is more to this moment than just that. It frames the special resonance of Gujarat 2002 in the nation’s consciousness. In a country where outbreaks of communal violence have been much too frequent — the anti-Sikh violence in Delhi 1984 ranks among the most shameful — the post-Godhra carnage will not allow us to move on. The evidence of state culpability and the absence of reparation is far too insistent. It calls for some form of accountability to be enforced, before any possibility of closure.

There should be an end to this. My heart goes out to all the victims of such actions.

Live Strong!

Masooda Parveen's review petition dismissed

Dear Friends,

It is with regret that I inform you that the review petition which was filed by Masooda Parveen against the judgment dated 2.5.2007 passed by the Supreme Court came up before Justices Dalaveer Bhandari and H.S. Bedi today (11/10/07), and has been dismissed.

I may remind you that Masooda Parveen had filed a writ petition under Article 32 and 21 for compensation for the death of her husband, an advocate, in the custody of 17 Jat Regiment in Pulwama, Kashmir, as far back as February 1998. While initially the petition was for compensation and for compassionate employment to the wife, later its scope had been expanded to get the court to lay down some safeguards from the army that enjoys "special powers" in J&K under the J&K Armed Forces Special Powers Act. It was hoped by us that the Supreme Court would use this opportunity to apply the safeguards in the Naga People's Movement for Human Rights case to J&K.

In the judgment dated 2.5.2007 handed down after nearly 9 years of its filing (reported in 2007(6) SCALE 447; copy enclosed) the Supreme Court has inexplicably overlooked crucial facts which pointed to glaring inconsistencies and contradictions in the version of 'accidental death' put forward by the state. It also ignored the fact that despite the closure report in an investigation under s. 174 CrPC being rejected by the District Magistrate, Pulwama, and Rule Nisi being issued by the Supreme Court, the local administration "lost" the inquest file and all the critical documentation contained in it.

In the judgment, the Supreme Court has unquestioningly accepted the army's bald version that the deceased had been a 'militant', when not a scrap of evidence exists for such a serious allegation. It has further observed that the petitioner has not been able to show her version of events was true. Placing the burden of proof squarely on the petitioner, the judgment contradicts the body of existing law where the burden lies on the state to show how the death occurred in incidents of custodial death. Such burden must for obvious reasons be even higher where death occurs in Army custody in a disturbed area where the Armed forces are, theoretically, operating under the supervision of the 'civil authorities'.

A further disturbing aspect of the judgment is that it proceeds to carve out an exception to directions made by a 5 judge Constitution Bench in the NPMHR judgment ((1998) 2 SCC 109). According to that judgment, the Army is bound by the Constitution of India as well as by the provisions of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act to produce any person arrested by it before the nearest police station with "least possible delay". In that judgment the Supreme Court had also observed that "least possible delay" could not exceed 2-3 hours, since after being handed over at the nearest police station, the arrestee has to be produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest in accordance with Article 22 of the Constitution.

However, the judgment in Masooda Parveen's case chose to ignore evidence before it that the deceased was in illegal Army custody for at least 30 hours before his death, and instead observes:

" We are also not un-mindful of the fact that prompt action by the army in such matters is the key to success and any delay can result in the leakage of information which would frustrate the very purpose of the army action."

The Government of India had attempted to get just such an exemption in the petition seeking clarification of the NPMHR judgment, and this had been negatived by a 5 judge bench of the Supreme Court by order dated 7.8.2001.

The petitioner widow who has in the intervening years raised her children single-handedly and also been under surveillance by the state, is heartbroken to get this verdict that labels her husband a militant, and therefore by extension herself and her children as well.

But the implications of the judgment go far beyond the private heartbreak of one family. This is probably the first judgment of the Supreme Court interpreting the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Armed Forces Special Powers Act. Not only has the Supreme Court lost an opportunity to hold the Armed forces accountable for increasingly heinous excesses against the Kashmiri people, the Supreme Court has also sent out a message virtually endorsing the impunity of the Armed Forces for such acts.

All this, and more, had been placed before the Supreme Court in the Review Petition filed by the petitioner-widow in July 2007 (copy attached), in the hope that the Court would recognise the impact of the judgment dated 2.5.2007 on the petitioner, as well as its larger implications for the people of Kashmir, and therefore reverse it. The Supreme Court has, however, chosen today to dismiss the review petition filed by the petitioner.

With regards,

Shomona Khanna

Advocate

Secrecy and Free Speech

On the 22nd of September, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) raided the house of Maj Gen VK Singh, a retired RAW agent and his publishing agency for publishing his book, India's External Intelligence : Secrets of the RAW Revealed. The retired general has now been booked for violation of the Official Secret's Act. (See news clip)

The book spoke about alleged political interference and corruption in the intelligence agency, including claims about the purchase of sub-standard telecom equipment meant for VVIP security. The book claimed there were severe lapses on part of the government that facilitated the escape of senior RAW official Rabinder Singh, who is believed to have fled to the US.

The incident raised various questions about the boundaries of free speech in this Country. Infact, I just remembered reading a similar case in Alan Dershowitz's book, THE BEST DEFENSE. I read about an CIA Agent named Frank Snepp who published a book exposing the fallacies in Vietnam for which he was booked by the US Government. Dersh was to defend him in the case. The case is very very similar to the one that's come up in out Country. Unfortunately in this case, the US Supreme Court in US v. Snepp ruled against Snepp and secrecy has not become an anti-thesis to free speech there. I's afraid that if this case goes to Court then the Indian Supreme Court would do something like the same which would set a bad precedent in regard to cases of free speech and the right to privacy.

The following is a narrative given in Frank Snepp's site,

The narrative...

