Documenting Violations
Torture is regularly reported in Manipur. Youths suspected
to be members or sympathizers of the underground groups when
arrested are subjected to third degree methods by the military
to extract information on the activities of their groups.
But it is always a challenge to systematically document cases
of torture as the torture survivors are crushed not only physically
but also psy -chologically. The fear of further reprisal has
always been a hurdle in taking up legal action on cases of
torture. Considering the impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators
under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act and the weakness
of police to deal with excesses by the military, this apprehension
is not entirely baseless. Many of these youths died in custody;
others just “disappeared”; yet others survived
but often maimed and handicapped.
Khuraijam Pranam Singh, aged about 23 years,
resident of Kwakeithel Laishram Leikai, who runs an electrical
shop at Kwakeithel for a living, is one such torture survivor.
Thanks to the efforts of courageous young lawyers like Chongtham
Ngongo who promptly used the legal system to save his life.
The IPIC in coordination with the Meira Paibis of Kwakeithel,
Laishram Leikai held a session at the local Mandop (Community
Hall) on October 22, 2000. Pranam Singh came in person and
testified before the Commission. He was extremely weak and
walked with great difficulty. Two parts of his intestines
were protruding out of the right side of his stomach. He was
still under medical treatment at the time of testifying before
the IPIC. Here is his statement.
Kuraijam Pranam Singh: “On July 22, 2000 while
on a bus to Bishnupur to deliver a generator our bus was stopped
and searched by the personnel of ‘F’ Company of
Assam Rifles near Maibam Lokpaching. I was ordered to stay
back, the rest of the passengers were allowed to leave along
with the bus. Thereafter, I was blindfolded and taken inside
their camp. I was forced to eat a cant of tobacco. My clothes
were removed. My hands and legs tied up. And they started
beating me up, including administering electric shocks. I
was hung upside down and beaten black and blue. The torture
continued intermittently for the next three days.
On July 30, 2000 a rod was inserted up my anus and vigorously
stirred thereby causing sever pain and bleeding. In doing
so the wooden rod broke inside my anus. Chilli powder was
also applied to my eyes, anus and genitals as a result of
which I could not urinate. A doctor among the army personnel,
checked my blood pressure and forced me to eat a handful unknown
tablets.
On the same day, I was taken to the Nambol Police Station
from where a combined team of police and the AR took me to
the Community Health Centre, Nambol where one Dr. N.K. Nando
examined me. From there I was referred to the Jawaharlal Nehru
Hospital, Porompat. I was admitted in the security ward of
the JN Hospital the same day. A few days later on August 4,
2000, I was operated. I was released on August 8 after signing
a personal bond of Rs 10,000 and after giving a surety of
the same amount.”
Legal Issues
On medical examination at the Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital,
Porompat, on July 30, 2000, Dr. L. Krishanmani Singh senior
Surgeon described the injuries of Pranam as follows:
- Penetrating injuries: Perforation anterior wall of rectum
1 1/2 inches from anal verge, below peritoneal reflection
-admit index finger.
- Perforation of the base of bladder proximal to trigon
- admit index finger.
- Perforation of dome of bladder (intraperitoneal rupture)
- admit index finger.
- Urinary ascites.
- Recto-versical fistula with Pneumoturia.
On August 1, 2000, Laljit, Naik Subedar, AR filed a First
Information Report (FIR) against Pranam Singh alleging him
to be a supporter of the banned People’s Liberation
Army (PLA). Subsequently, Pranam’s father approached
the concerned Magistrates as to whether Pranam has been produced
before them as per section 57 and 167 of Criminal Procedure
Code and Article 22 of the Constitution of India. In this
regard, the Chief Judicial Magistrate Bishenpur, the concerned
Magistrate, passed an order dated August 7, 2000 explaining
that neither Pranam nor any case record on him had been produced
before him till the said day.
Having no other alternative, the father of Pranam, then moved
the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench by filing a Habeas Corpus
case, being case number WP (Cril) 11 of 2000 on 9 August 2002.
The next day the father filed a report to the police on (August
10, 2000) alleging arbitrary detention and torture of his
son Pranam Singh by ‘F’ Company AR. The same day
the High Court issued a direction to the AR personnel to hand
over Pranam Singh to the nearest police station. Despite of
the court’s direction, neither the police nor the AR
produced Pranam to any Magistrate. On August 17, 2000 the
AR as well as the police testified before the High Court denying
that Pranam Singh is in their custody. The same day, the Court
directed all the respondents, including the Officer-in-charge
of JN Hospital Porompat, to produce the detenue before the
court the following day at 10 a.m. by convening a special
sitting of division bench of the Court. After a hectic argument
the State Govt. Advocate admitted the detenue was in the custody
of the State police.
