1. Urgent! Petition against death penalty for Mohammed Afzal Guru
2. JKCCS statement
3. Should Mohammed Afzal Die? – Nirmalangshu Mukherji
4. SAR Geelani’s statement – August 4, 2005
5. news reports and pics from Kashmir – protests against Afzal Guru sentence
6. NYC Bar Association report on national security laws and repression in India – press release and news report


1. Urgent! Petition against death penalty for Mohammed Afzal Guru
Chiragh sent the letter copied below to the Indian President asking him to stop the hanging of Afzal Guru, currently scheduled for October 20, and for a re-trial; we urge you to write as well– Mohammed Afzal Guru, a resident of Sopore, Kashmir, is condemned to death by the Indian Supreme Court for his part in the attack on the Indian parliament in December 2001. As the materials below show, he did not get a fair trial; the Supreme Court made the inexplicable decision to throw out the confession on which the death sentence was based but upheld the death penalty.

Dear Friends,
Here is a template of a petition addressed to the President of India. You're earnestly requested to act on it and send a copy to ccs@...
Sukla Sen,
EKTA (Committee for Communal Amity),
Mumbai

To
The President of India,
Rashtrapati Bhavan,
New Delhi.
presidentofindia@...

Sub: PETITION AGAINST MOHAMMAD AFZAL GURU'S DEATH PENALTY

Respected Sir,

It is to bring to your kind notice that one Mohammad Afzal Guru, 35, a resident of Sopore, a
town in north Kashmir, was arrested, to our knowledge, in December 2001 in connection with
the armed assault on the Indian Parliament on Decmeber 13 2001. He is presently lodged in the
Tihar Jail, New Delhi waiting to be hanged on 20th instant as per the verdict delivered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
In this connection we'd like to draw your attention further to the fact that under international human rights standards people charged with crimes punishable by death are entitled to the observance of strictest fair trial guarantees in view of the irreversible and most extreme nature of the penalty. Hence meting out of death penalty upon conclusion of a trial in which the provisions of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights had not been respected, which can no longer be remedied by appeal, would constitute a gross violation of the right to life as per the article 6(1) of the aforesaid Covenant.
Keeping in view the above international humanitarian standards, we are of the firm opinion that Afzal Guru's trial was not according to the standards laid out for fair trial.  In his case the Supreme Court of India has rejected the confession that is the basis of his conviction in
the trial court. And according to the evidence produced by the prosecution, he was accused as a
facilitator and not as one directly perpetrating the said crime. And thereby death penalty is grossly disproportionate to the alleged crime committed by him according to the prosecution. By no stretch of imagination it falls under the category of the "rarest of rare" cases. It is also highly pertinent that the trial, from the word go, was highly influenced by the sustained propaganda of the Indian media, which had pronounced him guilty even before the trial started.  It is no wonder and highly significant that under the circumstances the people of Kashmir valley perceive this verdict nothing but as an act of appeasement to the jingoistic pride of India.
The verdict has come at a time when there is global campaign going on against capital punishment. So far 128 nations have abolished it from their statutes and more are
expected to follow. In this context the impact of hanging Mohammad Maqbool Bhat, another Kashmiri, in 1984 in the same Tihar Jail, at the end of a trial which was perceived as patently unfair by the people of the valley, radically aggravating the sense of their alienation with hugely tragic consequences must also be kept in mind.
In view of above we the undersigned earnestly urge you to exercise your Constitutional
prerogative to set aside the said death sentence and also institute a judicial enquiry to find out
the real truths behind the dastardly attack on  the Indian Parliament, as facts have been clearly
fudged and fabricated by the investigation agency which have been clearly acknowledged by the
higher courts, and the flawed investigations carried out thereafter.  This would not only set
a healthy precedent and reinforce the common people's trust and faith in Indian democracy but
also go a long way to soothe the inflamed feelings of the people of the Kashmir valley and
thereby help the "peace process" now under way.

Yours sincerely,



2. From JKCCS
October 1, 2006

Dear Friends,

Mohammad Afzal Guru, 35, a resident of a north Kashmir town of Sopore, was arrested in December 2001 in connection with the attack on the Indian parliament in New Delhi. Afzal is presently lodged in New Delhi's high security Tihar jail and is facing death penalty, the date for which has been fixed as 20th October 2006.
We condemn Mohammad Afza's capital punishment and therefore appeal you to join our efforts for the withdrawal of death sentence.
Keeping in view the international humanitarian standards, we are of the opinion that the Afzal
Guru's trial was not satisfying the standards laid out for fair trial. In his case the confession that was basis of his conviction in trial court was rejected by the Supreme Court of India and according to the evidence produced by the State he was accused as a facilitator and not
directly involved in the attack. Thereby, the death penalty is disproportionate even according
to the Indian Supreme Court's different judgements and the case doesn't even fall under
the "rarest of rare" cases in which the Supreme Court of India has observed death penalty should
be awarded. The trial was completely influenced by the propagandist Indian media, which had
pronounced its verdict even before the trial had actually begun. The Kashmiris perceive the death
sentence to Afzal Guru as an act of appeasement to the jingoistic pride of India. Also the timing
and date fixed by the Court seems to be motivated.
Attached is the appeal for signature campaign
[http://www.sacw.net/hrights/Appeal.jpg]. We also appeal you to either write in your individual or the organisational capacity the protest letters to the Indian President or send a copy to us.
Please send a copy of your letters to us [at <ccs@...>].

In struggle,

SAVE AFZAL GURU CAMPAIGN
Organised by: JK Coalition of Civil Society

3.
The Economic and Political Weekly

September 17, 2005





SHOULD MOHAMMAD AFZAL DIE?