Among the last CIA agents to be airlifted from Saigon during the closing moments of the war, Frank Snepp returned to CIA headquarters in the summer of 1975 haunted by the loss of his Vietnamese son and lover—and determined to force his colleagues to assist other Vietnamese left behind. But this was the Season of the Reckoning with the CIA under investigation by Congress and unwilling to admit any more transgressions, least of all its final ones in Vietnam. So when Snepp attempted to prompt an internal after-action report to generate support for the abandoned, his colleagues resisted and reviled him, and finally hounded him out of the Agency in an effort to keep a lid on the truth. But Snepp would not be cowed, and for the next eighteen months, with the help of brave friends who risked both career and welfare for him, he carefully and discreetly assembled the report the CIA didn’t want, even as former fellow agents pursued him like a fugitive on the run, attempting to intimidate him into silence.

His expose, "Decent Interval", was published by Random House in total secrecy—the first American book to be brought out this way. But the firestorm of publicity it ignited, including a 60 Minutes exclusive and front-page coverage in The New York Times, drove the CIA and the White House to launch a campaign of retaliation unparalleled in the annals of American law.

While acknowledging that Snepp’s book had had compromised no secrets, the government’s lawyers insisted that its unauthorized publication alone had “irreparably harmed” the nation’s security by creating an impression of a breakdown in CIA internal discipline that could frighten off intelligence sources abroad. They also claimed that it violated an invisible trust and a secrecy agreement Snepp had signed with the Agency, and demanded, as penalty, that he be gagged for life and deprived of all his “ill-gotten gains,” every cent he had earned from his act of “faithlessness.”

They offered no proof to support their allegations of harm, ignored inconsistencies in the six secrecy agreements Snepp had signed, and glossed over the fact that other ex-agents, friendlier to the CIA, had routinely been allowed to publish unapproved books and articles without protest or censure. Even so, a scandalously prejudiced Federal judge succumbed to the CIA’s extravagant national security claims and ruled against Snepp at every turn, reducing him to an American version of Colonel Alfred Dreyfus, the Frenchman ruthlessly martyred for his beliefs.

Along the way an outraged U.S. Senator took further vengeance on the ex-agent-turned-author by blocking his father’s appointment to the federal bench, thus effectively stalling his judicial career and forever souring his relations with his son.

But young Snepp’s ordeal wasn’t over. Months later, in late February 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court took up his case on appeal—and used it to savage both the defendant and the First Amendment.

While upholding the most draconian of the earlier rulings against Snepp—a lifetime gag and confiscation of every penny he’d made from "Decent Interval"—the Court lowered the standard by which the government can gag you or any other American in the name of national security. With its landmark ruling in The United States v. Snepp, the nation’s highest tribunal made it possible for the CIA or any other government agency to silence critics simply by convincing a court that they’re imperiling the “appearance” of airtight official secrecy, whatever that means.

And don’t suppose that genuine national security interests need be at stake. Remember: Frank Snepp was persecuted, prosecuted, gagged and wrecked financially even though the CIA conceded in court that nothing he had made public exposed any official secrets.

Reverberations from the ruling quickly spread through the government and private industry and continue down to the present. Successive presidents from Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton have used it to justify placing millions of government workers, from FBI agents to park rangers, under censorship rules that prevent them from writing even novels without official approval. The Reagan administration invoked it to limit the reach of the Freedom of Information Act. The Bush administration used it to discourage government workers from blowing the whistle on bureaucratic waste and abuse, claiming that any such disclosure violates an implicit obligation of trust. The Clinton White House relied on the Snepp to try to squelch an early expose of the president’s romantic peccadilloes and to keep criticism of its mid-east policies out of print. The cigarette maker, Brown & Williamson, turned Snepp against whistleblower Jeffrey Wigand and CBS’ 60 Minutes to discourage them from airing the firm’s dirty secrets.

“An unprecedented vote for censorship” is how The Los Angeles Times described the ruling against Snepp. “No court decision in our history,” observed columnist Nat Hentoff, “has so imperiled whistleblowers and thereby the ability of all citizens to find out about rampant ineptitude.”

State Sponsored Armed Conflict: The Salwa Judum and the State of Chattisgarh

STATE SPONSORED ARMED CONFLICT :

THE SALWA JUDUM AND THE STATE OF CHATTISGARH[1]

Joseph Stalin once said, “One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic”. Human emotion does not seem to ponder about the deaths occurring in numbers but seems highly passionate about the death of one being. The story of the Salwa Judum in the State of Chattisgarh is no different. Every month more than 300 people die as a result of fighting between two groups and till date more than 40,000 are displaced. The idea of violations and crimes in numbers just seems to baffle us.

The ‘Salwa Judum’ in Chattisgarh is termed by the government to be an anti- maoist force formed by the common man himself. For those sitting in the seats of government power, it is an alternative to tackling the Maoists and anti- naxalite factions in the state. But there is something more to it. In December 2005, a fourteen member team from five organizations all over the country conducted an investigation and the revelations were shocking. What the Chattisgarh government calls an anti- naxalite force seems to be more of a state sponsored private army supplied with guns, ammunition and basic supplies to deal with the Maoists.[2] On the basis of the fact-finding, three facts stood out strongly, First, that the Salwa Judum is not a spontaneous people's movement, but a state-organized anti-insurgency campaign. Second, the situation is not one where the ordinary villagers are caught between Maoist- State clashes. Rather than questioning its own nonperformance on basic development, the government has resorted to clearing villages on a large scale. Tens of thousands of people are now refugees in temporary roadside camps or living with relatives with complete disruption of their daily lives. Prospects for their return are currently dim. Third, the entire operation, instead of being a peace mission as it is claimed, has escalated violence on all sides.[3]

The Salwa Judum is a force in the State of Chattisgarh led by elitist landowners, traders and trained by State police personnel. Not only that but these personnel are paid salaries out of State funds.[4] The facts in this regard are disturbing. There are child soldiers prevalent amongst the armed people. More than 40,000 tribal people have been displaced till date and 80% of the population in DanteWara district in Chattisgarh have been victims of the clashes.