Subsequently, on August 20, 2000, the police personnel produced
the records of Pranam Singh’s arrest before the CJM
alleging that Pranam Singh was arrested onAugust 19, 2000.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bishnupur released Pranam Singh
on bail on August 26, 2000 after executing a personal bond
of Rs. 10,000/-and a surety of the same amount.
The CJM categorically stated that the FIR against Pranam
Singh is a false and fabricated story as the accused was already
in the judicial custody in JN Hospital on July 30, 2000 in
a critical state preparing for a major operation and as Khuraijam
PuanamSingh, victim of third degree torture by the 8th Assam
Rifles with his portruding intestice, photographed on August
28, 2000. There are large numbers of cases where people are
arrested under false charges with false witnesses. such it
is impossible to arrest him on August 1, 2000 from a place
about 25 kilometres from the JN Hospital.
IPIC Observations
The commission heard the case of Pranam Singh. His brother
Roni Singh also gave his statement. Thereafter, we heard the
members of Meira Paibi. What they said appears to be very
significant. These ladies keep vigil as torchbearers. As Loitongbam
Sabita stated what happened during the day could be seen by
all; but what happens in the night nobody can see. This is
why they keep watch in the night.
They stated before us that Indian army is sent to Manipur
not to protect the people but to harass women and children
in particular. There are large numbers of case where people
are arrested under false charges with false witnesses. The
people know the persons so charged are innocent but they are
tortured and they are made to suffer inhuman treatment. They
also deposed about army people sexually abusing women and
even sexually abusing little boys. These women are trying
to safeguard the dignity of women and children. What Pranam
Singh has stated has to be understood in the light of what
these women are trying to safeguard — the dignity of
women and children.
What is significant is that Pranam Singh is not involved
in any underground movement nor does he belong to any militants
group. He has a shop and is carrying on his business. If the
allegation is that he was found with some arms and ammunition
there should be some acceptable evidence. On the other hand
we find that the neither the army nor police have ever searched
his home or his shop. The police have registered a case stating
that he was caught with some bullets on August 1, 2000.
According to the police when he was brought to the police
station by the army, he had serious injuries and that is why
they sent him to the hospital. Therefore, it is clear that
he was in army’s custody and he suffered injuries while
he was in their custody. The police registered a FIR at the
instance of the army that he had in his possession certain
bullets. This was on August 1, 2000 when he was admittedly
in the hospital since July 30, 2000. Assuming that the army
caught him with bullets in his possession, there is no justification
for torturing him.
He was admitted in the hospital on July 30, 2000 and he had
to undergo an operation, remaining there for about forty days.
Therefore, obviously the case registered against him is a
false case and is intended perhaps to protect the AR personnel.
We understand a writ petition has been filed on his behalf
by his brother by way of Habeas Corpus petition in which the
petitioner also claimed for compensation for his wrongful
detention and torturer. We hope that while the Hon’ble
High Court has disposed of the petition, the High Court will
also grant adequate compensation to Pranam Singh for what
he had suffered. Pranam Singh injury is so serious that his
is still not cured completely. He requires an operation as
parts of his intestine are still protruding outside his stomach.
We are told that the Doctor had stated that after some time
perhaps the intestine can be inserted back into it proper
place. We hope that High Court take into account all these
aspect before sanctioning compensation to Mr. Pranam Singh.
IPIC Recommendation
An Inquiry should be ordered by the High Court by appointing
an Inquiry officer, under its supervision and with a direction
that the Inquiry Officer should submit his report to the High
Court itself.
The Inquiry Officer should be empowered to call for all records
and summon witnesses including army personnel involved in
the case. On receipt of such report the High Court should
not only grant compensation to Pranam Singh but should also
direct the government to prosecute the officers concerned,
for unlawful detention and for causing grievous injury to
Pranam Singh.
Rape
The military environment is inherently masculine and misogynist.
The masculinity cults that pervade military establishments
are intrinsically anti-female and therefore create a hostile
environment for women. In the case of Manipur the matter is
aggravated by the fact that the soldiers operating here besides
hailing from a different and relatively more patriarchal cultural
backgrounds, are also placed at the elated status of impunity
by the special power legislations. As a result, rape and other
forms of sexual harassments while conducting operation amongst
the civilian populations are very common.
