The report was released by the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS), an amalgam of research and advocacy organisations based in Srinagar, and the Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP), an advocacy seeking to end involuntary and enforced disappearances in Kashmir, in February 2019. Torture qualifies as a war crime as per the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Geneva Conventions.

The report, endorsed by former United Nations (UN) special rapporteur Juan E Mendez, accuses the Indian state of violating international human rights law by practicing torture against civilians, destroying property such as homes, and causing widespread psychological distress.

“For the worldwide struggle against torture, this report will constitute a landmark,” Mendez wrote. “It is to be hoped that it will be an example to other civil society organizations in India and in other countries, as a model for dispassionate and precise language, even when discussing tremendously tragic suffering.”

Jammu and Kashmir is considered among the most militarised regions in the world, indicative of an alarming human rights situation. JKCCS estimates that 650,000-750,000 Indian troops are present in the state; Ajai Shukla, a defence expert, contested those numbers in July 2018, estimating the number to be 470,000 instead.

Another 38,000 were deployed in early August 2019, bringing the presence between 700,000 and 800,000–more than one armed forces personnel per 15 civilians, as per JKCCS’s figures.

On August 29, 2019, the BBC reported that civilians in Kashmir had complained of being tortured by the Indian security forces since the abrogation of Article 370 on August 5, 2019.

The JKCCS report relates to the period between 1990 and 2017. Its release comes at a time when Union home minister Amit Shah, on August 28, 2019, suggested that the police do away with the age-old third-degree torture and adopt new, more scientific methods of investigation.

However, the report has received no coverage in the mainstream Indian media. The two largest newpapers in India, The Times of India in English and the Hindi Dainik Jagran, with a combined readership of nearly 90 million, have not covered the report to date, despite reporting on allegations of torture carried out by the Indian security forces and publishing more than 3,000 stories on Jammu and Kashmir this year, an IndiaSpend analysis has shown.

The home ministry, The Times of India, and Dainik Jagran did not respond to emails for comment sent on August 25 and 29, 2019. This story will be updated when they do.

Some experts view the report as indicative of a general disregard for Kashmiris’ human rights, particularly since Article 370 was removed. “Given what has happened since August 5 [the abrogation of Article 370], what rights? What humans? The way they’re being treated, the very idea of human rights for the people of Kashmir is an absurd farce,” said Nitasha Kaul, associate professor of politics and international relations, University of Westminster, London. She is of Kashmiri origin.

Others said the report must be seen in the perspective of the situation across India.

“I don’t think this [torture] is a special practice of the Indian state in Kashmir,” Manoj Joshi, distinguished fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, a New Delhi-based think-tank, told IndiaSpend. “It is well known that torture is widely used by police forces across the country. Of course, it does not serve the interests of the Indian state. To the contrary, it negatively impacts it.”

Key findings
Among the report’s findings: 27 of the 432 cases studied (6.25%) made it to the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC), of which 20 received favourable recommendations; in 2017, the state government accepted seven of the 44 compensation recommendations the commission made. The government has accepted 58 of the 229 recommendations (25%) made by the commission since 2009.

The report alleges that armed forces in Kashmir are responsible for the destruction of civilian property and life, alongside causing significant psychological distress due to the practice of torture.

Purposes
In 1993, Mohammad Shafi Hajam, a barber from Anantnag, was questioned by armed forces regarding the whereabouts of weapons, the report documents. Despite initially denying any knowledge, following extensive torture, he revealed the location to be a ditch near his shop. The next day, the army made all surrounding inhabitants including Hajam enter the ditch, filled with human refuse, to find the weapons. Upon not finding anything, an army officer slammed Hajam’s head onto a rock, causing him to lose a few teeth. He was subsequently taken back to the camp and continued to be tortured, the report added.

Based on the responses of each case, the report found three major reasons why people were tortured: as a punitive measure (50 victims, 12% of the total), a method to gain information, mainly about militants (118 victims, or 27%), and a means to elicit confessions (11 victims).

Some victims said they provided false information to their interrogators just for respite.

Methods

One of the victims documented by the report, from Anantnag, said he was doused in petrol and set on fire. Another, Bashir Ahmad, claimed that boiling water was poured on his back.

Torture methods documented in the report include physical brutalisation, waterboarding, sleep deprivation, starvation; and being forced to remain in uncomfortable positions such as aeroplane posture, burned, coerced to ingest contaminated substances and get in unhygienic contact with animals. All of these count as war crimes as per ICC rulings.

Some 326 of the 432 victims studied reported being beaten by sticks, rods and belts. Another 93 people claimed that they were physically brutalised, including the smashing of glass bottles on their faces. One person reported being kicked down a hill.

At least 80 victims had been tortured during cordon and search operations (CASOs), which have been globally condemned by groups such as Human Rights Watch (here) and Amnesty International (here).

Civilian victims
Nearly 70% or 301 of the total victims studied were civilians, of which 258 had no political affiliations. Twenty were political activists, six were students, three journalists, two human rights activists, and 12 associated with the Jamaat-e-Islami, a politico-religious activist group banned by the government in March 2019 for its “close touch” with militant outfits.

Civilians were mainly targeted for information regarding militants, or in response to militant activity in neighbouring areas, the report said.

Nearly 119 victims were militants (28%) and five were former militants (1%). Two members of the Jammu and Kashmir Police were found to have been tortured.

In the cases where militants were tortured, the report stated that most of the cases of arrest were not registered with the local police on the day of arrest. Doing so is a requirement under point six of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA).