There is no doubting the fact that atrocities and human rights violations have been committed. More importantly, the problem is that it is a state sponsored armed conflict. To tackle the naxal menace, the state seems to have formed a private army and removed the burden from state forces. In most territories, civilians belonging to the Salwa Judum are seen carrying around guns and ammunition and not even a single state police group is within the area. The problem does not stop here; both the forces are known to kill civilians who should not be a part of this conflict. There is evidence of torture techniques being used, rapes and a host of other human rights violations.

Questions need to be answered. Can the state sponsor a private army to handle an internal disturbance? Can the state discharge its constitutional duty to protect, if any and hand it over to private groups? The idea of state sponsored conflicts is clearly in violation of UN principles[5] and other international obligations. Protocol II of the Fourth Geneva Convention categorically puts forward the rights of victims in non- international armed conflict. These include the provisions of basic needs, health and compensation.[6] Furthermore, without doubt, the State has a primary constitutional duty to protect its citizens from any disturbance; external or internal.[7] The maintenance of law and order in the territory of the state is a constitutional obligation that states must follow. The Supreme Court has used this explanation in the cases of terrorism as in Kartar Singh v. Union of India[8], and AN Ray C.J. in ADM Jabalpur v. Sivakant Shukla[9] used this obligation to justify the violation of rights during emergency. If such explanation has been used in these cases then certainly they are applicable in this instance too and no exceptions can be created.

The discharge of such an obligation is inherently related to the power- responsibility equation. If power is to be delegated, which in this case is to deal with naxal factions, so must responsibility and both of them can’t be separated. Not surprisingly then, no one seems to be taking responsibility for the violations and deaths of civilians in Chattisgarh while the power seems to have been conspicuously discharged and frequently used and abused.

In May, 2007, Nandini Sunder and Ramchandra Guha filed a petition before the Supreme Court challenging the Constitution of the Salwa Judum in Chattisgarh. While the case is still sub judice, I would like to put forth an observation of the Court in this regard. Initially the Bench consisting of Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan and Justice Raveendran asked counsel that when the Central Government in its assessment to control naxalites menace permitted local restraint groups to be armed, “should the court interfere in such a policy. You must understand that naxalites go on killing innocent people in villages. The police are not coming to the rescue of these people. What is wrong in arming the local people to counter the naxal menace.”[10] (Quoting the Court)

Only after the atrocities and human rights violations were bought to the notice of the Court did it issue a notice to the Government of Chattisgarh to respond it. It is interesting to note the observation of the Court in this regard. With all due respect, the Court has commented that the formation of a state sponsored army is justified to meet the end of handling the naxalites. In doing so, the Court has again given sanction to a means- end approach. That is, state action is to be held valid if it is purposeful in nature and meets a desired end. Such is the approach taken by the Court in the case of terrorism and emergency. The Naxal problem just got itself temporarily added to the list. This seems to attract Jhering’s notion of law serving as a means to an end[11]. Accordingly, in such a purposeful evaluation of law, even if it sacrifices individual liberty, it will be valid[12]. To quote from Kartar Singh’s case[13] ;

“that it has been felt that in order to combat and cope with such activities effectively, it had become necessary to take appropriate legal steps effectively and expeditiously so that the alarming increase of these activities which are a matter of serious concern, could be prevented and severely dealt with.”

With this application of this approach, the Court seems to discount the fact that rights and constitutional obligations are inalienable and cannot be discarded to meet an particular end. The point needs to be noted here that not only has the state outsourced its duty to protect its citizens but also has given them a free hand do commit human rights violations and not hold them accountable for killing people. Such state action cannot be justified at any cost. It is hoped that the Supreme Court would take note of such rights violations, disband the Salwa Judum and concentrate on the welfare of the lakhs of tribals in the State who have fallen victim to the clashes. The law has been violated and someone has to be held accountable for it and the State cannot get away with this.

---

[1] Aditya Swarup, B.A.L.L.B. (hons.), NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad.

[2] The Study was conducted by People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) Chhattisgarh, People’s Union For Civil Liberties (PUCL) Jharkhand, People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) Delhi, Association for the Protection of Democratic Rights (APDR) West Bengal, and Indian Association of People’s Lawyers (IAPL). The details of the Study can be found at http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Human-rights/2006/salwa_judum.pdf (last visited 12th May, 2007).

[3] Ibid.

[4] “War in the Heart of India: An Enquiry into the ground situation in Dante Wara District, Chattisgarh”, Independent Citizen’s Initiative, 20^th July 2006.

[5] UN General Assembly Resolution 49/60 of 1995,Measures to eliminate terrorism : UN Security Council Resolution 1373/ 2001. Also to be noted is the Lockerbie Case (UK v. Libya), 1992 ICJ Rep. 3 where Libya’s sponsoring of activities was held in violation of International Law.

[6] Protocol II, Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 75 U.N.T.S. 287. Though India is not a party to this Convention, it still has a customary obligation to protect such people.

[7] Article 355, Constitution of India. A reading can also be inferred from the Directive Principles of State Policy.

[8] Kartar Singh v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 569.

[9] ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521.

[10] “Constitution of Salwa Judum Challenged”, THE HINDU, 20^th May 2007.

[11] R. Von Jhering, “Law as a Means to an End”, MDA Freeman, (ed.), Lloyd’s Introduction to Jurisprudence, 7^th Ed. 2001, p. 703.

[12] I. Jenkins, “Jhering”, (1960-61) 14 Vanderbilt L. Rev. 169.

[13] Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 596. The approach was further upheld by the Court in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2004) 9 SCC 580.