However, most rape by the army goes unreported due to fear
of social stigma and the futility of taking up an embarrassing
legal battle against the might of the Army. The first reported
rape case in Manipur by the military is that of Miss Rose
in 1974. An officer of the Border Security Force repeatedly
raped her. Rose committed suicide out of shame while the perpetrator
went scot-free, due to lack of sufficient evidence. The Ahanjaobi
case of 1996, where two Army personnel raped a married woman
in front of her disabled 12-year-old son, was a turning point
in public attitude towards the crime and its victimization.
The public outrage and the intensity of the movement practically
forced to the Army Authority to initiate Court Martial proceedings.
The two Army personnel were found guilty and punished for
the crime in 1997.
The gang rape of M. Mecry Kabui, aged about 25 years, wife
of M. Akham Kabui, resident of Lamdan village by the personnel
of 112 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) camp
on July 19, 2000 is yet another such tragic story. Mercy’s
father-in-law M. Thaitoungam Kabui is the chief of the Lamdan
Kabui village. On October 22, 2000 the IPIC visited Mercy’s
family. A female member of the IPIC also spoke her in private.
Mercy Kabui: On July 19, 2000 at about
5.30 p.m. my husband, my father-inlaw Thaitoungam Kabui and
I were standing at the Verandah of our house. Commander Devshis
Biswas A.C. (Assistant Commander) from the 112 battalion CRPF
Camo is located at a distance of 150 meters from our house.
They were coming from the house of the village secretary Shri.
Tangdimlung Dimpu Kabui. I know the said commander. The said
commander was in civil dress and other 6 (six) personnel were
in uniform. They were all armed. At the relevant time my mother-in-law
had gone to the house of my eldest brother-in-law. When the
Commander and the six CRPF personnel reached our courtyard,
he instructed the CRPF personnel to arrest my husband Akham
and to take him to their camp and he left. Three CRPF personnel
arrested/seized my husband Akham and kept him at a little
distance away from our courtyard and started beating him.
At the relevant time my father-in-law was near them and requested
them to stop beating my husband. I was very frightened.
The other three CRPF personnel asked me to go inside
the house. I refused to go inside. They caught my neck and
forcibly pushed me inside the house. I tried to escape from
the place through our kitchen. The two Jawans caught the shawl
I was wearing and forcibly took me to the bed at the room
located near the kitchen and the said two Jawans started forcibly
touching upper parts of my body. The other Jawan was standing
near the door. I shouted “please do not do, don’t.”
Then they forcibly pulled my legs and hands apart by pointing
their guns at me. Then they took away my phanek and pulled
up my petticoat. I tried to free myself from them in vain.
Then the said two Jawan committed rape on me one after another.
I called out to my father-in-law to help me. My father-in-law
came running inside the room. I was so frightened and shocked
that I was only half conscious and cannot recollect the incident
fully. When my father - in - law came inside the room the
two CRPF personnel left the room. Then my father-in-law took
me out of the house. My husband asked my father - in - law
whether the CRPF personnel have committed rape on me or not.
He affirmed that they have raped me. Then my husband caught
my hand and told me to go to the CRPF commander in the camp.
The CRPF personnel who were keeping my husband forcibly
separated me from him and they took my husband to the camp.
They left my father-in-law and me behind. Semen discharged
from the two CRPF personnel got stained on my petticoat and
phenek. I also sustained pain in my private parts. When I
urinated, I checked my private part and the pain coming from
there. I found blood in my private parts.”
The Medical examination took place only after three days.
The family lodged the complaint immediately, however, even
three months later no identification parade has been conducted
and not a single arrest has been made.
Legal Issues
A complaint was lodged by Mercy herself in the Loktak Project
Police Station on July 20, 2000 at about 3.00 p.m. which is
being registered as FIR no. 10(7) 2000 Loktak P.S. under section
376 and 34 IPC. The Ivestigating Officer of the case Shri
L. Gopal Singh seized the following article by preparing a
seizer memo on 20-7-2000 at about 4.45 p.m.:
- Blue cotton Phanek having semen stain;
- One Petticoat green in colour (terrycotton) having semen
stain.
The Police produced Mercy before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bishnupur for recording her solemn statement under 164 of
CRPC on July 29, 2000. Her statement along with the statement
of her father-inlaw and her husband were recorded. No arrest
has been made till today. The concerned Police officials are
still waiting for the result of the DNA test whose blood samples
were collected on August 21, 2000 at the office of Doctor
L. Fimate, Professor and Head of Department, Forensic Medicine,
RIMS, Imphal. The list of individuals whose samples were sent
for DNA typing as per the order of the CJM, Bishenpur are
as follows.