Three judicial pronouncements have been made on the Parliament attack case including the latest Supreme Court judgment. But certain questions are still unanswered: Who attacked Parliament and what was the conspiracy? On what basis did the NDA government take the country close to a nuclear war? What were the roles of the state task force of Jammu and Kashmir and special cell of Delhi police investigating the cases? Given the momentous nature of these questions, for the future of Indian democracy nothing less than a Parliamentary enquiry is necessary to provide the
answers.

by Nirmalangshu Mukherji

The Supreme Court delivered its judgment on the case relating to the December 13, 2001 attack on Parliament on August 4, 2005. It acquitted S A R Geelani and Afsan Guru from all charges, and reduced the sentence for Shaukat Hussain Guru, absolving him of all charges of conspiracy.
However, it upheld the judgment of the high court in sentencing Mohammad Afzal to death for
actively participating in the conspiracy to attack Parliament and waging war against the
Indian state. Afzal is characterised as a "menace to the society", whose "life should become
extinct" to satisfy "the collective conscience of the society."1
Within a day, the editorial of a respected newspaper - known for its coverage of issues of
rights and justice - commented on this judgment. It took a characteristically human view of the
verdicts on Geelani, Afsan and Shaukat. For Afzal, however, the paper joined the judges in
speaking on behalf of the "collective conscience of the society": "there is no warrant for any special sympathy for Mohammad Afzal whose role as a conspirator in the Parliament attack case - which has been detailed by the prosecution and confirmed by three courts of law - has been
established beyond a shadow of doubt."2

With three of the "estates of democracy" surrounding him, Mohammad Afzal has little chance
of escaping the hangman. More significantly, as the noose tightens, Afzal will die in silence.
Yet, there is the legislature - the first estate. Is there a case for Mohammad Afzal before the
forum of the people?



Confession for the State
The judicial proceedings recorded two occasions on which Mohammad Afzal spoke before the law: his confessional statement before the police and his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. There was also the "disclosure statement" recorded by the police soon after his arrest. But, disclosure statements by themselves are not admissible as evidence.
In his confessional statement, Afzal narrated the entire conspiracy and the operational details of
the attack on Parliament. I wish to draw the attention to the following part of the story of
conspiracy.3  It begins with Maulana Masood Azhar, the leader of Jaish-e-Mohammad, based in
Pakistan, instructing, at the instance of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), one Ghazi Baba, the supreme commander of the outfit in Kashmir, to carry out actions on important institutions of India. Ghazi Baba directed one Tariq Ahmed to arrange for an operation. Tariq got in touch with Mohammad Afzal and motivated him to join the jehad for the liberation of Kashmir. Afzal met Ghazi Baba and the plan was worked out. It was going to be a joint operation of Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Toiba. Beginning with one Mohammad, Afzal arranged for several militants - Haider, Hamza, Raja and Rana - to bring huge quantities of arms, explosives and a laptop computer to Delhi into pre-arranged hideouts. In Delhi, the team got in touch with
Afzal's cousin, Shaukat Hussain Guru, Shaukat's wife Afsan Guru and S A R Geelani, a lecturer of Arabic in Delhi University.
In the beginning, the terrorists kept their options open between the Delhi assembly, UK and US embassies, Parliament and the airport. Reconnaissance was conducted accordingly. However, Ghazi Baba instructed them over satellite telephone to attack Parliament. In a final meeting on the night of December 12, 2001, the militants handed over Rs 10 lakh to Afzal, Shaukat and Geelani for their part in the conspiracy; they also handed over the laptop to be returned to Ghazi Baba.
This story was presented by the police, argued for by the prosecution, propagated repeatedly in full colours by the print and the visual media for the past three and a half years, and ratified
by two courts of law. The prosecution's story was transformed into a telefilm by Zee TV. "The film was shown to the then prime minister and then the home minister, and the media recorded their approval of the film", Nandita Haksar reports.4 The film was telecast repeatedly before
the first judgment on the case was delivered (December 13, p 27 for more).
Apart from Afzal's confessional statement, there was never an iota of independent evidence corroborating the story just sketched (December 13, pp 41-44). Citing "incontrovertible evidence" on the floor of Parliament and holding Pakistan responsible for the attack, the government
mounted a massive military offensive that brought India and Pakistan to the brink of war with fingers on the nuclear trigger. Nearly 10,000 crore of rupees were spent and 800 soldiers died in the war effort. Reportedly, over 100 children died and many farmers lost their livelihoods due to heavy mining in the border areas. "After the unfortunate incident," the high court observed, "the clouds of war with our neighbour loomed large for a long period of time," "the nation suffered not only an economic strain, but even the trauma of an imminent war."5
The Supreme Court has now set aside Mohammad Afzal's confessional statement in the following words: "All these lapses and violations of procedural safeguards guaranteed in the statute itself impel us to hold that it is not safe to act on the alleged confessional statement of Afzal and place reliance on this item of evidence on which the prosecution places heavy reliance" (SCJ, pp 158-59).
With the confession set aside, the story of conspiracy linking ISI, Masood Azhar, Jaish-e-Mohammad, Lashkar-e-Toiba, Ghazi Baba, Tariq, and the rest, disappears from the judgment
 of the court. All we learn from the judgment is that five heavily armed men with sundry names
attacked Indian Parliament and died, and that Mohammad Afzal participated in the conspiracy (SCJ, p 193). Period. In the two weeks since this judgment, the entire media has failed to mention this enormous fact.
The court's rejection of the confession has two parts. In the first, it mentioned a series of objections raised by the defence which the court found "plausible and persuasive" (SCJ, p 149).
However, the court held that "it is not necessary to rest our conclusion on these probabilities," since, in the second part, the court found some direct reasons to set aside the confession. The investigating agency, namely, the special cell of the Delhi police, violated even the minimal safeguards sanctioned under the otherwise draconian POTA. These included the denial of
legal assistance to the accused after POTA was introduced in the case, the failure to inform any
relative,6 taking the accused back to the police custody after the confession, and the failure to
give the confessor sufficient time to reflect before the confession (SCJ, pp 150-58). According to the court, these violations themselves have a "bearing on the voluntariness of confession"
(ibid, p 158).
Why were all these basic safeguards systematically violated? For an answer, it is worth discussing the "probabilities" which the court found "plausible and persuasive"; they lead
 us far beyond the restricted legal window through which the court looked at the Parliament attack
case. For brevity, we discuss just the issue of the timing of the confession (See December 13, pp 86-90, for more). The confessions were recorded on December 21, 2001, after POTO was introduced in the case on December 19. As noted, Afzal and Shaukat allegedly made disclosure statements immediately after their arrest on December 15, 2001. Displaying incredible loquacity, both Afzal and Shaukat had apparently poured out everything they knew about the conspiracy. Following the disclosures, the police had already gathered most of the alleged facts of the case before December 19. The confessions themselves did not contain anything that was not already available to the police on independent investigation based on the earlier disclosures (SCJ, p 148). Why then were the confessions, allowed by POTO, needed?
More importantly, "there was no perceptible reason why the accused should not have been produced before a judicial magistrate for recording a confession under the provision of Cr
P C" (ibid, p 148; also, p 59). According to the court, the defence held that the accused were
"not prepared to make the confession in a court and, therefore, the investigating authorities
found the ingenuity of adding POTA offences at that stage so as to get the confession recorded
by a police officer according to the wishes of the investigators" (ibid). As noted, the court
found this argument "plausible and persuasive".
Until alternative explanations are offered, the following picture emerges. The government wanted
to use the 'window of opportunity' offered by the attack on Parliament to go to war against Pakistan (December 13, pp 5-13). After the investigations were virtually over within days after the attack, there was no evidence to link the attack with Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. Hence, POTO was belatedly introduced on the December 19; soon after, the government mobilized its troops. Afzal was made to confess before the media on the December 20 so as to lend credibility to the official confession to follow on December 21. The eminent lawyer Shanti Bhusan suggested that "the police failed to crack the case" as "all the five militants died in the attack". So the police "framed people" in order "to create a conspiracy case" for the government to take the country "to the brink of a nuclear war".7
Once POTO was introduced, Rajbir Singh, an assistant commissioner of police in the special cell was made the investigating officer (IO) of the case: "Singh was already under a cloud when the home ministry, then under L K Advani, appointed him to head the investigation into the attack on the Indian Parliament".8 The appointment was technically correct, yet one wonders if it was proper to appoint such a junior officer as IO in this immensely complex and sensitive case.9 The modus operandi of securing the confession throws light on the issue. With ACP Rajbir Singh as IO, the confession was obtained by the DCP Ashok Chand in the special cell itself. It is not surprising that legal assistance was not offered, no relatives were informed, and that Afzal was taken back to police custody on some pretext. Things stayed within the special cell, no chances were taken. Mohammad Afzal was a pawn in the designs of the state.