Salwa Judum: A State's response to Maoist Terror

A year ago, the State of Chattisgarh in Central India seemed to me to be a peaceful state. Rich in minerals and a huge tribal population. Little did I know that the political situation in this State would turn out to be one of the most dreaded this country ever witnessed.

In May 2007, I had the good fortune of hearing Nandini Sinder speak at the India International Centre. She spoke about the armed conflict in the state of Chattisgarh and the ill fated consequences of forming the Salwa Judum.

Salwa Judum (translates as "peace mission") is a civil militia formed by the people to resist the Maoist violence. It was formed in 2005, to bring the area dominated by Naxalites under control .The Salwa Judum was alleged by some communist sympathisers to be a government backed organisation that it was supported by the Chhattisgarh government. Even now, the State of Chattisgarh supplies the force with guns, ammunition and basic supplies.

While she did speak of the social consequences of the movement and its impact on political governance, briefly touching upon that, I would like to emphasize its character as non- international armed conflict. What was proposed by the State to be a Counter insurgency program has now resulted in a mass humanitarian situation. In Dec 2006, more than 80 % of the residents in Dante wada distrcit of Chattisgarh were victims of the conflict between the Salwa Judum and the Maoist forces. The atrocities committed are horrifying. Apart from the rapes and indigenous torture techniques, young children are joining the forces and creating a menace of child soldiers in the State.

In the first three months of 2007, more than 280 civilians were killed as a result of the clashes and 60-70 armed personnel killed from each side. more than 48,000 tribals have been displaced from their homes with no basic facilities, education and medical needs.

From a legal point of view, this is in clear violation of the II Protocol of the fourth Geneva Conventions. Protocol II relates to the protection of victims in Non- International Armed Conflict. India, sadly is not amongst the 167 states that have signed this protocol. However, it does have a duty under International customary law not to sponsor such activities. Salwa Judum is a classic example of a situation where the State lets go of its responsibility to protect and 'out sources' it. It then results in a situation of power without responsibility into whose hands the responsibility is devolved. Such usage of power leads to rash consequences on the Rule of Law and democracy.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stated earlier that the Naxalite problem is one of the biggest problems the country is facing. But does the above justify the formation of a private army by the State itself? Nandini Sunder and Ramchandra Guha did file a PIL in the Supreme Court in late May and here's what happenned;

A Bench of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justice R.V. Raveendran issued the notice on the petition filed by Nandini Sundar, Ramachandra Guha and E.A.S. Sarma, after hearing senior counsel T.R. Andhyarujina, who brought to the notice of the court the killings and atrocities committed by the `Salwa Judum' in the guise of countering the naxal movement.

Initially the Bench asked counsel that when the Central Government in its assessment to control naxalites menace permitted local restraint groups to be armed, "should the court interfere in such a policy. You must understand that naxalites go on killing innocent people in villages. The police are not coming to the rescue of these people. What is wrong in arming the local people to counter the naxal menace."

It is but astonishing to notice that way the Court has reacted to this issue. It did however issue a notice to the Chattisgarh Government to give an answer for the atrocities that are committed. The 'atrocities being committed' are only a part of the problem in Chattisgarh. The Court did not seem to take note of the devolution of constitutional responsibilities and stuck to the age old line taken in Kartar Singh v. Union of India, that the situation calls for such action and is thus valid. The non- interference and concern shown by the judiciary towards such issues is disturbing to think of.

State sponsored armed conflict is one of the worst forms of humanitarian disasters. The Constitution of India puts a duty on the State to protect its people and in my opinion, the formation of the Salwa Judum is unconstitutional as it devolves this very primitive responsibility of the State. Not surprisingly the State of Chattisgarh is not showing any reactions to the situations prevailing in the State, however it is a shame that the Centre is not asking a reply for the same. The State has kept away from a situation that has gone out of its control.

Till the last few months, this conflict had'nt attracted much attention. It is only of late, that I see regular articles in News papers and Magazine related to the issue. The matter has gone out of control and all we can do now is to wait and see the course that it takes.

...................................................

Some articles on the issue are here;

1) The Backlash - PS Tripathi

2) When State makes war on its own people - A PUCL Report

3) Salwa Judum and International Humanitarian Law - S Varadarajan (The Hindu, 8th September 2007, Editorial)

The Will to Hope

There is this very interesting article by Amit Sengupta in the May-June 2007 issue of Combat law. In this article titled, "The Will to Hope", Mr. Sengupta explores the diffusion of the Left in India and the rise of a new power in the form of Hindu fundamentalism. He argues that the BJP and the RSS would come down heavily and learn from their past mistakes. What would then ensue is something similar to what is happening presently in the BJP ruled states, blatant HR violations, communal clashes and prejudices in the name of religion.

"Instead, like primordial creatures of sacred cults who can undergo multiple metamorphosis, the octopus-like parivar, with its many fronts and institutions (unlike the official or radical Left), blooms and flourishes under State patronage. That is why, the Gujarat hate lab is a 100 percent success story; and Gujarat’s prototypes and microcosms are actively spreading, like slow epidemics, in all BJP-ruled or BJP-coalition states: Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Orissa, even Karnataka where they tried to communalise a site of shared, secular synthesis: Babubudangiri."

After Nandigram and incidents in Kerala, indeed the left has had to go through rough stages. They seem to be losing their identity in the States they rule. To quote Amit, "West Bengal's openly joining the race as to who owns more malls and multiplexes, big industries and factories". However, in as much as this article is written to show that the left influence is fading, the central theme in the article shifts to a vehement attack on Modi and the BJP ruled states. Amit seems to be talking more about justice to the victims of Gujarat than about Karat and his influence on the left.
True however is the premise that despite a Left backed government in our country, Leftist ideals dont seem to be followed. We looked towards the left when it came to Petrol prices and nothing happened. Nandigram is a black stain on the left that time and again talks about atrocities in Gujarat.