- Mrs. M. Mercy, aged about 25 years of Lamdan Kabuit village;
- Mr. M. Akham R. Naga, aged 35 years, of Lamdan village;
- Havildar No. 731191116, Reshanlal, aged 48 years of Tenahar,
District- Mandi, Himachal Pradesh;
- Constable No. 941123454, Altaf Badesh Mujawar aged 26
years of Tasgaen, District - Sangli, Maharastra;
- Constable No. 854790029, Hari Dev Singh, aged 34 years
of Rajpur Kalan, District - Pratapgarh;
- Constable No. 913244296, Mahaskumar Panchal, aged about
25 years of Arniakala, District -Shahjahanpur, M.P.;
- Constable No. 913183992, Sunil Prasad, aged 30 years
of Newlpur, District Siwan, Bihar;
- Constable no. 981190541, Jitendar Singh, aged 22 years
of Palam Gaon, Delhi
- Constable no. 913261288, Sailim Kalita, aged 29 years
of Dumuria, P.O. Ehankamaria, Assam and
- Constable no. 880892996, Arbindpal Singh, aged 31 years
of Kerapur, District Gajiabad, U.P.
The Police is awaiting the results of the DNA typing for
further investigation.
IPIC Observations
The fact remains that the police have not done a proper and
prompt investigation into this case. They have not held even
the identification parade so far. The incident took place
three months ago and the police could have easily secured
the names of all the suspects and completed the investigation.
We are also not aware as to what statement the Investigating
Officer L. Ishwarlal Sharma, Bishenpur police station has
recorded from the Commandant of the CRPF Battalion deployed
at this village.
From what we have heard and from what we have seen from the
statements recorded by the Police, the said Assistant Commandant
Devashis Bishwas should be treated as an accessory to the
crime. He was very much present when the heinous crime was
being committed.
We have seen some of the press reports, which appeared in
the press during that time.
The CRPF personnel seem to have taken up the contention that
they were not involved in the crime and that the DNA 15 combat
law n April - May 2003 independent people’s inquiry
would show whether they were involved in the crime or not.
The press reports show that the same CRPF Battalion sent
the list of certain suspects to the police station. It is
not clear whether all the names were included or whether any
name is left out.
We want to point out that the victim and the members of
the family after undergoing the trauma are shattered and living
in a state of terror.
Reportedly, the case has already been documented by the MSHRC
and referred to the NHRC.
Recommendations
A proper investigation should be conducted by the police.
We therefore suggest that it is not too late for the police
to have an Identification (ID) parade. For this purpose, the
police should call upon the CRPF to furnish a true list of
all the personnel who were deployed on that day at that place
and all those personnel should be included in the ID parade.
We also suggest that the officer Devashis Bishwas, the Assistant
Commandant of CRPF should be considered as an accused person
and should be charged for abetting the crime and also booked
under 120 (B) of IPC.
The government, and in particular, the police should take
initiative for the protection of the family.
NHRC and MHRC are requested to continuously monitor the development
on the investigation by periodically calling for the reports
from the investigating authority and to highlighting the issue
before the public.
The party or human rights groups are encouraged to move the
High Court for issue of a writ in the nature of Mandamus for
calling for progress reports and carrying out the investigation
under the overall supervision of the High Court.
Arbitrary Killings
In the ongoing armed conflict situation in Manipur killings
and counter killings is a daily phenomena. For many decades
the local newspapers have been ceaselessly reporting stories
of the military hunting down the “insurgents”;
the “liberators” ambushing the “occupation
army”; the attacked Army troops taking out their wrath
on the “suspects”, mowing them down in one go
or torturing them, sometimes to death.
While in most cases of this spiralling violence, the general
public watches helplessly; occasionally, when large number
of civilians are senselessly murdered the general public gets
outraged. Some such well documented case are the Heirangoithong
Massacre (1984) where 13 spectators of a volley ball match
were arbitrarily killed by the CRPF; the Oinam Massacre of
(1987) where 15 villagers were arbitrarily murdered by the
Assam Rifles; the RMC Massacre (1996) where 9 civilians including
a medical student were killed inside the hospital premise
by the CRPF; the Tonsem Lamkhai (1999) incident where 10 civilians
including State Government employees on election duties were
arbitrarily killed by the CRPF.