Trial by Design

The introduction of POTO also allowed the trial to be held in the designated special court for POTA. The Indian law ministry appointed Shiv Narayan Dhingra as a special judge: "by the 1990s, he was handling cases of terrorism and had earned the name the hanging judge".10 The trial began in June 2002 in an atmosphere in which the trauma of an imminent war and the smoke from the pogroms in Gujarat hung over the nation, the country was baying for the blood of the accused after a massive propaganda by the police and the media,11 and POTA had become the law of the land. Very few lawyers were willing to oblige: most "did not want to be associated with the Parliament attack case".12 Moreover, the special judge ordered a 'fast-track' trial in this immensely complex case. The trial lasted just over five months in which the prosecution presented 80 witnesses. It is hard to see how a fair trial could be accomplished under these
conditions.
The defence of Mohammad Afzal, the key figure in the state-sponsored story of conspiracy, suffered the most. With great difficulty, Geelani's defence managed to produce some witnesses; Afzal had none. He had no legal defence in the period between his arrest on December 15, 2001 and the filing of the chargesheet on May 14, 2005; in other words, no counsel had studied the complex case. When he "declined to engage a counsel on his own," the special judge appointed the noted criminal lawyer Seema Gulati, who took charge on May 17 along with her junior Neeraj Bansal (SCJ, p 139).
On June 5, all the defence lawyers agreed not to dispute postmortem reports, MLCs, and documents related to recovery of guns and explosive substances at the spot resulting in "dropping of considerable number of witnesses for the prosecution". The court did not dispute the contention of the defence counsel at the Supreme Court that Gulati "took no instructions from Afzal or discussed the case with him". Taking a strictly legalistic view, the court merely held that the "counsel had excercised her discretion reasonably. The appellant accused did not object to this course adopted by the amicus throughout the trial" (SCJ, p 140). On July 1, Gulati "filed an application praying for her discharge from the case citing a curious reason that she had been engaged by another accused Gilani" (ibid, p 140).
On July 2, Gulati's junior Neeraj Bansal was appointed amicus. Afzal protested against this nomination on July 8 and submitted a list of four senior advocates. Since none was willing to take
 up the case, Bansal continued as amicus for the rest of the trial. "In capital cases", Ram Jethmalani observed, "particularly those that arouse public prejudice and anger against the accused making it difficult for them to arrange for their own defence, it was the duty of the court to provide adequate defence at state expense". In response, taking a strictly legalistic view, the Supreme Court held that "taking an overall view of the assistance given by the court and the performance of the counsel, it cannot be said that the accused was denied the facility of effective defence" (ibid pp 141-42).
The amicus, Neeraj Bansal, did not even pay a visit to his client: "his presence and participation have caused confusion and prejudice vitiating the trial," Jethmalani observed.13 Afzal's wife Tabassum says, "The court appointed a lawyer who never took instructions from Afzal, or cross- examined the prosecution witnesses. That lawyer was communal and showed his hatred for my husband".14 The Supreme Court held that the "criticism against the counsel seems to be an afterthought raised at the appellate stage" (SCJ, p 139). Where else could it be raised and who could have raised it at the trial stage?
These concerns assume immense significance now that the Supreme Court has sentenced Mohammad Afzal to death on the sole basis of circumstantial evidence admitted in the trial. We must also note that this body of evidence was presented by an investigating agency widely known for false arrests and fake encounters.15 In the Parliament case itself it is now clear that the special cell tried to frame at least three innocent persons. Earlier, the high court had mentioned the production of false arrest memos, doctoring of telephone conversations and illegal confinement of people to force them to sign blank papers. As we saw, it is evident that false confessions were extracted by force.
This is not the place to study in detail the Supreme Court's handling of the circumstantial evidence against Mohammad Afzal. We will cite just two pieces of evidence to illustrate the general problem.
(1) The court held that Afzal knew the deceased terrorists since he identified them. Afzal also admitted the same in his confession. With the confession set aside, the sole evidence against Afzal is that he identified them in the morgue. The evidence has two parts: the identification memo prepared by the police (PW76), and Afzal's signature against the column 'identified by' in the postmortem report. As for the identification memo, the court relied on it because "there was not even a suggestion put to PW76 touching on the genuineness of the documents relating to identification memo" (SCJ, p 161); in other words, Neeraj Bansal did not object. As for the signatures, the defence counsels decided not to dispute the postmortem reports, as noted. It did not materially affect the other accused, but Afzal is likely to pay with his life for this decision taken without his consent. In his statement u/s 313 Cr P C, Afzal said: "I had not identified any terrorist. Police told me the names of terrorists and forced me to identify" (December13, p 165).
(2) It is a crucial part of the prosecution's story that the police explain how they reached Mohammad Afzal beginning with the site of attack; otherwise, the arrests would seem to be pre-planned rather than based on a chain of leading evidence.16 The prosecution claimed that the police finally reached Afzal through a sequence of arrests beginning with Geelani, whom the police could trace first because he held a mobile phone registered with the telecom company Airtel. But the letter from Airtel furnishing the call records and Geelani's residential address was dated December 17, 2001; all the accused had been arrested by December 15. How could the police arrest Geelani two days before it got the phone records that "led" them to him? This letter poses other serious problems for the prosecution's case regarding the actual date on which POTO was introduced in the case (December 13, pp 74-86). However, the court did not "consider it necessary to delve further" into this letter since "no question was put to PW35 - the security manager of Airtel" (SCJ, p 30).
Further, "none of the witnesses pertaining to the FIR were cross-examined" (SCJ, p 31).
Whatever be the legal merit of the court's judgment on Afzal, the question arises as to whether there is a moral warrant for capital punishment on the basis of a trial like this.