In 32 cases, the report found that the families of the victims were targeted in addition to the victim. Article 3 of the Geneva Convention states that those “taking no active part in the hostilities” must be treated “humanely,” specifically prohibiting “violence to life and person” and “outrages upon personal dignity”. The principle is also mentioned in the ICC guidelines regarding war crimes.

Further, 27 of the 432 victims studied were minors, of which one was female. From a total of 1,086 juvenile detentions from September 2013 to April 2017, 623 (57%) were for pelting stones, the report found.

Lasting effects on victims
At least 222 victims of the total 432 (51.4%) reported health complications from being tortured–209 reported chronic health problems, frequent aches, fatigue and sexual impotency; 49 reported acute chronic ailments such as cardiac issues, nephrological problems, internal organ injuries and amputations. All 222 victims said they had been bearing the costs of healthcare by themselves, without any compensation or support.

Sixteen victims reported dislocated joints, in addition to 15 respondents who had suffered fractures. Three people had to undergo amputations after being tortured. One victim, Mohammad Qalandar Khatana, said that he was forced to eat the cut flesh of his buttocks, after which his legs were broken. He wasn’t provided with any medical assistance. While imprisoned, his legs got infected by maggots, following which they had to be amputated.

At least 49 (11.34%) victims died during or after torture, of which 40 died due to injuries sustained due to being tortured, such as ruptured lungs, and a perforated liver and intestines. Eight were shot dead after being tortured, whereas another one was poisoned.

Around 42 (18.9%) victims suffered from various psychological disorders after being tortured, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, insomnia, and dementia, according to the report.

Earlier, a mental health survey undertaken in December 2015 by Medecin Sans Frontiers (Doctors Without Borders) said that 19% of Kashmir’s population showed several symptoms of PTSD; 45% of the population, or 1.8 million adults, in the Kashmir Valley suffered from significant mental distress; 1.6 million or 41% exhibited symptoms of severe depression.

Victims often poor

Aside from the physical and mental impacts of torture, a significant facet of torture is its economic brutality, as the victims are often underprivileged, the report said. The wife of one victim, Din Mohammad, met the initial costs of her husband’s treatment by begging for money in 1999.

Many victims it documented were manual labourers, who were unable to resume their occupation due to the significant physical distress caused by torture, the report said. At least 31 victims reported an inability to perform any physically exhausting labour; almost all of them previously farmers or manual labourers.

At least 36 victims (8.3%) and their families lived in abject poverty because of the loss of livelihood or the death of the breadwinner of the family, the report said. Four families have subsequently died due to their dire situation.

Twenty five cases also involved the payment of bribes ranging from Rs 5,000 to Rs 2 lakh to various agencies to secure the release of their loved ones, or to protect families from relentless harassment.

Report ignored by mainstream Indian media
In February 2017, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) compiled a report stating the necessity to “control” the mosque, madrassa, print and TV media to enact effective “perception management”, The Indian Express reported. The report listed TV channels and newspapers as pro- and anti-India, recommending that the former be promoted while the latter “discouraged”.

The Indian Army’s doctrine on sub-conventional operations of 2006 notes that such operations are “essentially information campaigns”, emphasising the importance of the government, the security forces and the civilian population understanding the campaign in the “correct perspective”. This makes the role of the media critical.

The JKCCS report acknowledged that the primary challenge while researching torture is under-reporting, due to the reluctance of victims to reveal details, and the political hurdles faced by journalists. The Indian government has repeatedly withheld permission from several journalists who wished to work in Kashmir; Greater Kashmir reported on one such prominent instance in August 2019.

“The Indian government is interested in perception-management, not in actually finding a solution, because the dominant lens with which they see Kashmir is an Islamophobic one, and because their own idea of India is to capture the state and convert it into a Hindu nation, in line with the Hindutva ideology,” said Kaul.

“To call it a perception-management strategy is perhaps to overstate it, because the emperor has no clothes. The situation is clear to everyone globally, outside the hypernationalist Indian televisual bubble. India’s narrative has no ground to stand on anymore,” Kaul added.

As we said, despite the report on torture being the first ever comprehensive documentation on the subject, the dominant media in India have not covered it to date.

The Times of India, the largest English-language newspaper of the country with a readership of 15.2 million, despite publishing one story almost every two days on the state, did not cover the report. In 109 stories covering Jammu and Kashmir as listed on their website, over eight months between the start of 2019 and August 27, the word ‘torture’ was mentioned only four times. The word appeared four times in a single story, which covered the Indian Army denouncing allegations of torture and excesses committed by the Indian security forces by Shehla Rashid, member of the Jammu and Kashmir’s People’s Movement, as “baseless” and “unverified”.

Similarly, Dainik Jagran, the largest newspaper in India with a readership of 73.6 million, published 3,296 stories on Jammu and Kashmir from January 2019 to late August 2019–almost 14 stories per day, but did not cover the report released on torture. However, it also covered Shehla Rashid’s allegations, on August 19 and August 20, and the case filed against her for doing so.  

Coverage of Jammu and Kashmir, per se, spiked during August 2019, the month in which the abrogation of Article 370 was announced, for both these newspapers, our analysis shows.

“In all of this, the signs of optimism and prospects for peace is the humanity and resilience of the Kashmiri people. Prospects for peace can only come from millions of people who are going to read, think, know and understand what cannot and must not happen,” Kaul said.

No government action on previous reports
In June 2018, after protests erupted following the killing of Burhan Wani, a 22-year-old commander of the Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) terrorist outfit, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) at the United Nations released a report on the human rights situation in Kashmir for the first time.