"Meanwhile, the 10 percent growth remains an elusive category for the 93 percent of our unorganised workforce in the informal sector, in urban and rural areas, mostly the poorest. They are compulsively isolated outside the paradigm of social safety, social security, health, education, food, drinking water, or shelter, as constitutional rights, with not even 100 days of employment in a year, despite the fudged up National Rural Employment Guarantee Act and the scrapped National Advisory Council. So what does the neo-liberal State want them to do: line up outside the SEZs and commit mass suicides?"

The above and a reference to farmer suicides seem to divert from the main issue of the article. In the end, Amit states that the UPA- Left must wake up to tackle these issues. True that they must wake up. But the reason should not be that otherwise the BJP would come to power and the consequences would be bad. In not allowing the 'devil to rise', we are asking the squirrel to gear up.
In a one liner to this article, Mr Sengupta looks at a lot of issues to adjust to the Central idea. However, the premises he uses to justify them are baseless.

Caste wars and the National Security Act

On Saturday night, the Government of Rajasthan enforced the National Security Act in eleven of its districts. Most of the news reporters have talked about its imposition but none about its implications. One needs to understand that the Act is basically a ‘preventive detention’ act, one of the greatest legitimate ills in our country. I use the word legitimate because it is a violation that is given sanction to in the Constitution of our country.

The National Security Act, 1980 was imposed under Section 3 (2) which says that if the State government is satisfied that with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public order, it may impose the Act. In the case of Rajasthan, it was imposed to supposedly prevent the clash between the Gujjars and the Meenas.

But the point is, was the imposition of such a harsh legislation really required? Earlier the District Commissioner of Bharatpur imposed section 144 of the Cr. PC (Prohibition of an Act to prevent public order etc…). Apparently the situation was brought under control in the said district. Our governments have this knack of bringing in the harshest legislations without any understanding of its implications to personal liberty. Such actions more or less have stood the test of time and cannot even be challenged in Court. When there were other options available, then why did the Rajasthan government bring in the NSA? In SR Bommai v. Union of India, the Court held that introduction of emergency powers under the Constitution can be questioned in the Court. The same reasoning should be applied to the NSA.

Preventive Detention in India has unfortunately stood the test of time and its going to be extremely difficult for it to be repealed now. In AK Gopalan’s case, the Court justified preventive detention in the name of maintaining public order. This was later upheld in ADM Jabalpur v. Sivakant Shukla where the Maintenance of the Industrial Security Act (MISA) was upheld. But the point again to be understood is that ‘preventive detention’ under the Constitution was meant to be for the protection of the State and not against some actions ensued by caste wars. The Gujjars and the Meenas may fight, but that doesn’t mandate preventive detention. Executive action without any checks and balances is a toll for destruction of the democratic order. Unbridled powers leads to abuse that violate the very ethos within which they are framed.

I am however given to understand that there have not been many arrests under the NSA in Rajasthan. The gujjars are destroying state property in the State of Rajasthan. Perhaps starting curfews and imposing laws like Section 144 of the code of criminal procedure would have helped more than imposing preventive detention law.

There is a meeting of the Gujjar leaders with the Chief Minister Vasundhara Raje tonight. Hope the meeting ends amicably and the fighting can come to an end.

- Sachin Pilot, Gujjar leaders meet Rajnath Singh

- Gujjars call for a Delhi bandh on Monday

Creative Freedom v. Moral Policing: A Question of Human Rights.

(By Arun Mohan)
Perhaps this post comes at a time when the Vadodara art attack controversy seems to be in the letting-off-steam stages. However, it is imperative that we address the larger, more significant question that has been churned out from the incident.

The uninitiated may read about the issue in question at “NDTV.com: Art Held Hostage in Vadodara , http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20070011802″
Incidents of such nature are not too uncommon in present day Indian society; be it the ruckus created over the Richard Gere-Shilpa Shetty incident or the commotion made over M.F Hussain’s works depicting Hindu Goddesses in the nude, or for that matter the attack made on the Tamil Daily Dinakaran’s office in Madras over a controversial opinion poll. At the onset, it is stated that I do not wish to delve into the premise of merits/demerits of moral policing and media-gagging; nor am I speaking from the standpoint of the urban, educated and liberal citizen. There are always two sides to a moral/ethical debate (irrespective of which weighs more) and to enter it would be futile.

What then am I broaching on? To reiterate, the larger perspective simply must focus on the question of human rights. We are, vis-a-vis the context of discussion, talking about the freedom of speech and expression; one that has been recognized, respected and documented since time immemorial. To quote a learned man;
“I may not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to death your right to say it” - Voltaire

Society has been stirred, revolutions have occurred and autocracies have been thrown in the fight for this mighty and noble right. Fundamental in today’s society, in both layperson and legalese terms, the Indian Constitution recognizes it under Article 19 (1) (a). However, many would surely be aware of the fact that a right in paper cannot be equated to a right in actuality. Hence, what we are all concerned with here, is the way/attitude that has been adopted towards the exercise and restraints pertaining to rights fundamental in nature. Whether the ’saffron brigade’ decided to vandalize the art exhibition at Vadodara is of no concern to me at this juncture. What is disappointing however, is the towing of a similar line by the police, very much a State appendage. A lower Court in Rajasthan decides that a display of antics by Gere and Shetty amount to gross obscenity; are we witnessing a gradual recession in freedom within the freedom given to us? perhaps, a signal to society from State machinery and guardian institutions like the Judiciary that our rights, far from being absolute, are subject to the whims and fancies of morality of those vested with power?

Questions such as these need to be raised, answered and sensitized to the populace. Only then are we realizing our ideal of political participation in the world’s largest democracy.

Why Human Rights?