A Surrendered Militant

The question of moral warrant arises from another more insidious direction. Given  the involuntary nature of the confession, it is pertinent to reflect on the fact that Afzal agreed to sign the document at all. Was Afzal a free agent during those early turbulent days right after the attack when he was in police custody before and after the making of the confession? Could he afford to refuse the recording of his confession at that stage when he had already done the rounds with the police, allegedly incriminating himself in everything that the police wanted?
These queries are compounded by the fact, as repeatedly noted in all the judgments, that Afzal is a surrendered militant. Afzal was not only supposed to report regularly to the security forces, but was also under their surveillance. How could such a person mastermind and execute such a complex conspiracy? And how could a terrorist organisation rely upon such a person as the principal link for their operation? Did he enter into some arrangement with the security forces to buy his survival? Some dark answers to these questions begin to form when we look at Afzal's statement 313.
The statement 313, unlike confession under POTA, is made by an accused before the court rather than before a police officer; also, this statement is made when an accused is in judicial custody, not in police custody. The special judge of the POTA court recorded the fact that "a surrendered terrorist has to mark his attendance with regular intervals at the STF, J&K" (para 222). "STF, J&K" stands for State Task Force, Jammu and Kashmir, a shadowy counter-insurgency outfit of the state. To our knowledge, this fact is stated only in Afzal's statement u/s 313 Cr P C. With this citation, therefore, the Special Court judgment lend credibility to the statement. Furthermore, there are manifest instances of honesty and truthfulness in Afzal's statement 313. For example, Afzal did not shy away from admitting the possibly incriminating fact that he brought Mohammad from Kashmir and that he accompanied Mohammad when the latter purchased a second-hand ambassador car. When his lawyer attempted to deny this fact during the trial, Afzal intervened to insist that he indeed accompanied Mohammad (SCJ, p 182).
Pursuing the relevant paragraph of this statement then, we learn about the circumstances of Afzal's surrender to BSF in 1993 in detail. Afzal states: he was frequently asked by the STF to work for them; he often paid large sums of money to the STF to avoid and/or escape detention; he was detained as late as in 2000; he was asked to become a special police officer, which is an euphemism for 'police informer'; he met one Tariq in the STF camp; this Tariq was already working for the STF and he wanted Afzal to join the force as well; Afzal was introduced to one Mohammad by Tariq also in the STF camp; Tariq persuaded him to take Mohammad to Delhi from where Mohammad was planning to go abroad (December13, pp 90-92).
A number of disturbing consequences follow. First, Afzal was in close touch with the security agencies throughout the period 1993 to at least 2000. Second, three of the persons allegedly involved in the attack - Tariq, Afzal, Mohammad: the mastermind, the link, the leader of the attack - originated from the STF camp itself. In addition, we now know of a press report from Thane that four terrorists including one 'Hamza' - the same name as one of the terrorists killed in the Parliament attack - had been arrested by the Thane police in November 2000, and handed over to the J and K police for further investigation.17
Grave, unanswered questions surround the Parliament attack case even after three judicial pronouncements. Who attacked Parliament and what was the conspiracy? On what basis did the NDA government take the country close to a nuclear war? What was the role of the State Task Force (J and K) on surrendered militants? What was the role of the special cell of Delhi police in conducting the case?
It will be a travesty of justice to hang Mohammad Afzal without ascertaining answers to these questions. Given the momentous nature of these questions, for the future of Indian democracy nothing less than a Parliamentary inquiry is needed to address them (December 13, pp 96-103).

Notes

1. Judgment of the Supreme Court of India (henceforth, SCJ), August 4, 2005, pp 203-04.
2. The Hindu, edit page, August 6, 2005.
3. For more details, see my December 13:Terror over Democracy (henceforth, December13), Bibliophile South Asia, New Delhi, 2005, pp 38-41.
4. Nandita Haksar, 'Tried by the Media: The S A R Geelani Trial', Crisis/Media: Sarai Reader 04, Centre for Studies in Developing Societies, Delhi, February 2004, p 161.
5. Judgment of the high court, Murder Reference 1 of 2003, October 29, 2003, para 448.
6. The high court had observed earlier that Afzal's arrest memo was in fact signed by Geelani's brother, Bismillah, while Bismillah was himself in 'illegal confinement' and he was forced to 'sign papers' (judgment of the high court, para 251).
7. Tehelka: The People's Paper, October 16, 2004, p. 21.
8. Basharat Peer, 'Victims of December 13', The Guardian Weekend, July 5, 2003.
9. In fact, 'It is indeed surprising that the investigations were not handed over to the premier investigating agency, the CBI, but to an agency whose capacities are so much in doubt', Trial of Errors: A Critique of the POTA Court Judgment on the 13 December Case, Peoples Union for Democratic Rights, Delhi, February 2003.
10. Basharat Peer, 'Victims of December 13', The Guardian Weekend, July 5, 2003.
11. See my 'The Media and December 13', Znet South Asia, September 30, 2004.
12. Nandita Haksar and K Sanjay Singh, 'December 13', Seminar 521, January 2003.
13. Written submissions on behalf of S A R Geelani, Murder Reference 1 of 2003, presented by
Ram Jethmalani, senior advocate.
14. 'A Wife's Appeal for Justice', Kashmir Times, October 21, 2004.
15. For a recent review of the functioning of the special cell, see my 'A Very Special Police', Znet, June 29, 2005.
16. See December 13, pp 70-80 for a detailed discussion of the murky business of arrest memos.
17. 'What's In a Name?', Thaneplus, The Times of India, Pune edition, December 26, 2001.