In order to damp down the public outcry the Government of
Manipur usually, but not always, institutes Judicial Inquiries
under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 or Magisterial Inquiries
to ascertain the facts of the incidents. But due to lack of
cooperation from the armed forces and recently due to active
intervention against such inquiries by the armed forces, the
inquiry reports could never be made public.
Tera Bazar Massacre
The Tera Massacre is one such incident where the efforts
of the public to institute even an official inquiry did not
succeed. But the innocent civilians did get killed. The IPIC
in coordination with the local youth club of Terakeithel area,
namely the Ideal Club, visited the spot on October 23, 2000
and recorded statements of witnesses and families of victims
of the incidents.
On August 25, 1993 some unidentified youth shot at the CRPF
personnel attached to the Police Out Post Tera Keithel, Imphal
while they were fetching water from a nearby public hydrant.
Two CRPF personnel were killed. Thereafter, the CRPF personnel
rushed out of their barrack and indiscriminately fired amongst
the civilians in the area. Five innocent civilians were killed
and many sustained bullet injuries. The deceased are as follows:
8Ms. Naorem Ningol Soraisham Ongbi Memcha Devi, aged about
33 years, wife of S.Singh of Phousakhai, Moirand, Bishenpur
District, a shopkeeper and mother of four.
- Mr. Khumbongmayum Angou, aged about 66 years, son of
(late) Sandrok Singh of Sagolband Tera Keithel, Imphal West
District, Retired Head Constable of Manipur Police.
- Mr. Mutum Ajit Singh, aged about 33 years, son of (late)
Mutum Shamungou Singh of Sagolband Sapam Leirak, Imphal
West District, Laboratory technician cum photographer of
the Department of Science & Technology and Environment,
Government of Manipur.
- Mr. Phukhrambam Bihari of Langathel, Thoubal District,
a rickshaw driver.
- Mr. Nongthombam Dhakeshore, aged about 72 years, son
of late N. Debendra of Sagolband Tera Keithel, Imphal West
District, a carpenter.
The indignant public constituted a Sagolband and Patsoi Kendra
Joint Action Committee (JAC) to gear up appropriate action
and demand justice for the senseless killing of innocent civilians.
Thousands of people marched towards the Chief Minister’s
office on September 1, 1993 and submitted a memorandum requesting
inter alia to institute an inquiry under the Commission of
Inquiry Act, 1952 to ascertain the facts of the incident.
The Inquiry was never constituted; instead, the Government
of Manipur paid Rs.20, 000/- each to the families of the deceased
and Rs.5, 000/- to the injured persons as ex-gratia.
Bramhacharimayum Manimohan Sharma aged about
48 years, a shopkeeper, recounted the incident of August 25,
‘93 to the IPIC team led by Justice Suresh from his
bed. He remembered that at about 8.30 a.m., CRPF personnel
stationed at Police Outpost, Tera Keithel, came out to fetch
water in a nearby public hydrant. They were fired upon by
unknown youths where two of them got killed.
Thereafter, CRPF personnel from their Group Center at Langjing,
about three kilometers from the site of the incident, came
rushing and fired indiscriminately all over. He was shot in
his arm and stomach; the bullet hit his spinal cord paralyzing
him from waist down.
He was treated at the “Regional Institute of Medical
Sciences” Imphal for one and half years. Thereafter,
on the advice of the Medical board he was sent to Christian
Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu where his treatment continued
for one year.
Thereafter, he was treated in the Down Town Hospital, Gauhati,
Assam. Since then he is bed-ridden and suffers from severe
bedsores and body itch. No action has been taken against the
CRPF personnel so far.
The treatment at Vellore was reimbursed because his wife
is a Government servant. Apart from payment of Rs.5, 000/-
ex-gratia nothing has been given. He is likely to be bed ridden
for the rest of his life.
Bramhcharimayum Ongbi Inakhumbi Devi, his
wife stated that they have spent over Rs. 300,000/- on his
medical treatment and have to spend Rs. 30/-per day on his
drugs. The shop he was manning, which was a rented one, is
lost now.
The IPIC team also visited Irengbam Mani, Sub-Inspector of
the Police Outpost Tera at that relevant ime. He confirmed
that the CRPF on seeing their colleague’s death, rushed
out and fired indiscriminately at innocent bystanders, including
a dhobi (Bihari washer-man), a printing press and a way-side
hotel killing 3 persons on the spot and seriously injuring
a woman by the name of Naorem Mema (33 years) who succumbed
to her injuries in hospital the same day. He said that he
pleaded with the CRPF personnel not to fire at the innocent
civilians. He confirmed that all those killed were innocent
by standers including a friend of his who was a retired havildar
(Head Constable) of Manipur Police.