The security forces had killed 130-145 civilians between July 2016 and March 2018, in addition to 16-20 killed by militant groups, the report noted. In a subsequent report published in July 2019, the UN body reported that the security forces had blinded 1,253 people with the use of metal pellets from mid-2016 to the end of 2018. The government had detained over 1,000 people between March 2016 and August 2017 under the Public Safety Act (PSA).

The OHCHR said it had asked India for access to Kashmir to monitor the human rights situation, but the government had unconditionally refused.

“India has not allowed international monitors since it views Kashmir as an internal issue,” Joshi said, adding, “Second, it would be embarrassed by the findings.”

Some 4,000 people have been detained in the state since the abrogation of Article 370, The Hindu reported on August 18, 2019. The Public Safety Act violates several clauses of international human rights law, an Amnesty International report of June 2019 showed.

“Where else do you have protestors being blinded by pellet guns, or an entire region being collectively punished by a siege? They [the Indian State] are doing it [blocking international monitors] because they can,” said Kaul.

Earlier, in 2016, Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), a US-based human rights NGO that documents human rights violations around the world, reported that the Indian state had obstructed access to medical care for protestors, prevented medical officials from treating injured protestors, and intimidated doctors and patients at the hospital. Security forces had destroyed 200 ambulances in the same year, another JKCCS report had found.

Denying civilians access to humanitarian aid or attacking humanitarian workers is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and a war crime as per the guidelines of the International Criminal Court.

There existed at least 2,700 unknown, unmarked graves containing more than 2,943 bodies across 55 villages between November 2006 and November 2009, a report by the International People’s Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Kashmir (IPTK) documented, including photographic evidence. In November 2017, the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) reportedly ordered a DNA probe into 2,080 unmarked graves in the districts of Poonch and Rajouri, but no information is available on any follow up. 

(Mehta, a second-year undergraduate at the University of Chicago, is an intern at IndiaSpend.)

Courtesy: India Spend

The post New Report Cites 432 Torture Cases In Kashmir From 1990-2017, 70% Victims Civilians appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This means that a single officer was transferred multiple times in two years. These states had the most transfers across India, said the report by Common Cause, a nonprofit.

Although the number of DIGs and SSPs prematurely transferred in 22 states across India reduced from 37% in 2007 to 13% in 2016, the report found a seeming “direct relationship between elections and transfers”, as transfers increased significantly during election years, hinting at substantial political interference.

The situation is not unique to these two states, however, as a 2018 report by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), a New Delhi-based human rights advocacy, showed. Of 36 states and union territories (UTs) across the country, none had fully complied with police reforms ordered by the Supreme Court (SC) in 2006 with the aim to curb political interference in the Indian police force and raise public accountability.

In 2006, following a petition by Prakash Singh, former director general of Uttar Pradesh (UP) Police and chief of the Border Security Force, the SC had ordered all states to implement six reform measures: to set up a State Security Commission (SSC) to lay down broad policy guidelines and directions for the state police to operate without political interference; mandate a minimum tenure for heads of police; separate the law and order-enforcement units from the investigation units, establish a police-run board to determine transfers and postings; and set up a complaints cell in every district to foster public trust in the police.

But in April 2018, the CHRI found that:
 

• No state/UT had fully implemented any of the six directives; 27 had tried to set up a State Security Commission but had omitted several important guidelines, and 17 had introduced the reform to separate law and order from investigation units. 
• Only one state (Nagaland) had introduced a minimum two-year tenure for its director general of police (DGP). But more states (six) had introduced this for their inspector general of police (IGP). These included: Odisha, Nagaland, Manipur, Madhya Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh.
• Although 27 states/UTs had introduced the police establishment board (PEB) to determine transfers and postings, and 24 had set up a police complaints cell to cultivate public trust, only one state each (Arunachal Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh respectively) had fully followed the guidelines. 

Little has changed since the publication of the report in 2018, as the Common Cause report shows.

Across 22 states, 25% of SSPs and DIGs transferred between 2007 and 2016 were transferred in less than two years.

Transfers increased significantly during election years in several states, most notably in Rajasthan, where 98% of SSPs and DIGs were transferred in 2013. In Haryana, 32% were transferred in 2013, and in Jharkhand, 28% to 53% were transferred during all election years, the report says.

Even in states in which the incumbent party remained in power, transfers were more numerous than average. In Gujarat in 2012, an election year, transfers of DIGs and SSPs increased to 80.6%, up from 23.7% in 2008. In 2013, an election year for Chhattisgarh, transfers increased to 63.5% from 36% in 2012.

“The crux of this [police reforms] is that there is just no political will to bring in checks and balances–not much has changed since our report,” Devika Prasad, coordinator of the Police Reforms Programme at CHRI, told IndiaSpend. “The problem is that the executive sees it [police reforms] as a lessening of power. But that’s not the democratic way.”

The police must strike a balance between being the agency of law-enforcement as well as accountable to the wider public, the Common Cause report emphasised. And, as democratically elected representatives, the executive must monitor the overall functioning of the police, the CHRI report said, adding, however, that the police must be independent in its quotidian functions, especially relating to administration (promotions, transfers, postings, etc.) and law-enforcement (when/whom to investigate, arrest, search, etc.).

How states can protect police independence

The Model Police Act
Shortly after the SC judgement in 2006, the Model Police Act was drafted to help states incorporate the reforms as directed. By 2018, 11 states and Delhi were yet to implement a Police Act, the report said; their legislations had either not been drafted or had been drafted and tabled in the legislature without any progress.