4. Subject: Statement of SAR Geelani on Kashmir

Statement of Sayed Abdul Rahman Geelani made on August 4, 2005 on the eve of Supreme Court verdict in which he expands on the larger Kashmir Question and the state of Indian Democracy, besides his frame-up case in the  Dec 2001 attack of Indian parliament,  assassination  attempts and acquittal:



Statement of Sayed Abdul Rahman Geelani:

http://home.comcast.net/~akhila_raman/files/geelani_statement.html
Statement of Sayed Abdul Rahman Geelani



New Delhi August 4, 2005

I have been accused of being a part of a conspiracy to attack the Indian Parliament. I was arrested, tortured and put in solitary confinement. From the start I maintained that I was innocent and that the police was trying to frame me. I was sentenced to death on December 18, 2002. It is true that the Delhi High Court acquitted me. And today the Supreme Court has upheld the High Court's decision. Naturally I am happy to be free man but I do not think an acquittal of an innocent man is a cause for celebration. I think it is a time for reflection on why he was framed and sentenced to death without evidence.
I would like to use this occasion to reflect on my experiences and share my thoughts on why I was framed. I am a teacher by profession and it is the job of a teacher to always reflect on his experience and draw the right lessons from his experience, without anger or bitterness. That is what my statement seeks to do.

The Kashmir Question
I am a Kashmiri. I have grown up surrounded by the awesome beauty of the snow-clad mountains and the magnificent Chinar trees. However, when I think of the Valley, it is not the beauty that I remember. My life, like the lives of other Kashmiri people, has been inextricably linked to the conflict that has torn apart our land. I have seen young men with broken bones and marks of torture buried by grieving parents. I have seen the pain in the eyes of women raped and the anguish of parents who cannot save their small children from hurt. I have seen my own children growing up with nightmares instead of dreams.
I do not write these words with any bitterness. I have no personal animus against any of the policemen, judges or jail authorities that have been the cause of my suffering. I believe they are all part of the system that has been responsible for the pain and grief of many Kashmiris. I have not suffered any more than other Kashmiri men have in my generation. I was illegally arrested and tortured. So have many other thousands of Kashmiri men. I was framed in a false case. This is true for so many other Kashmiris who are even now languishing in the same jail that I was lodged. I have been on death row for less than a year but there has been an attempt on my life. I am lucky because I have survived but so many Kashmiris have been killed in false encounters even in Delhi, the capital of democratic India.
My experience has given me an opportunity to see closely the working of Indian democracy and its institutions. And I think the rise of communal-fascist forces along with the so-called war against terrorism has seriously undermined the basic foundations of Indian democracy.
On the day I was released from the jail and I addressed my first media conference I said that I believe there can be no lasting peace in this region unless the Kashmir question is resolved. And the resolution to the conflict can only be achieved through political negotiations.
My statement angered many people, even those who are known for their commitment to democratic values. My supporters and I were called "Spoilers of the peace process". The writer seemed to imply that my speaking of Kashmir would endanger the Indo-Pakistan peace process. I do not understand why he should apprehend this. Kashmiris want that Indo-Pakistan friendship because without that there can be no real development of Kashmir. But the pre-requisite to this is that both India and Pakistan take into account the aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. The Kashmiri people's movement for self-determination is not a reflection of the wishes of one individual, organization or party.
Let us take the example of Sheikh Abdullah, the tallest of the leaders to emerge from Kashmir. He led the movement for years, he was imprisoned and finally he capitulated by signing the agreement in 1975. Fourteen years later, the people of Kashmir once again rose up in revolt against injustice and political dominance.
It is indeed disturbing that even those academics and intellectuals who campaigned for my acquittal felt uncomfortable when I reiterated my stand that there can be no permanent solution to the Indo-Pakistan conflict without taking into account the interests and aspirations of the Kashmiri people.

Role of intelligence agencies
You will ask me why I am talking about general issues instead of my own case. The reason is that I cannot look at my experience apart from that of the Kashmiri people. I believe I was framed in the Parliament attack case only because I am a Kashmiri Muslim. And the intelligence agencies had a hand in framing me.
Kashmir question is a political question and it must be resolved through political negotiations, not by intelligence agencies. These intelligence agencies have systematically destroyed the credibility of individuals and organizations through their disinformation campaign through the media and when this does not succeed, they have tried to buy people and if that does not work there have been attempts to eliminate the Kashmiri who does not succumb.
The intelligence agencies have created such a vicious atmosphere that they do not want even the pro-India leadership to have credibility in the eyes of their fellow Kashmiris. They seem to be interested in creating a political chaos so as to enhance their own insidious role.
International human rights organizations have been documenting the extra-judicial executions, false encounters and widespread torture used in Kashmir as a part of State policy. The attempt to break the will of the people through such methods only reflects a bankruptcy of politics and will ultimately harm the democratic foundations of Indian polity.
There have been at least three attempts to eliminate me, twice while I was inside the Tihar jail and once when I was shot on February 8, 2005. There has been no investigation into these attempted crimes. I believe the reason is that all three attempts on my life were engineered by the intelligence agencies. My colleagues, lawyers and supporters all have expressed the same
fear and they even held a demonstration outside the Police headquarters on February 9, 2005. However, there is no mechanism to hold the intelligence agencies accountable to the people.


Role of the police and judiciary
I have had an opportunity to closely see the workings of the courts and the police. What is most disturbing is that when the police violates procedures and even guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court the trial is held legal. For instance, the police forged my arrest memo and told lies on oath about my arrest. I was denied access to a lawyer, and almost all safeguards with regard to arrests and detention were flagrantly violated. Even my two small children were arrested and detained for several days. Senior advocates have expressed their concern about the way the basic principles of criminal justice system have been sabotaged.
It is true that the Delhi High Court acquitted me but the judgement did not pass any strictures on the lower court judge. The High Court observed that the police had forged documents and fabricated evidence but did not punish them for framing an innocent man. I know many
of the people from the University community were very unhappy with me because I criticized the judiciary on my release.
And today when I stand acquitted by the Supreme Court they would perhaps advise me to acknowledge the fact that the Indian judiciary is independent. I have not yet read
the Supreme Court judgement so I do not know what the judgement has to say about the police, the sessions judge or the prosecution.