Hema (60 years) wife of Late Khumboingmayum
Angou Singh, who died in the incident, also testified before
the IPIC. She confirmed that on the fateful day her husband,
a retired police havildar, went out for morning tea. She heard
the gun shot and later came to know that he was killed in
the firing. She was paid Rs.20,000/- after 3 years. Given
a chance, she stated before the IPIC that she would like to
kill the murderers of her husband, but with a sense of helplessness
she continued, “We have no means”.
Lokendra Singh, son of Late Nongthombam
Dhakeshore had a similar story. His father went out for morning
tea and was shot in both the legs. He was in the hospital
for months and was brought home on November 23, 1993 as the
doctors said his case was hopeless. He died within half an
hour after reaching home. He received Rs. 21,000/- as compensation.
Mr. Ayekpam Tomba Singh, member of the JAC,
a retired Head Master of the Tera Kebol Girls’ High
School, said that compensation in Manipur is on an average
of Rs.20, 000/- which is much lower than other States. He
alongwith with W. Toni also a teacher and A.B. Meitei stated
that the role of the army is very negative in Manipur and
called for (a) withdrawal of Army and (b) repeal of the AFSPA.
H. Surendra Singh, president of the JAC,
who is a retired Superintendent of Police of Customs Department,
Manipur stated that there was fear and uncertainty in the
minds of the people and although he was sure that the demands
of the JAC would be acted upon nothing was done.
IPIC Comments
1.The above incident clearly establishes that the CRPF had
no justification whatsoever to kill or to cause injury to
those innocent persons. It is clear the incident took place
within the hotel premises where the victims were having their
morning tea. They were not indulging in any confrontational
activity against CRPF. In other words, killing them was a
clear act of murder and all the CRPF personnel involved should
have been prosecuted for the same.
2.We also learnt that at the material time at the Police
Outpost, there was a Sub-Inspector, who had protested against
the shooting. Since the CRPF persisted in their unlawful acts,
the Sub-Inspector and 2 constables even fired in the air with
a view to stop them. It appears that the Sub-Inspector later
on had made a detailed report to the higher officers. He regretted
that the police or the Government took no action against the
CRPF personnel who shot at the innocent people.
3.The Government seems to have given some ex-gratia as mentioned
above but the sum was extremely inadequate. Mr. Brahmacharimayum
Manimohan Sharma is still paralyzed, unable to move about
and still requires treatment. He lost his livelihood and the
Government seems to have not bothered about it at all.
We therefore suggested that in all the cases the Government
should consider paying more compensation, which should be
reasonable enough to compensate the loss the family members
have suffered.
4.All the witnesses who appeared before us categorically
submitted before us that such an incident took place because
of the presence of CRPF in the city.
They demanded that the Army should be withdrawn from Manipur
and in any event the army should not be given such uncontrolled
powers to kill the people. They also submitted that there
are other States in this Country where the law and order problem
is worse than that of Manipur and in those States, the army
has not been deployed, and an Act like the AFSA has not been
made applicable.
We are inclined to agree with this submission.
Recommendations
Prosecution of CRPF personnel involved in random firing and
removal from service. Compensation for the families of the
deceased persons of at least Rs. 2,00,000/- each. Compensation
for Bramacharimayum Manimohan Sharma, of at least Rs. 500,000/-
plus re-imbursement of all medical expenses, specialized treatment
at a Delhi Hospital and provision of a wheelchair and other
physiotherapy facilities.
Enforced Disappearances
The phenomenon of enforced disappearances, in Manipur, is
closely linked to the counter-insurgency operations conducted
by the security forces. It occurs in conjunction with other
forms of human rights violations like arbitrary detention,
custodial torture and killings etc. Most of the disappearance
cases occur when the armed forces arrest suspects. Underground
members and their sympathizers are often subjected to severe
torture after arrest, to extract information on their activities.
The process of reversing the loyalty of the underground activist
is a traumatic experience wherein terror tactics both physical
as well as psychological are resorted to. Many people never
come out of these torture cells. They simply ‘disappear’.
When an innocent civilian disappears in the custody of security
forces, the general public do not take it lying down. Citizens
Committees often called the Joint Action Committees (JACs)
are formed and people come out on the streets, hold mass demonstrations,
hold relay hunger strikes, submit memoranda to the authorities
and the local media gives wide coverage. The law courts and
sometimes even the civil administration are a little more
receptive.