“Only 17 states in India have passed police legislation, but they are yet to take the Model Police Act in full,” Prasad added. “They’re not bound to use the Model Police Act but they’ve taken short-cuts and what they’ve done is actually regressive, they’re moving backwards instead of forward.”

“The legislation is mainly to alleviate the executive’s powers of appointment,” Julio Ribeiro, former commissioner of police in Mumbai, told
IndiaSpend. “That’s the main problem. But the government has found many ways to get around this. In fact, politicians have strengthened their influence on the police. What I could do 30 years ago as commissioner, the present commissioner can’t do. I know of officers who left the force because they got sidelined. So, what’s the point?”

The Maharashtra governor approved the Maharashtra Police (Amendment) Bill in July 2014 in a hurried manner, despite significant concerns being expressed by former commissioners such as Julio Ribeiro and Satish Sawhney regarding its violation of the principles of police leadership and discipline. NGOs such as CHRI and Police Reforms Watch had also warned that the bill was undemocratic and had serious shortcomings.

State Security Commissions
About 42 years ago, in 1977, the Janata Party government had set up a National Police Commission (NPC) to study the contemporary requirements of the police force. In its report, the NPC had included the setting up of a State Security Commission to ensure that the government in power would not gratuitously interfere in police affairs.

In 2006, the SC ruled that this commission must include the leader of the opposition, independent members selected via an independent panel, a retired judge nominated by the chief justice of the respective high court, and publish an annual report.

However, as of August 2019, not a single state has fully complied with this directive though 27 have partially set up the commission, Prasad said.
For example, in six states–Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Punjab and Tripura–the commission does not include a state opposition leader. In three–Bihar, Karnataka and Punjab–no independent members are allowed. Further, 18 states do not allow for the independent selection of the commission’s independent members, while in 20 states the commission is not mandated to submit an annual report.

“The states implement it whenever it suits them, and wherever it doesn’t suit them, they do not. The crux [of the commission] is to depoliticise the police. But the government continues to exert its influence. The police has become the handmaiden of the party in power,” Ribeiro said.

Minimum two-year tenure for police chiefs
One state, Nagaland, fully complied with the second directive to ensure that the DGP, chosen by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) from a group of three senior offices, remains posted for a minimum tenure of two years. The DGP’s removal must be based on specific grounds, the SC ruling had mandated.

“Fixed tenure is good because it allows officers to develop and implement their vision,” M N Singh, former commissioner of Mumbai Police, told IndiaSpend. “Someone working only for six months is like a person getting on at a train station and getting off at the next. Abrupt transfers, postings and high-handed moves politicise the police and interfere with its functioning.”

But in attempting to implement this reform, several states had failed to follow some of the SC guidelines.

For example, 23 states, as of 2018, had omitted UPSC shortlists for the DGP’s appointment, placing all relevant authority in the state government’s hands, and 16 states had allowed vague grounds such as “in the public interest” or “on other administrative grounds” for the DGP’s removal.

This is liable to serve ulterior political purposes, CHRI observed.

In comparison, more states (six) had fully implemented the third directive mandating a minimum tenure of two years for the post of IGP with provisions for removal only based on specific grounds–Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Nagaland, Madhya Pradesh and Odisha.

Other states had partially sought to implement the reform. Of these, five provide a one-year tenure to officers of this rank. Meanwhile, 16 states had introduced “vague” grounds for the termination of an IGP’s appointment, which CHRI deemed non-compliant, namely Assam, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh.

Five states–Goa, Kerala, Jammu and Kashmir, Madhya Pradesh, and West Bengal–and Delhi and the union territories do not mention any basis for removal, placing the matter entirely at the discretion of state governments.

“Minimum tenure is good,” Ribeiro said, “but only if you appoint the correct people. It’s not beneficial if you appoint the wrong people,” he said, highlighting the need to eliminate political influence over appointments.

“The selection of officers by independent committees/commissions where leader of opposition is also a member will ensure postings based on merit rather than the selection of those aligned to the ruling party,” Meeran Borwankar, former director general of the Bureau of Police Research and Development, told IndiaSpend.

Separating law and order from investigations
While 17 states/UTs had made provisions for the separation of units for law and order enforcement and investigation, only Mizoram introduced legislation enabling investigation unit officers to specialise, work with job security, and work elsewhere with the DGP’s explicit permission. These states had special investigation units at police stations for certain offences or geographical areas.

“We should create specialised groups to investigate specialised crime such as trafficking, cyber-crime, etc. which not all police officers are equipped to deal with,” former commissioner Singh said. However, Singh warned against a complete division, saying it is neither feasible nor desirable. “It has been tried in Mumbai, but it hasn’t worked.”

Police Establishment Boards
In this directive, the state is supposed to set up a Police Establishment Board (PEB) comprising the DGP and four other officers, to decide and recommend all promotions, transfers and postings to the state government and to review police functioning. The SC had also envisioned this board to be a forum of appeal for officers above the rank of deputy superintendent of police who may bear grievances with their transfers or postings.

Although all states had followed the fifth directive by setting up PEBs on paper, 27 states remained non-compliant as they did not adhere to all the criteria of the directive. The PEB plays the role of an appeal forum in only 10 states, and reviews the function of the police in only six, the CHRI report said.

Arunachal Pradesh is the only state to have complied on all the criteria of the directive, the report said.

The threat of transfers or suspension was recognised as a primary tool of political interference in a National Police Commission report as far back as 1979.

Forty years later, in January 2019, the Communist Party of India (Marxist)-led Kerala state government allegedly removed the deputy inspector general of police, Chaithra Teresa John, after she raided their office to find people accused of stone-pelting at a local police station, shifting her to the post of superintendent of police (women’s cell).