Kashmiri prisoners and detainees
But the fact remains that there are many Kashmiri prisoners in various jails all over India. I know many of the prisoners in Tihar jail have been framed. Some of them have not been given a chargesheet, while others are waiting for several years for their trials to begin and almost none of
Them have the benefit of competent legal advice. I believe my co-accused Mohammad Afzal also did not have proper legal assistance. How can a man be condemned to death or life imprisonment without being satisfied that he had been given a fair trial? Who will compensate for the trauma suffered by Afsan Guru who had to give birth to her first baby in jail? Her acquittal after two years of jail cannot bring back her dream of having a home and family.
Her husband will languish in jail, the son will live without his parents and we can only imagine how the child will cope as he grows up.There are so many young Kashmiri students who are in

jail and are released without even a chargesheet being filed against them. They cannot go back to the educational institutions after their release. Their hopes of a professional career shattered.


Role of the Media
I believe the media has a crucial role to play in protecting and preserving democratic institutions. Unfortunately my experience has shown that the media is no longer free. I do not know how far this is a reflection of self-censorship or a reflection of corporatization.
I believe the media is to a large extent responsible for the sufferings of the people of Kashmir. They have built an image of the Kashmiri Muslim has become synonymous with terrorists. It was with the help of the media that the police were able to carry out a pernicious campaign against me in the first few days after my arrest. Zee television made a film which made allegations against me that even the police have not made in the court.
Even after there was an attempt to assassinate me, the media attacked me for not giving my statement to the police. At that time, I was lying with various tubes stuck in my body, my wounds not stitched and I had not yet drunk water. On the pretext that I was purposely delaying giving my statement and my doctors were not co-operating, the Delhi Administration appointed another doctor's team which included a policeman to examine me again. And I was subjected to humiliating examination even though the AIIMS doctors had made it clear that I was not in a fit condition to make a statement.
After I gave my statement to the police stating that I believe that the attack on me was the work of the Special Cell, the police tried to frame me once again. They took away my computer hard disc and sent it to the CFSL Lab in Ahmedabad. I do not know what the CFSL report states but I fear that those who police or intelligence agents who have tried to eliminate me in the past will try to frame me once again.
The media has carried more reports on allegations made by the police than tried to find out who was behind the attack on me. Recently, a newspaper carried a story that the attack on me was the handiwork of Chota Rajan and IB.
Instead of attempting to investigate into the reality, the media carried on making allegations against my family members, friends and supporters. I want to ask you, media persons today, do you think that you have been fair to me?


Civil Society
I feel overwhelmed by emotion when I think of the number of men and women who have supported the campaign for my acquittal. Individual teachers, students, civil right activists and many Indian citizens scattered all over the country. I have had very moving letters from many people expressing their warmth, their best wishes and giving me their blessings.
The fact that the Defence Committee could actually break through the wall of prejudice and hate and reach out to people all over the country is a reflection of the fact that there is some democratic space left within which we can work.
A small group of citizens gathered together to defend me and launched an all India campaign for my acquittal. I did not know many of them personally. I believe these men and women fought not only for the civil liberties of an individual but for Indian democracy. Teachers of Delhi University and Jawaharlal Nehru University sent an Open Letter to the Chief Justice of India expressing their concern that I was being denied a fair trial.
As I said, all those who campaigned for my acquittal did so because of their own commitment to democratic values, justice and freedom. But many of those men and women have become my friends and have provided me comfort and love. To each of them individually and to all my friends, supporters and family, I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks.



Acknowledgements
I know many people have hoped and prayed for my acquittal. In Kashmir, the people had a three-da bandh when the Sessions Court sentenced Afzal, Shaukat and me to death. It was a mark of their solidarity with their fellow Kashmiris. And I was overwhelmed by the warm welcome I was given from the people in Baramulla.
I would like to thank the All India Defence Committee for SAR Geelani for their support and solidarity, especially when many of them did not agree with my political stands. The Defence Committee played a crucial role in getting me defence witnesses and reaching out to people all over the country.
I would like to thank the teachers of Delhi University who campaigned for my acquittal and fought the fascist communal forces who were trying to get my services terminated even before the trial had begun. Many of these teachers had to fight their own teachers unions in order to support and campaign for me. The Delhi University Teachers Association (DUTA) had a one day bandh to protest against the attempt to assassinate me. My warm thanks to my students who stood by me even in the first few days after my arrest. Members of the non teaching staff in my college have been very kind and shown their support in many ways.
I would like to also thank members of the teaching community in other universities who have supported the campaign for my acquittal including Jawaharlal Nehru University, All Bengal University Teachers Union (ABUTA) and teachers in Jamia Milliya Islamia. I would like to especially mention the students who donated their blood when I was shot.
I have not forgotten my friends in Tihar jail who have preserved their humanity in the brutalized
 world of jails, torture and injustice. Many of them put their own lives in danger to save me from murderous attack, provided me with comfort and solace. I promised to do something for the prisoners and detainees when I was acquitted by the High Court. A group of wonderful friends have helped me keep that promise by forming ourselves into a registered Society for the Protection of Detainees and Prisoners' Rights (SPDPR).
I would not be acquitted if it had not been for my lawyers, Mr Ram Jethmalani, Kamini Jaiswal and N D Pancholi. I would not be alive had it not been for the doctors and medical staff of AIIMS.
I would like to express my special thanks to my friend and colleague Kumar Sanjay Singh, my lawyer Nandita Haksar and her husband Sebastian Hongray for their friendship, love and solidarity.
I have been lucky because my family members have stood by me. My two children, Nusrat and Aatif have kept up my morale in the days I was in solitary confinement. The only way I can effectively protect them is to dedicate my life to fighting for the cause of truth, justice and democracy so that we can together work towards building a better world.