As a result, many such cases are well documented. The IPIC
visited three of such families of Tayab Ali, Laishram Bijoykumar
and Kanujam Loken.
Tayab Ali Case: Mohamad Tayab Ali, aged
about 35 years of Kairang Muslim Mayai Leikai, Imphal East,
worked as a saleman at a shop in Thangal Bazar Imphal. He
was picked up by some armed persons who came in two Maruti
vans without number plates (suspected to be Assam Rifles personnel
in plain clothes) at around 10.00 a.m. on July 25, 1999 near
Paomei Colony, Sangakpam Lamkhai. His moped was also put into
the other van. Persons known to Tayab Ali traveling in a taxi
saw the incident and followed the Maruti vans and saw them
entering the southern gate of the 17 Assam Rifles at Kangla.
On inquiry by relatives of Tayab Ali the Assam Rifles officials
told them that he would be handed over to the Heingang Police
Station the next day. However, he was never handed over. Thereafter
the relatives filed a complaint to the Heingang Police Station,
the Director General of Police and the Manipur Human Rights
Commission (MHRC). As the police report submitted to the MHRC
confirmed the arrest after examining the eyewitnesses the
case was referred to the NHRC. The matter was placed before
the NHRC on December 8, 1999, but no positive action is reported
from the side of the NHRC.
The Families of the Involuntarily Disappeared’s Association,
Manipur (FIDAM) moved a Habeas Corpus petition before the
Gauhati High Court Imphal Bench registered as Writ Petition
(Cril.) no. 5 of 2000. The Assam Rifles filed an affidavit
denying the arrest of Tayab Ali in the Court. Being dissatisfied
with the reply of the Assam Rifles, on January 24, 2001 the
High Court directed the District and Sessions Judge, Manipur
East to inquiry into the matter and to submit the report within
two months. Even though FIDAM had placed all the eyewitnesses
before the Court, the matter is still pending even after the
expiry of 14 months.
IPIC visited the family of Tayab Ali at his house and spoke
to his wife, father, mother and brother and confirmed the
above stated facts.
Laishram Bijoykumar Case: Laishram Bijoykumar,
aged about 34 (at the time of disappearance) of Thangmeiband
Hijam Leikai, Imphal West District, a former student leader
who did Moreh business was abducted by Hindi speaking armed
personnel in military uniform from his house on the intervening
night of June 4-5 1996. Thereafter, he was never seen by his
family and friends.
Widespread public protest followed but to no consequence
as the authorities turned a deaf ear. On June 7, 1996, Bijoykumar’s
father moved a writ of Habeas Corpus, registered as Civil
Rule (HC) No. 33 of 1996 in the Gauhati High Court, Imphal
Bench. In their Counter Affidavit, the security forces denied
having arrested Bijoykumar.
The High Court ordered the District and Sessions Judge, Manipur
East to conduct an inquiry into the circumstances of the disappearance.
After examining the statements of the witnesses, the District
and Sessions Judge submitted his report and findings to the
High Court on March 20, 1998.
As the report was not brought before the High Court, a Division
Bench of the High Court directed the Registrar of the Imphal
Bench of the Gauhati High Court to make an inquiry into the
matter. On December 8, 1999, the Registrar reported that the
inquiry report was found missing from the custody of the High
Court. On January 28, 2000, the Division Bench directed the
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate into
the matter and reconstruct the inquiry report.
The IPIC visited the house of Laishram Bijoykumar and recorded
the statements of Shri Laishram Babu Singh and his elder sister
Kumari. Laishram Bisheshori Devi who was also an eyewitness
to the abduction of Bijoykumar.
Laishram Bisheshori Devi told the Commission
that on June 4, 1996 at about 1 p.m. she head some noise outside
her house. She also heard sounds of barking by dogs. Subsequently,
she heard the knocking on her door When she opened the door,
four persons entered with their guns pointing at her. They
spoke in Hindi, asking her to go inside the room. Thereafter
they started searching the room even opening the doors of
the Almirah (cupboard) in the room. At that time, five persons
including herself, her younger sister, namely Sanjita Devi,
Priya Devi and her sister-in-law Thoibi Devi and a child,
namely Phileplen aged about 4 years were there while making
the search. One of the armed persons picked up a photograph
of her younger brother the late Surjit and asked her as to
where the gun was kept. The said photograph was of her younger
brother holding a gun.
The person asked about the gun in Hindi. But she replied
in Manipuri, saying that her younger brother had died and
she did not know as to where the gun was. At the same time
her younger sister Priya Devi told him in Hindi the same thing.