“This is why fixed tenure is important,” former commissioner Singh said. “It will prevent such removals and transfers.”

Nine in 10 police persons in Uttar Pradesh said they felt stressed due to political interference, a study in 2015 showed, while another study in 2014 found that job insecurity due to the risk of being “suspended at any time” is a major source of stress and results in many police officials seeking other jobs.

“Transfers, postings, training and discipline must be in the hands of the police chiefs, not the government–laws, formulation of the budget, development of infrastructure and so on, can come from the government,” Singh said. 

Police complaints cells
So far, only Andhra Pradesh has fully followed the sixth directive, setting up a Police Complaints Authority (PCA) at the state and district levels to address public complaints against police officers.

In 16 states, the independent recommendations of the PCA are subject to the review of the state government despite the SC order demanding otherwise.

Uttar Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Odisha, Himachal Pradesh, and Delhi are yet to set up any PCAs at any level, as per the report.

In July 2018, about 29% of Indians said they placed a lot of trust in a senior police officer, 23% placed this trust in a local police officer, and 16% in traffic police, according to a Common Cause-CSDS survey in 2018. In comparison, 54% Indians have high amounts of trust in the army, followed by the judiciary at 31%.

However, there are significant concerns regarding the implementation of the PCA.

“In Maharashtra, it [Police Complaints Authority] is a disaster. Basically, if you keep appointing people who are going to do your bidding, then you are implementing the reforms only in name, although the truth is you’re doing nothing of the sort,” Ribeiro said.

Reform from within
Singh recommended that the police also be made more accountable to the public, in addition to the legislature and judiciary. “The service provided to complainants would improve significantly if the police and the public directly interact,” he said.

Much can be done from within the police force, aside from the state government, Prasad said, “The police leadership can change things substantially.”

For a direct say in policing matters, Singh suggested that citizen committees be set up in each district to regularly meet with police officers and provide them with feedback. “For example, England already has a ‘neighbourhood watch’ system whereby public stakeholders and police can frequently be in close communication,” he said.

In fact, several reforms can be undertaken at the level of the police leadership, Singh pointed out. He cited the example of retired Indian police officer and civil servant Julio Ribeiro who served as Mumbai Police commissioner from 1982 to 1985. “To alleviate political interference, Ribeiro placed the decision of appointing station officers with the police leadership, guaranteeing the station officers a minimum tenure of two years, completely eliminating any politicians’ say–and he instituted this formally into the rules,” Singh said, adding, “Not all police reforms need to come from the government.”

However, present-day politics may make reforms at the leadership level unfeasible or meaningless, some experts said.

“In my days, such reforms at the leadership level were possible,” Ribeiro said. “Now, I feel sorry for the present incumbents because their hands are tied. Although there are many good officers wanting to better serve the public, politicians still have the last laugh.” Even to remove an officer who had many complaints against him, one of the members in the police leadership had to write to the government seeking permission, he recounted an incident.

Ribeiro said public pressure alone can force the government to ensure police reform. “The people have to pressure the government to ensure that they appoint the correct person who are going to look after their interests. This is what activists should go about doing–whip up public support against wrong appointments, because all political parties only bother when they are threatened with the prospect of losing votes,” he said.

(Mehta is an intern with IndiaSpend.)

Courtesy: India Spend

The post Police Transfers Jump In Election Years, New Report Finds appeared first on SabrangIndia.

‘Modernisation’ includes upgradation of weapons, communications systems including wireless devices and satellite networks, and the development of forensic infrastructure including labs and training of manpower, among other matters. Altogether, the utilisation of police forces’ modernisation budget was less than half (48%) of the funding available, according to an IndiaSpend analysis of government data.

“The central government releases grants for modernisation, which the state has to match. States don’t always release modernisation funds. This needs to be changed,” M N Singh, former Police Commissioner of Mumbai, told IndiaSpend.

Meanwhile, in this year’s budget, the allocation for ‘police infrastructure’–distinct from the modernisation allocation, and including such heads as maintenance of existing vehicles, basic weapons and telephones–actually declined by 2%.

As a result, police forces across India lack weapons and fundamental communications and transport infrastructure–267 police stations had no telephones and 129 had no wireless communication devices as of January 2017, as per the latest available data from the Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD). There were eight vehicles for every 100 police personnel for responding to distress calls, patrolling and maintaining law and order in their jurisdictions.

The number of police stations functioning without wireless communication devices across India increased 231% from 39 in 2012 to 129 by the end of 2016. At the beginning of 2017, 273 police stations across the country did not possess a single transportation vehicle.

Communications infrastructure

More than half of the police stations without wireless communication devices were in Manipur (30), Jharkhand (22) and Meghalaya (18). Manipur ranked 28th among all states and union territories in terms of crime rate (121.9 per 100,000 people), when the worst possible rank was the 36th; Meghalaya ranked 29th (crime rate 120.4), and Jharkhand 30th (120.9).

Meanwhile, the number of police stations functioning without telephones declined 10% from 296 in 2012 to 269 in 2017.

More than 45% of the stations without telephones were in Uttar Pradesh (51), Bihar (41) and Punjab (30). Uttar Pradesh ranked 26th among all states and UTs with a crime rate of 128.7, Bihar 22nd with a crime rate of 157.4, and Punjab 24th with a crime rate of 137.

At the start of 2017, 51 police stations across the country had neither telephones nor wireless communication devices–down from 100 stations in 2012. More than half of these were located in the northeastern states of Manipur (15) and Meghalaya (12).