Sayed Abdul Rahman Geelani



New Delhi August 4, 2005



5. Media coverage, protests in Kashmir, pictures
Kashmir Times Sept 30, 2006
Retrace suicidal step
Afzal Guroo's hanging will be counter-productive
The black warrant issued by a Delhi court for hanging of Afzal Guroo In Tihar jail on October 20 has naturally hurt the Kashmiri psyche with spontaneous protests rocking the Valley for the last three days. The announcement has not only caused widespread anger in the troubled Valley but has also contributed in bringing the peace process in reverse gear. S.A.S Geelani, who was falsely implicated in the Parliament attack case articulated the feelings of an average Kashmiri when he accused New Delhi of "going ahead with the hanging of another innocent Kashmiri". Whether Guroo was innocent or not is not very material. What makes the decision to hang him at this juncture is indeed most unfortunate. In no case it is in tune with the ongoing peace offensive and is bound to heighten the tension instead of bringing peace and a conducive climate for pursuing the dialogue process. The announcement has only added fuel to the fire. Apart from the announcement it is the timing of the hanging of Guroo, which comes not only during the holy month of Ramzan but also on the auspicious day of the last Friday of the holy month, that has been the cause of provocation. Paradoxically, when the common people were looking for ceasefire during the month they received the shocking news of the hanging of one of their compatriots. Not only the very judgement and capital punishment awarded to the accused in the Parliament case have been questioned what makes it more unfortunate is its very timing and the manner in which it is being done. Instead of healing the wounds and providing a healing touch to the hurt Kashmiri psyche the announcement has caused further wounds with the entire Valley on the verge of a massive explosion of anger.
Around four hundred years ago Shakespeare spoke through Portia, in his famous drama, The Merchant of Venice, that it is "twice blessed when mercy seasons justice". One is naturally reminded of this Shakespearean saying when the judicial verdict is pronounced in the case of Mohammed Afzal. A death sentence, as Gandhiji wrote to the Viceroy, Lord Irwin on the eve of Bhagat Singh's hanging, is not an irrevocable punishment. Without going into the fairness of the judicial pronouncement convicting the accused, one will question the decision -- if it is so decided -- to implement the judicial decision. What larger political and social good will his hanging result in? A few have been already killed and one more may be killed on the 20th. Then, what? Many, in the past, have been so killed in lawful reprisals, but have these succeeded is bringing down the number of those killed annually? Besides, how can one ignore the political backdrop against which this hanging may be carried out. Government of India is in the midst of talks with Pakistan and Kashmiri separatists for a satisfactory settlement of the dispute. It will, indeed, be a great day for both Kashmir and the rest of the region when the Kashmir dispute is settled and real peace dawns in the valley. Will this hanging accelerate or retard the on-going peace process? Both the separatist leaders and the agitations in the valley against this judicial sentence make it amply clear that the hanging will have a disastrous effect on the peace process. Then, why go ahead with it, mainly, to demonstrate Indian machismo? Over two decade ago New Delhi carried out a similar punishment in the case of Maqbul Bhat. What was the result? India behaved as if they had killed a murderer, but the Kashmiris received a martyr. By hanging Afzal India shall be only handing over to them another inspiring martyr, virtually, on a silver platter. Is it what it wants? New Delhi is imploring the Pak government to have mercy on Sarabjit Singh, in the interest of Indo-Pak peace and Musharraf has wisely reserved his power of pardon, so far. Then, why should India demonstrate its efficiency and determination by going ahead with another killing.
Let New Delhi pause and think over the social and political consequences of the step that the judiciary has allowed it to take. None has forced the ultimate authority to go according to the dotted lines. This indeed, is the time when the President can and should exercise his own judgement and decide in the best interest of the country. In January 1946 the trial court at Red Fort sentenced the three I.N.A. heroes, Shanawaz, Saigal and Dhillon to death. Seeing the mood of the nation and of the Indian army Gen. Auchinlek recommended mercy for them and within a couple of days the King pardoned all the three and released them into full freedom. It is for such use that the head of almost every state is equipped with the power of pardon and we believe that this is an occasion when it should be used. The state Chief Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad has also reportedly asked the President to accept the mercy petition of Guroo's family. PDP and CPI-M too have urged for a review saying that Afzal's hanging it will only add to the people's alienation. Even the opposition National Conference has urged New Delhi to review the decision to hang Guroo. In a statement Omar Abdullah pointed out that many people have been killed or hanged "but the Kashmir issue has remained unresolved so far". He said that the situation in the Valley has determinated with every death and the steps of making peace process would turn out to be futile in such a situation. New Delhi must take note of the popular sentiments in Kashmir and listen to the voice of reason. COLUMN
From Ramzan good-will to belligerence
By Anuradha Bhasin Jamwal
For the last several weeks, there was a feeling that this Ramazan may prove to be a turning point in the Kashmir conflict. Three days after the fasting month began, there were no doubts about this prediction. The only difference is that prior to the beginning of Ramazan, it was optimism and a positive change that one was expecting. A Delhi high court, in the Delhi parliament attack case, has decided that the prime accused Afzal Guroo be hanged to death on October 20. The verdict throws up an unexpected situation that is not just shocking but outrageously dangerous, mostly for the simple reason that it transforms a purely optimistic atmosphere, that could have paved way for friendship and flexibility, into one of absolute despair, where everything is closing down to this new found rigidity.
An indication is the massive protests in the Valley and renewal of violence in a month that was expected to scale down the level of violence. The spontaneous protests reflect the anger, shock and frustration. The reasons are not only the execution, which itself is unjustified, whatever the nature of accusations against Afzal. While capital punishment itself is something that cannot be justified, it is strange that a country that pleads the case of Sarbajeet Singh in Pakistan would take pleasures in sending Afzal to gallows. Whether one sees the case in the light of 'one man's terrorist being another man's freedom fighter' or outside it, there can be no means to justify the death penalty since evidence does not point to Afzal's direct involvement˙in the parliament attack case itself.
But more important is the timing of announcing the date of execution. The execution verdict was already clear some months back. It is the fixation of date of sending Afzal to gallows that raises eye-brows. The announcement comes at a time when Kashmiris had been eagerly waiting for the much speculated cease-fire. After months of a disillusioning peace offensive that had begun to break the optimism of the people in a dialogue which never really took off and confidence building measures, which never saw the light of the day but for the rolling of buses between Muzaffarabad and Srinagar, an atmosphere of high hopes was once again being built up. Obviously the last few months of a peace offensive between India and Pakistan failed to bring any kind of official response on the major demands like demilitarization, withdrawal of troops, release of prisoners and repeal of Armed Forces Special Powers Act that legitimises violence in the state. Yet, despite all the inaction, growing disillusionment and alienation of the people, reports of a probable announcement of ceasefire during this holy month of Ramazan had once again inspired hope. Though there was no commitment from the official side, barring chief minister Ghulam Nabi Azad's sole hint dropped a fortnight ago, story after another, quoting official sources had begun to appear in the print media. This was first met by the kind of skepticism that should naturally come as part of a process of disillusionment to the so-called peace offensive. But gradually it began to renew hopes, a sign that was doubly positive, not because it reflected the people's faith in a peace process but also because ceasefire, of not any kind of withdrawal of troops, was a long desired component of confidence building measures. What strengthened the faith was also the flexibility of the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen coinciding with these reports about Ramazan ceasefire and HM's reported decision to consider any offer of ceasefire, if made by New Delhi. It manifested that back channel diplomacy had been at work for sometime on the issue, thus inspiring hope and optimism once again, and breathing back some life into the peace offensive.
However, on the third day of the holy month of fasting, the anxious wait for the moment was over with the court decision on announcing Afzal's hanging on October 20, which incidentally does not only happen to fall during this month of Ramazan but specifically on Jumait-ul-Vida (last Friday before Eid), considered one of the most auspicious days during this fasting period. The date invokes not just surprise but shock, rather horror. Neither the Indian state, nor the judiciary could have been so na‹ve as not to understand the dynamics of the importance of religious sentiments, which if added to sentiments of an already hurt pride and dignity can simply spell disaster. Besides, they are a horrendous example of the double standards of play, of balancing out a ceasefire attack with a death verdict. What is the message being sent to the Kashmiris? Not simply one of belligerence and rigidity.
One needs to understand this new development in the backdrop of dynamics of a wounded psyche and an atmosphere of skepticism. The peace offensive between India and Pakistan that started over two years ago renewed hopes of the people in Kashmir but ever since with not much systematic effort having been made on the ground, the stray moves coupled with beautiful sounding rhetoric has turned out to be the case of one step forward, two steps back, with any gesture or even words of benevolence being followed by unprecedented rigidity. Every time this happens, the level of skepticism increases and this particular incident has shot it up once again. This is particularly dangerous in Kashmir scenario where any bout of disillusionment and skepticism is gradually not just becoming irreversible but also matched by an equally potent process of radicalization, also in keeping with a globalised process. When India's belligerence matches the global belligerence, the shift of the once secular Sufi Kashmir to the other side is but natural.
This process is dangerously, gradually becoming irreversible and the perils thereof, need to be taken into account fully for a more sincere approach to the Kashmir case. Still, everything is not lost; Guroo is likely to file for a mercy petition. While this can be accepted and his sentence commuted to something less severe, the government can also begin spelling out the ceasefire that it has so successfully hyped through the media. These steps for starters, alone can undo the harms and dangers of the suicidal blunder that New Delhi seems to have embarked on vis-a-vis Kashmir.