I write this at a very crucial time. I, a student of law have to decide which line should I go into; the corporate side and firms where there is easy money, litigation or higher studies. This also comes at a time when the student community is debating about reservations and those who recently finished 12th would soon be on the look out for the appropriate college. Over the past few days I’ve been encountering human rights to a very great extent. Interning with various NGO’s and the Poverty course at the University have been heavily responsible for it. A question that I often ponder about during these time, “Why Human Rights?” is what I’d like to write about in the next few paragraphs.

I observe that no rich man will ever talk about a violation of his human rights, plainly because he has the means to fend for it. The very fact that one of you is reading this article is proof that you know about your rights and have the resources at hand to fight for them. But the problem is that apart from us, there are 250 million in this country and another billion or so in this world who cannot. Neither do they have a preacher nor a protector. Rights exist not for the rich but the poor who are faced with their violations every minute. They are placed at the mercy of state systems that can do as they please with them. While there are 100,000 dying in Darfur, millions displaced in New Delhi as a result of demolitions, and god knows how many languishing in Indian jails without due process; we seem to be divided into three main groups. The first, that has no clue about them and doesn’t want to associate with them. They just want to go on with their so called ‘personal lives’ without even looking at them. The second, reads about them, would like to do something, but then decide that their individual careers are more important and carry on. These two constitute the majority of the population that can fend for themselves incase they are subjected to any injustice. The third group, consists of those who make a difference in this world of inequalities. The members of this group go on the presumption that they exist in this world to fight for those who are affected by human rights violations. And why so? Because the man above did not give them the means to fight for it on their own. Because they cannot stand living in this world with so much injustice going around and lastly because they love their country.

The last line in more of a rhetorical argument. Albert Camu wrote, “There are means that cannot be excused. And I should be able to like my country and still love justice. I don’t want just any greatness for it, particularly a greatness born out of blood and falsehood. I want to keep it alive by keeping justice alive.” Camu’s quote above was written in response to the French injustices in Africa but bears lot of relevance here. The future of my country today is bleak. In the garb of globalization, millions are suffering. At one place the majority poor are being killed for the expense of a few million dollars in building a Special Economic Zone. On the other hand people languish in jails without no idea what the future has in store for them. I find it hard to believe that most of us are silent on issues like Nandigram where states get away by ordering the killing of poor farmers. To add to it, most of us seem to be more interested in the profits that an Indonesian company will make than taking the lives of people.
In my studies at law school and successive internships I understood that the most important word is ‘rights’. Once my rights are secure, only then can I look at others. In as much as some activists might argue that rights are founded on concentration camps, displaced people or the poverty stricken, I stick to the belief that it is not a gift given by the state or a decree passed by the Court, but a possession that has to be won everyday. But does one be have to be an egotist and draw the line at his rights only or does he have to look beyond? History has witnessed enough of egotists and knows too much of its consequences. I could go on passionately as most activists do as to how we need to protet human rights and all that stuff but I’d like to stop here to delve upon a greater issue, “rational legal thinking”.
Within the human rights circle I observe that there are just a few who fight not for the people but for the law. They believe in the black letter of the law and abhor the twisting of the laws for some and not for others. If I were to emulate anyone in the future it would be these kind of people. They are way above the HR activists and fight for the forsaken because they believe in the strength and application of the law. Not bundled with emotions or any passion, they rationally argue for the poverty stricken and the violated and gain ground through the legal system.
So while I intern with a person who believes in the black letter above I see a sense in their struggle with returns. But I then ask myself if this is the path I want to take as financial considerations seem to take the upper hand.
I have three more years to go at law school. Enough time to decide what to do. Umm... Let's see where I eventually land up...

Incident

I was on a trip to Mysore for the past four days. While I was in the Bus stand, an interesting incident happened that kept me pondering. It is in the context of a person's right to know and not be cheated.

I enter a cold drink shop and ask for a 'minute maid' orange juice.

Shopkeeper - Here it is. That'll be 29 rupees.

Self - But it says 25 rupees on the cover. Why should I pay more?

Shopkeeper - the extra 4 rupees is a cooling/ chilling charge.

Self - But it says 25 is the MRP on the bottle and you cannot charge more that that.

Shopkeeper - Take it or leave.

Self - In fact, don't you worry, i'll do both.

I then go to the Station master and complain. He goes to them and threatens to withdraw their license. The same shop keeper later gives me my drink for 25 rupees.
I wonder how many other people would have had to pay extra for such injustice. Could they be gullible enough to fall for such acts and tolerate such nonsense? In fact, I noticed that most of them dont have the urge to stand up for their rights and beliefs. For them 4 rupees means nothing. In a concluding observation, it is difficult to stand up for rights in this country when a majority does not want to stand for their protection.

HRW Letter to SAARC Leaders In Anticipation of Summit In New Delhi

March 29, 2007

Dear SAARC Government Leaders:

As the leaders of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) meet in New Delhi on April 3 and 4, 2007, the discussions will inevitably focus upon economics and regional security. At SAARC meetings, human rights problems in each member country have usually been treated as an internal matter. However, it takes only a quick survey of the region to see that there are many human rights issues that would benefit from mutual engagement and agreement.

Apart from other serious human rights problems, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka are also dealing with situations related to armed conflicts and insurgencies. Nepal, with its numerous human rights problems, has only just emerged from a violent conflict that claimed over 13,000 lives, and violence continues in the south. Bangladesh has witnessed increased militancy and the caretaker government has detained tens of thousands, often ignoring basic due process, in its efforts to combat corruption and crime. Bhutan continues to discriminate against citizens of Nepali origin. In the Maldives, there are serious curbs on political freedom.