“With greater transport and communication equipment, the police can patrol a greater area more efficiently,” Singh said. “Wireless communication devices, mobiles, and vehicles are imperatives today. If anything happens, the police needs to be able to communicate well to address the issue. With better communication and transportation, one policeman can do as much work as ten policemen.”

Transport infrastructure

At the end of 2016, Indian police forces had, on average, one transport vehicle for 12.38 police personnel–an improvement from 15 per vehicle at the end of 2011.

Availability of transport infrastructure per 100 police personnel rose 19% from 6.78 by the end of 2011 to 8.08 in by the end of 2016, due largely to a 500% increase in the number of vehicles such as mine-proof vehicles, forensic vans, prison trucks and water tankers from 1,255 in 2011 to 7,536 in 2016.

The number of medium and light vehicles such as cars and jeeps increased only 21% from 76,088 in 2012 to 92,043 in 2016.

Yet, 273 police stations across the country had no transportation facilities by the end of 2016. Almost 90% of these were located in insurgency-hit Chhattisgarh (126), neighbouring Telangana (91), and Manipur (25), which also experiences internal conflict.

Uttar Pradesh, with 30 police personnel per vehicle, Mizoram with 22, and Himachal Pradesh with 18 had the fewest transport facilities per 100 police personnel in 2017.

Weapons shortage

Meanwhile, several state police forces operate with subpar weapons and communications infrastructure, as the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) found after examining five states from 2014 to 2018.

In Uttar Pradesh, in particular, of the initial demand of Rs 69.91 crore under the Modernisation of State Police Forces (MPF) scheme, only 55% or Rs 38.31 crore was allocated, and only Rs 32.99 crore (47% of the initial demand) was utilised, as per CAG’s 2017 audit of the state. Nearly half (48%) the police force was using weaponry that the home ministry had declared outdated over 20 years ago.

In Rajasthan, the CAG reported a 75% paucity of weapons in 2015 compared to the recommended quantum between 2009 and 2014. The state police required 15,884 weapons, of which they had received 3,962 (25%) at the time of the audit. Of these, 2,350, or 59% weapons were in storage and not distributed to the police stations.

Therefore, police stations in Rajasthan received only 14.7% of the requisite weapons, and faced a shortage of more than 85%.

The audit in West Bengal found a 71% weapons shortfall; Karnataka and Gujarat had a shortfall of 37% and 36%, respectively.

Erratic utilisation of modernisation budget

The modernisation budget, according to the BPRD, helps to upgrade police infrastructure–constructing people-friendly police stations and posts, and improving mobility, weaponry and communication equipment.

However, states’ utilisation of these funds has been erratic. Across India, over five years to 2017, less than half (48%) or Rs 13,720 crore ($1.9 billion) of the overall modernisation budget of Rs 28,703 crore ($4 billion) was utilised.

From 87% utilisation in 2014, all-India utilisation of modernisation funds fell to 14% in 2016, only to rise again to 75% in 2017.

Among states, Nagaland alone used all of its allocation for modernisation of Rs 1,172 crore through the financial year 2015-16, BPRD data show. Jammu and Kashmir spent around 45% of its modernisation budget, Rs 40 crore out of Rs 89.59 crore. Uttar Pradesh used 23% (Rs 26.31 crore) of its Rs 116.66 crore.

The modernisation of communications infrastructure is also incomplete in several states.

Uttar Pradesh spent 28% or Rs 56 crore of its budgetary allocation of Rs 137 crore to enhance its communications infrastructure during 2011-12 to 2015-16, CAG said.

In Karnataka, from 2013-14 to 2016-17, only Rs 6.93 crore was released against the initial demand of Rs 15.93 crore for the procurement of updated communications equipment, of which none were utilised as of 2018, another CAG report found. In 2018, all of the 43,636 communication sets (wireless devices, walkie-talkies, etc.) with the state police were past their recommended life-span.

“Policing now has become technology-centric. The police must modernise and expand its capabilities with respect to cyber-crime, currency flight, international trafficking, and other such crimes of enormous dimensions. We must also improve our capabilities with regard to cyber forensics, which is important today,” Singh said.

In 2002, India set up a satellite-based communication network called Police Telecommunication Network (POLNET) to enable faster communication between the police and paramilitary forces.

As of 2016, only 38 of 75 (51%) districts in Uttar Pradesh had functional POLNET infrastructure, CAG found.

In Gujarat, the entire POLNET system was either out of order or absent in October 2015, CAG found, and observed a 32% deficit in trained manpower to operate the relevant equipment, as of March 2015.

Gujarat spent none of the Rs 31.81 crore it received in 2013 and 2014 to upgrade its urban policing infrastructure. From 2009-10 to 2014-15, 73% of the funds Gujarat received for this purpose remained unspent.

(Mehta, a second-year undergraduate at the University of Chicago, is an intern with IndiaSpend.)

Courtesy: India Spend

The post Indian Police Forces Short Of Communications, Transport, Weapons But Not Money appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The police first arrested the victims on charges of animal cruelty under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and later three attackers, who are out on bail. The victims remain incarcerated.

This is the 131st bovine-related hate crime to be reported in India since 2010, according to our database that tracks such violence, which has claimed at least 47 lives and injured 264 people. 

The attack in the southern MP district of Khandwa on July 8, 2019, was the eighth cow-related hate crime this year. The 25 men were attacked for “illegally” transporting cows to Maharashtra, the attackers alleged.

The police said the animals were bullocks and calves, the transport of which in MP and Maharashtra requires special permits, which the transporters allegedly did not have.