Greater Kashmir Sept 30, 06
Meet the media: the CRPF way
6 lensmen beaten to pulp
GK NEWS SERVICE
Srinagar, Sep 29: Six photojournalists were injured, two seriously, when soldiers of paramilitary Central Reserve Police Force beat them up during pro-Afzal Guru protests in downtown Srinagar on Friday.
Eyewitnesses said while covering clashes between angry youth and CRPF soldiers at Nowhatta Chowk shortly after the Friday prayers at historic Jamia Masjid, Sajjad Hussain, who works for Greater Kashmir and AFP, spotted a non-Kashmiri man who carried a video camera but pelted stones on houses and vehicles.
“When Sajjad asked the man to disclose his identity, he turned around and shouted at Sajjad, describing the Kashmiri photojournalists as Pakistani agents,” said a spokesman of the Kashmir Press Photographers Association.
In the meantime, the KPPA spokesman said the CRPF personnel pounced on Sajjad and ‘savagely’ beat him up. “The cameraman was a CRPF man in civvies,” he said.
After thrashing Sajjad, who received seven stitches at SKIMS Soura, the CRPF personnel chased away other photojournalists, hurling stones on them.
This prompted strong protests from the photojournalists who put down their cameras in protests. They gathered at Nowhatta Chowk and shouted slogans against the CRPF personnel, accusing them of hampering with their professional duty.
CRPF suspends erring constable
Inspector General of CRPF, Anand Prakash Maheshwari regretted action of his men. “We have placed under suspension the erring constable Ram Nivas and departmental action has been initiated against him,” Maheshwari told Greater Kashmir.
He said he has issued orders that “henceforth designated officer shall be available at locations of law and order deployment to identify the press people, to facilitate their task without falling into conflict with security forces.”
According to PRO CRPF Prabhakar Tripathi, IG has asked DIG Operation to initiate disciplinary action against the platoon commander.
IG also visited Sajjad Hussain at SKIMS Soura and regretted the incident and told him that the constable has been suspended.
“Mr Maheswari felt sorry for what had happened at Jamia Masjid and personally conveyed this to Sajjad at SKIMS Soura,” Tripathi said.
Meanwhile, the KPPA has decided to lodge an FIR against the erring CRPF personnel. “If police doesn’t file FIR, we will take legal course,” said the association’s spokesman.




DARING: An angry youth takes on policemen during protests in Srinagar against the death verdict of Muhammad Afzal Guru. (Danish Ismail/GK)
Cops beat a woman during protests in Saraibala Srinagar on Friday. Mubashir Khan/GK  
 

Injured photojournalist Sajjad Hussain after he was beaten by CRPF troops during protests in Srinagar. Mubashir Khan/GK

6. NYC Bar Association report on national security laws and repression in India – press release and news report
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060926/india_nm/india269401

Reuters
India's "colonial" justice system threatens rights

Tue Sep 26, 7:48 PM ET

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - India must do more to transform its "British colonial-era" criminal justice institutions as it fights terrorism or it will breach human rights, a report by a U.S. advocacy group said on Tuesday.
ADVERTISEMENT
click here

The report, published by the Committee on International Human Rights of the New York City Bar Association, says India made a good start two years ago when it partially repealed the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 2002 (POTA).

India was also right to resist the temptation to bring such a law back after July's deadly Mumbai train bombings in which more than 180 people died, focusing instead on upgrading its intelligence capacity, the report said.

"Respect for human rights when combating terrorism is a strategic imperative," Anil Kalhan, chairman of the committee's India project, said in a statement.

"As the Supreme Court of India has recognised ... draconian laws often provide terrorists exactly the response they hope for and, in the process, plant the seeds for future violence."

But POTA was not entirely done away with -- a recent report by Amnesty International says hundreds of people originally detained under POTA continue to languish in prisons without trial.

Laws similar to some of those found in POTA now exist in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the report says, going on to call for their repeal.

One of the committee's main worries is that such laws give undue powers to India's police force - an institution it says has barely modernised since the British colonial era.

The result, it says, is that Indians are being held in custody for long periods without charge or trial and are facing torture, with those from the lower castes and from religious minorities being particularly vulnerable to abuse.

The report, available at www.nycbar.org, advises India to work with international institutions to ensure greater transparency in its criminal justice system.

In a country where bribes, intimidation and physical violence riddle particularly the lower rungs of the criminal justice system, the report urges Indians be given greater powers to hold government officials accountable for human rights abuses.
Also
http://www.nycbar.org/PressRoom/PressRelease/2006_0919.htm

---

Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com