Out of the four armed persons who came there that night, one
was Manipuri and others were non-Manipuri. Their faces were
covered/ hooded. One of them did not say anything while he
was in the room. When she spoke in Manipuri, one of them acted
as if he understood the language and from that she presumed
that he was a Manipuri. The said Manipuri was shorter than
the other three persons. The four armed persons took away
with them a torchlight, the aforementioned photograph of her
younger brother and a Samurai sword. They were inside the
room for a period of about 45 minutes.
While these four armed persons were entering into her room
she could see that three or four other persons entered into
the room of her younger brother Bijoy Singh who was in a room
adjacent to hers.
The four armed persons prevented her younger sister and sister-in-law
from following them but they were asked not to come out. They
further told them not to make noise and threatened them that
if they move out of the room they would be shot at. She also
could see that some of the said armed persons who entered
into the room of her younger brother Bijoy Singh, took him
out along with them. She did not move out of the room but
she heard some persons talking near the gate, which was about
at the distance of about 70 feet from her house. She also
could hear some one saying in Manipuri through a Wireless
set “hayeng pung nipanda” (tomorrow at 8 a.m.).
Thereafter, she could not hear anything. After about 10 or
15 minutes she went out of the room but she could not see
any person there.
Kangujam Loken: On September 23, 1980 at
about 3.00 p.m. while Loken Singh was at his gate of Kongman
Okram Chuthek Makha, a team of military personnel of Jammu
and Kashmir Rifles came in two civilians jeeps and illegally
arrested him. Thereafter he was taken in one of the jeeps
after being blindfolded. On the same day in the same area
two other youths namely Thokchom Lokendro and Kangujam Iboyaima
were also arrested in a similar manner.
On September 24,1980 the brother of Kangujam Loken filed
a complaint with the Singjamei Police Station requesting for
the recovery of his younger brother. The father of Thokchom
Lokendro also lodged a similar complaint. Family members came
to know from their own sources that the two youths were detained
and tortured inside the compound of the Assam Rifles situated
at Kangla, Imphal.
On September 26, 1980 at about 7 p.m. Kangujam Iboyaima was
released without giving any reason for his arrest and detention.
The family confirmed from him that Kangujam Laken was in the
custody of the AR. Assuming that Loken would be released soon
as was done in the case of Iboyaima, they waited. But that
did not happen. On October 14, 1980 his brother filed a petition
with the IGP Government of Manipur.
On February 27, 1981 the mothers of Loken and Lokendro filed
a representation to the Government of Manipur and GOC M-sector
of the India Army for tracing out the whereabout of their
sons. Having no other recourse the mothers moved Habeas Corpus
petitions to the Gauhati High Court, Imphal bench which are
being registered as Civil Rule no. 128 of 1981 and Civil Rule
no. 129 of 1981. The petitions were however rejected by the
High Court on September 8, 1981 based on the claim of the
army that the two youths were already released. Appeals were
filed being Write Appeal no. 21 and 20 of 1981, which were
also dismissed.
Again appeals were preferred to the Supreme Court of India,
which were being registered as Criminal Appeals no. 580 and
581 of 1989. The Supreme Court directed the District Judge,
Manipur to conduct an inquiry to ascertain the facts. The
inquiry reports, submitted on October 6, 1990 to the Supreme
Court, established that Loken and Lokendro were arrested by
J&K Rifles and “were not released yet”. SC
also directed the Union of India to pay a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/-
each to the mothers.
In 1999, the family members filed damage suits for the recovery
of Rs. 15,00,000/- each before the Civil Judge Senior Division
no. 1 Manipur which are being registered as Civil Miscl. Case
no. 174 and 175 of 1999. The matter is still pending in the
Court.
Kangujam Ranjit, brother of Kangujam Loken testified before
the IPIC. According to him the Armed Force Special Powers
Act, 1958 came into force in Manipur on September 8, 1980.
The abduction of his brother by the army was on September
23, 1980, the first case of its kind. The J & K Army picked
up three people from his locality out of which only one returned
home. He gave evidence of what he saw inside the army camp
namely the custody and torture of the other two.
The writ petition was filed and rejected time and again,
the matter finally went up to the Supreme Court of India.
A Sessions Judge conducted an inquiry. The inquiry found the
evidence of abduction and torture to be accurate. Interim
relief of 1,25,000/- for each of the families of the disappeared
was ordered. The Supreme Court also ordered the prosecution
of the officer but nothing was done.
(Reprinted by permission from Combat Law)
|