The attackers tied the group together with a rope and paraded them for a distance of 2 km. Videos circulated on social media revealed that the men were forced to do sit-ups and were abused, as they chanted “Gau mata ki jai.”

Police confirmed to FactChecker that they first arrested the victims on charges of pashu kroorta (animal cruelty). They later arrested three attackers, who were later released on bail. The victims of the violence were in prison when this story was released.

Police act against victims in a third of cases nationally
The police action in Congress-ruled MP followed a national pattern recorded by our database of police acting against victims in about a third of these cases under various state cow-protection laws.

About 98% or 127 of the crimes recorded in the database, built with English media reports and on-ground verification, took place after 2014, when the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) first came to power at the Centre.

The incident from Khandwa was reported from the district’s eastern Khalwas area in Sanwalikheda village.

“We registered a case against the 25 people under Section 429 of the IPC for pashu kroorta (animal cruelty),” police inspector S S Rawat of the Khandwa police station told FactChecker. 

“They were brought to us by the Bajrang Dal. We got them evaluated at a hospital, and they only have minor injuries.”

A case has also been filed against the attackers who brought the group of 25 men to the station, under various sections of the IPC for unlawful restraint, unlawful confinement, obscene acts or words in public, voluntarily causing hurt, and a criminal act done by several persons to further the common intention of all.

Of the mob, Rawat said: “Three people have been arrested. However, given that it was a bailable offence, they have now been bailed.”

He said the mob of attackers predominantly comprised members of the Bajrang Dal, the youth wing of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). In 2018, the US’ Central Intelligence Agency deemed both these organisations to be “religious militant organisations” and “political pressure groups”, the Tribune reported in June 2018.

Rawat denied allegations that the victims were transporting cows. “They were transporting bullocks and calves,” he said. The victims said they were transporting the bovines to a cattle fair in Maharashtra, NDTV reported on July 8, 2019.

Both MP cow-related attacks this year linked to VHP
This is the second such crime to be reported this year since the BJP re-emerged as the clear winner in the recent 2019 general elections, winning 28 of 29 seats in the state. Since 2010, the state has reported 10 cow-related hate crimes, our database shows.

Both attacks this year were reported after the Congress won the state in December 2018, replacing a three-term BJP government, and were attributed to Hindu right-wing organisations linked to the VHP.

MP’s first incident this year took place a day before the Lok Sabha election results on May 22, 2019 in Seoni, south-eastern MP, where a group of men including the district administrator of the Sri Ram Sena, an off-shoot of the VHP, attacked a Hindu and his two Muslim friends for allegedly “carrying beef”, as FactChecker reported on May 27, 2019.

“The government should investigate the facts before conducting any trial, but ever since the Congress has come to power, innocent people are being punished,” said Kamal Patel, a BJP leader.

“If the [District] Collector or SP (Superintendent of Police) is responsible for accusing innocent people, then the chief minister will personally monitor the situation,” said Sajjan Singh Verma, minister for MP’s environment and public works departments.

MP intends law to penalise cow vigilantes
This week, chief minister Kamal Nath is to table in the legislative assembly an amendment to MP’s anti-cow slaughter law, enacted in 2004. If the amendment is successful, it could be the first law in India to specifically address cow vigilantism.

On June 26, 2019, the MP state cabinet approved an amendment to the state’s cow protection law, the Madhya Pradesh Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam. The amendment to the state law seeks to include a clause to prosecute those who commit violence on the pretext of gau raksha or “cow protection”, with a minimum jail term of six months and a maximum of five years, with a fine that ranges from Rs 25,000 to Rs 50,000. Those abetting such violence may be jailed for one to three years.

In 2004, then chief minister Uma Bharti of the BJP brought into force a law that enforced a ban on cow slaughter, including the sale or donation of cows for slaughter. Those found guilty could be fined up to Rs 10,000 and jailed for up to three years.

Six years later, in 2011, the BJP government under former chief minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan, amended the law, raising the jail term to seven years and included a minimum fine of Rs 5,000.

The government also reversed the innocent-until-proven-guilty principle, placing the burden of proof on the accused.

(Mehta, a second-year political science undergraduate at the University of Chicago, is an intern at FactChecker.in.)

Courtesy: https://www.factchecker.in/
 

The post In MP, Police Imprison Victims Of Cow-Related Attack, Attackers Free appeared first on SabrangIndia.

We compared finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman’s speech from July 5, 2019, with former finance minister Arun Jaitley’s speech when the party came to power in 2014. 

Jaitley’s speech was 16,489 words long and lasted 2 hours, 7 minutes and 42 seconds. Sitharaman’s speech was 20,223 words lasting 2 hours, 9 minutes and 13 seconds. In places, the pace of the speech differed. So, we analysed the word-count as well.

We calculated the ratio of words spent on each topic to the full word-count of the speech. We derived the words used on each issue largely from the sections into which the speech itself is divided, barring cases such as agriculture that did not have a separate section in 2019 unlike in 2014.

Here’s how the two finance ministers chose to use their time announcing the Union budget: 

Agriculture:
Nirmala Sitharaman spent around 3 minutes, 1.11% of the duration of her speech, on agriculture, discussing the potential of agricultural produce to generate revenue from “allied activities” such as the generation of renewable energy and sale of timber and bamboo.

In 2014, Arun Jaitley had spent 8 minutes, 7.22% of his budget speech, on agriculture, outlining the government’s plan to improve the agriculture industry technologically, set up universities and research centres for the same, and create substantial programmes for the extension of long- and short-term agricultural credit.