(the weilikanda massacre in srilanka)
In Sri Lanka, the human rights situation has deteriorated drastically since major hostilities between the government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) resumed in early 2006. The LTTE has been responsible for numerous political killings and indiscriminate bomb attacks, and continues to use child soldiers and forcibly recruit adults for its forces. It has prevented civilians from fleeing areas of combat in the north and east. Government security forces have increasingly violated the laws of war by engaging in indiscriminate attacks in which civilians were killed and have also been implicated in extrajudicial executions. “Disappearances” attributable to state security forces or allied armed groups have risen sharply; hundreds of alleged “disappearances” have been reported on the Jaffna peninsula over the past 15 months. More than 15,000 refugees have fled to neighboring India and over 200,000 were internally displaced by the fighting in the north and east. The government has forced displaced civilians to return to their homes in the east despite their concerns about security and access to humanitarian aid. The Karuna group, with the open support of state forces, continues to abduct and forcibly recruit boys and young men for its forces and political work. Civil society has increasingly come under attack and national institutions involved in human rights protections have been undermined.

(Nandigram)

In India, impunity laws that protect members of the security forces from prosecution continue to fuel human rights abuses in the conflict in Jammu and Kashmir and in the northeast. Security forces have been responsible for widespread abuses including torture and arbitrary detentions. Recently, in Jammu and Kashmir, police investigations revealed that some policemen, usually in joint operations with the army, were killing civilians in faked encounters, and then claiming that they were Pakistani militants. New Delhi has failed to act on the recommendations of a government-appointed committee that said the Armed Forces Special Powers Act should be repealed. Despite encouraging disaffected groups to choose dialogue and peaceful protest in the northeast or in areas where Maoist groups have begun an armed campaign, the Indian government has failed to acknowledge or address such methods; for instance, it has failed to investigate the reasonable demands of Irom Sharmila, who has been on a seven-year hunger strike to demand an end to human rights abuses by troops in Manipur. The government’s failure to implement its laws that protect vulnerable communities received international attention in Maharashtra state recently, where four members of a Dalit family were brutally murdered, but no arrests were made until there were violent protests. Hindu extremist groups continue to threaten religious minorities, tribal groups and Dalits. Indian police have used excessive force against villagers and farmers opposing development projects. Laws to protect women and children have not been effectively implemented. India has failed to adequately acknowledge and protect refugees from Burma and Bhutan, and has provided military assistance to the Burmese army, which has frequently attacked civilians and committed other atrocities in its war against ethnic insurgents.

In Pakistan there have widespread reports of arbitrary detentions and enforced disappearances. Alleged terrorism suspects are often detained without charge or tried without proper judicial process. Human Rights Watch has documented scores of arbitrary detentions, instances of torture, and “disappearances” by the security forces in Pakistan’s major cities. The government has failed to provide the civilian population in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas adequate protection from Taliban attacks after agreements ending military operations there effectively ceded power to local tribal leaders closely allied with the Taliban. Civilians have also died in counter-terrorism operations due to the security forces’ use of excessive force. While the authorities routinely misuse counter-terrorism laws to perpetuate vendettas and as an instrument of political coercion, sectarian militants continue to target the Shia Muslim minority in Pakistan and are responsible for attacks upon civilians in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir. Women and girls in Pakistan confront astounding levels of violence, with hundreds of women and girls murdered each year in the name of family “honor.” Journalists and human rights defenders face frequent threats and attacks from state agents and extremists. Pakistan’s judiciary remains subservient to the military. When it does attempt to act independently, the government has intervened, as it has done recently with the arbitrary removal of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

In Afghanistan, more than 1,000 civilians were killed as a result of violence related to the insurgency in 2006; 15,000 families were displaced and over 200,000 children were unable to attend school. The violence prevented reconstruction and access to clean water, education, and health care. The Taliban and other anti-government forces continue to attack aid workers, government officials, teachers, students, and schools. Regional warlords implicated in war crimes, some allied with the government, continue to perpetrate serious human rights abuses throughout Afghanistan. Afghan women and girls continue to suffer from entrenched discrimination throughout the country. They have among the highest rates of illiteracy, maternal mortality, and forced marriage in the world. There are few remedies available for gender-based violence and many women and girls confront severe restrictions on their freedom of movement. Afghanistan is again on the precipice of becoming a haven for human rights abusers, criminals, and militant extremists, many of whom in the past have severely abused Afghans, particularly women and girls.

In Bangladesh security forces have long been implicated in torture and extrajudicial killings. These have continued since a state of emergency was declared on January 11, 2007. The killings have been attributed to members of the army, the police, and the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), an elite anti-crime and anti-terrorism force. Killings in custody have been a persistent problem in Bangladesh. To date, no military personnel are known to have been held criminally responsible for any of the deaths. There have been widespread abuses reported against Hindus and Ahmadiyya Muslims. Women continue to suffer domestic violence including acid attacks, largely with no response from the state. Most recently, under the state of emergency, the military has arrested thousands of people on allegations of corruption and other crimes, but many have been denied their due process rights. Some have been tortured. There have also been attempts by the authorities to control the media, with editors being privately summoned to impose self censorship.

Bhutan has continued its discriminatory practices to enforce a distinct national identity, in line with Bhutan’s “one nation, one people” policy. These policies are perceived as a direct attack on the cultural identity of the ethnic Nepalese living in southern Bhutan. The government forcibly evicted tens of thousands of ethnic Nepalese in 1990 and 105,000 still remain in seven refugee camps in Nepal. Nearly 50,000 Bhutanese refugees live outside the camps in India and Nepal. Bhutanese Nepali speakers who managed to avoid expulsion and still live in Bhutan remain very insecure. Some have been denied citizenship cards following the latest census in 2005 and so they are now effectively stateless in their own country.