Sitharaman spent around 16 minutes, 6.16% of her speech, talking about rural development, two-thirds of which focused on affirming the success of the government’s schemes over the past five years and outlining the current government’s goals for the future. She announced one allocation: Rs 80,250 crore to the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana, as part of her speech on rural development.

In comparison, Jaitley spent 3.5 minutes, 2.63% of his speech, on rural development, speaking about the National Livelihood Mission, Rural Housing and the Backward Region Grant Fund to develop basic infrastructure in backward areas.

Taxes, Business and Finance:
Sitharaman spoke for 36.5 minutes (60%) as compared to Jaitley (30%), who spoke for 36 minutes on taxes.

Apart from “announcing” a slew of tax sops that were previously announced by her predecessor finance minister Piyush Goyal in February 2019, Sitharaman also announced a 3% surcharge on income over Rs 2 crore per annum, and a 7% surcharge on income over Rs 5 crore per annum. She extended a 25% corporate tax to companies with a turnover of up to Rs 400 crore.

Aside from taxes, Sitharaman spent nearly 20 minutes, 6% of her speech, outlining the government’s policies for business, including the banking and financial sectors.

In comparison, Jaitley spent close to 5 minutes, 10.1% of his speech, describing programmes for the business class. 

This included talking about foreign direct investment, bank capitalisation, public sector units’ capital expenditure, instruments such as real estate investment trusts (REITs) and infrastructure investment trusts (InvITs), the eBiz platform (a business-to-business commerce platform), micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs), and the finance policy.

Healthcare:
Including the expenditure by states, India spends 1.4% of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health. This is still is still much below the 2.5% of GDP goal set by the National Health Policy of 2017, and even the 2010 target of 2% of GDP, as IndiaSpend reported in April 2017. Nepal spends 2.3% of its GDP on health while Sri Lanka spends 2%, data show, as IndiaSpend reported in January 2018.

The word ‘health’ appeared in Sitharaman’s speech thrice: first, while outlining the government’s vision for the coming decade; second, while praising the impact of the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan; and third, while describing tax incentives for individuals to spend on healthcare.

Jaitley had spent more than 3 minutes, 2.15% of his speech, describing the government’s healthcare programmes, including setting up new All India Institutes of Medical Sciences in various states, as well as government medical colleges and model rural healthcare research centres.

Education:
Sitharaman spent a larger proportion of her speech discussing education (5 minutes, 2.42%) than Jaitley did in 2014 (2 minutes, 1.46%).

Sitharaman’s speech focused on higher education, and the ‘Khelo India’ programme.

She called for the creation of a commission of higher education in India, and allocated Rs 400 crore for the formation of “World Class Institutions”. Cuts in education spending as a share of total expenditure, announced by Piyush Goyal in the interim budget, as IndiaSpend reported on February 5, 2019, were left unaddressed in her speech.

Jaitley’s speech focused more on primary and middle schooling, including the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and a teachers’ training programme. 

Renewable energy:
Sitharaman mentioned the word ‘renewable’ twice in her entire speech; neither reference dealt with any government programme. Towards greener energy alternatives, nearly 1% of her speech was devoted to electric vehicles, in which she expounded upon tax incentives and government investment to promote the use of electric vehicles.

Jaitley had spent close to a minute, 1.3% of his speech, outlining plans regarding renewable energy for the implementation of ultra mega solar power projects in five states, and the construction of a Green Energy Corridor. He mentioned ‘climate change’ on three occasions and the word ‘environment’ once in his speech.

Ganga rejuvenation:
The discussion about the Ganga has diverged between 2014 and 2019.

Sitharaman spent around a minute, 0.59% of her speech, on the Ganga, and did not mention the National Mission for Clean Ganga, launched in 2011. Instead, she predicted that with increased focus on developing the navigational capacity of the river, the movement of cargo would increase by four times in the next four years.

Jaitley spent around a minute as well, 1.19% of his speech, on the Ganga, outlining his plans for navigation projects on the river and a Ganga Conservation Mission, then budgeted at Rs 2,037 crore, including an non-resident Indian (NRI) fund.

Urban issues:
Jaitley spent nearly 4 minutes, 3.37% of his speech, introducing the government’s urban programmes, laying out a vision for increased shared investment, low-cost housing, slum development, the Atal Mission For Rejuvenation & Urban Transformation (AMRUT) and the Smart Cities Mission.

Sitharaman spent close to half that amount (3 minutes, 1.85%) focusing on urban matters. She congratulated the achievements of the urban housing scheme and called for more investment for transport infrastructure via public-private partnerships, including metro-lines and suburban railways. She did not mention either smart cities or the AMRUT programme.

Water:
Sitharaman spent around 1.5 minutes, 1.12% of her speech, on water, an issue that is critical in the face of consecutive drought and increased scarcity, as IndiaSpend reported (here and here). She announced the merger of the ministries of water resources, river development and Ganga rejuvenation into the Jal Shakti Mantralaya. The Har-Ghar-Jal and Jal Jeevan Mission will ensure piped water access to all households in India by 2024, she said. 

Jaitley had spent 37 seconds, 0.42% of his speech discussing water in 2014, describing projects as the National Rural Drinking Water Programme, including treatment of sewage and industrial effluents, and de-contamination from flouride, arsenic, etc. in both urban and rural areas.

(Mehta, a second-year political science undergraduate at the University of Chicago, is an intern at IndiaSpend.)

We welcome feedback. Please write to respond@indiaspend.org. We reserve the right to edit responses for language and grammar.

The post Sitharaman’s #Budget2019 Speech Sounded A Lot Like Jaitley’s 2014 Budget appeared first on SabrangIndia.