In the Maldives, citizens continue to face restrictions on political freedom. Security forces have been implicated in torture and arbitrary detention, among other abuses. There are severe limitations upon the rights to freedom of the press, assembly, association, and religion. Unequal treatment of women continues, as do restrictions on workers’ rights.

In Nepal, the November 21, 2006 agreement between Nepal’s coalition government and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) ended ten years of fighting that killed an estimated 13,000 people. The deal included compliance with an armed management pact, under which each side would put away most of its weapons and restrict most troops to a few barracks, under the supervision of monitors from the United Nations. Both parties agreed to end all forms of feudalism and promote greater inclusion of marginalized groups. However, ethnic, linguistic and regional tensions continue, with increasing violence in the south where ethnic minorities are demanding equal representation in determining Nepal’s future. Women are yet to be an equal part of the peace process. Impunity remains a problem, with little urgency in investigating and prosecuting those responsible for atrocities during the conflict. The army was responsible for enforced disappearances, torture and mistreatment of detainees, while the Maoists recruited children into armed conflict and punished civilians that they deemed as insufficiently committed to their cause with executions, mock executions, cutting body parts, and severe beatings. Meanwhile, trafficking of Nepali women and children into India as domestic labor or sex workers continues, particularly because thousands remain internally displaced due to the conflict.

Human rights abuses such as those listed above are often the cause and fuel of conflict. A failure by the state to provide and protect economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights, including ensuring the rights of marginalized groups such as ethnic and religious minorities, can lead to discontent that eventually turns violent.

Militants and armed groups, such as Kashmiri, Maoist and northeastern militants in India, the LTTE in Sri Lanka, and Islamist groups in Pakistan and Bangladesh, often commit human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law, including indiscriminate bomb attacks, extortion, killings and abductions. Security forces deployed by the state for counter insurgency operations, unless properly checked, have in turn become responsible for abuses including torture, extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detentions and enforced disappearances.

Regional security and economic progress cannot be achieved unless every citizen is provided with a secure environment to enjoy their civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. This is especially true for groups historically discriminated against, like women and children. Half of the world’s poor live in this region. Policies and laws to help them will be useless unless effectively implemented.

SAARC represents a sixth of the world’s population and plays a significant role in global affairs. It is crucial that SAARC adopt measures that provide good governance standards for the region, including respect for fundamental human rights. If it does so, it could become a beacon for the rest of the world. Unfortunately, to date SAARC has not taken human rights seriously. Instead it has been largely a talk shop and a photo opportunity for its members’ leaders.

Human Rights Watch encourages SAARC members to:

• Ensure the protection of vulnerable communities including religious and ethnic minorities, Dalits and tribal groups. Governments should repeal all laws that lead to discrimination against minorities such as citizens of Nepali origin in Bhutan, Tamils in Sri Lanka or the Ahmaddiyas and Hindus of Bangladesh. Instead, laws designed to protect these groups should be properly implemented, such as in the case of Muslims, Christians, tribal groups and Dalits in India.
• End specific legal, cultural, or religious practices by which women are systematically discriminated against, excluded from political participation and public life, segregated in their daily lives, raped in armed conflict, beaten in their homes, denied equal divorce or inheritance rights, killed for having sex, forced to marry, assaulted for not conforming to gender norms, and sold into forced labor. Arguments that sustain and excuse these human rights abuses - those of cultural norms, “appropriate” rights for women, or western imperialism - barely disguise their true meaning: that women’s lives matter less than men’s.
• Implement laws to end human rights abuses against children including the use of children as soldiers; the worst forms of child labor; torture of children by police; police violence against street children; conditions in correctional institutions and orphanages; corporal punishment in schools; mistreatment of refugee and migrant children; trafficking of children for labor and prostitution; discrimination in education because of race, gender, sexual orientation, or HIV/AIDS; and physical and sexual violence against girls and boys.
• Build strong international human rights norms and institutions to create a successful, rights-respecting counter-terrorism policy. Protection of human rights should be treated as an essential tool in the fight against terrorism, not as an obstacle.
• End state participation in enforced disappearances, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, and extrajudicial executions, which are often masked as armed encounters.
• Prosecute and punish those responsible for human rights abuses, including persons implicated as a matter of command responsibility when superiors knew or should have known of ongoing crimes but failed to take action. These include high-ranking and powerful individuals, including those holding government positions.
• Stop supplying weapons to governments likely to use them to commit violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. India supplies weapons to Burma, and Pakistan has provided weapons to Sri Lanka. SAARC member states , have also provided weapons to abusive opposition groups.
• Tie military aid to fellow SAARC members and other countries to strict human rights compliance.
• Prohibit the use, production, and trade of antipersonnel landmines and cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians.
• Adopt multilateral labor agreements to protect workers from Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and India who migrate to the Middle East and Asia. These workers, especially those in construction and domestic service, regularly suffer unpaid wages, confiscation of their passports, hazardous working conditions, and sometimes physical abuse. High recruitment fees and deception during recruitment have led many workers to be trapped in situations amounting to debt bondage and human trafficking. Labor-sending governments should regulate and monitor labor recruitment agencies by placing caps on recruitment fees, providing clear information in enforceable employment contracts, and strengthening support services in embassies abroad for abused workers.
• Provide proper protection and access to humanitarian assistance for refugees and internally displaced persons. No one should be returned to a place where their life or freedom would be threatened. The groups at risk today in the SAARC region include Afghan refugees in Pakistan, Rohingyas in Bangladesh, Burmese and Sri Lankan refugees in India, and Tibetan and Bhutanese refugees in Nepal. The internally displaced include tens of thousands who fled from armed conflicts in Nepal, India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan as well as those displaced due to natural disasters such as the Indian Ocean tsunami and the Kashmir earthquake.

We look forward to discussing these issues with each of you in both a bilateral and multilateral context.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours sincerely,

Brad Adams

Executive Director

Asia division