Bijbehara massacre

Last updated

The Bijbehara Massacre [1] [2] took place when 74th Battalion Border Security Force (BSF) fired upon protesters in the Anantnag district of Jammu and Kashmir, India on 22 October 1993, killing 51 civilians. In the official version of events, BSF had only acted in self-defense when fired upon by militants; however, this narrative was rejected by Human Rights Watch citing the 1993 U.S. Department of State country report on human rights in India which said, "Despite government claims that the security forces were ambushed by militants, only one BSF sub inspector was injured." [3]

Contents

The protests had erupted over the siege of the mosque in Hazratbal. [4] [5] [6] The number of reported dead and wounded vary by source. Amnesty International reported that at least 51 people died and 200 were wounded on that day, which included incidents in Srinagar and Bijbehara. The UN Refugee Agency reported 35 dead and about 76 wounded, citing news reports in The Times . The Times of India reported 37 dead. [7]

The Indian government conducted two official enquiries and the National Human Rights Commission of India (NHRC) conducted a third. In March 1994 the government indicted the Border Security Force (BSF) for firing into the crowd "without provocation" and charged 13 BSF officers with murder. A nonpublic General Security Force Court trial conducted in 1996 led to their acquittal. [7] [8] When the NHRC sought to examine the transcripts of the trials in order to satisfy itself that the BSF had made a genuine attempt to secure convictions, the Vajpayee government refused. The NHRC then moved the Supreme Court for a review. [9] Faced with the Government's non-cooperation, the NHRC finally dismissed the case. [10] On 10 September 2007 the Jammu and Kashmir High Court ordered the state government to pay restitution to the victims' families. [11]

Background

In October, 1993, the Indian army stated they surrounded the Hazratbal Shrine after they were reported that armed rebels had occupied the shrine complex and had changed the locks. For the preceding three years, insurgents in the Kashmir Valley had waged a rebellion against Indian rule. The Indian Army's siege of the holiest Muslim shrine in the Kashmir Valley reignited anger at India. [10] As the mosque crisis deepened, there were sporadic public demonstrations. Indian authorities imposed a curfew and positioned hundreds of troopers along the town's main streets. [12]

The shooting incident

On 22 October 1993, the eighth day of the siege, around 10,000 to 15,000 protesters gathered in the courtyard of the Jamia Masjid of Bijbehara after finishing Friday prayers. The protesters marched through the streets shouting pro-independence slogans, demanding an end to the Hazratbal siege and demonstrating against an earlier incident of firing on protesters near the Hazratbal shrine . [10]

When the procession reached the main road (the Srinagar–Jammu National Highway), that divides the town, they were confronted by a large contingent of the BSF. As the procession reached the top of the road in the Gooriwan area of bijbehara, the BSF allegedly blocked the street [13] and started firing indiscriminately, killing at least 48 people on the spot and injuring more than 200 others. The firing continued for nearly ten minutes.[ citation needed ] Human Rights Watch reported an eyewitness to the incident recalled: "The people had gathered on the National Highway which passes through Beijbehara town. It was like this even then, narrow, with shops on both sides of the road. There were thousands of people shouting slogans. But it was peaceful…. The BSF just opened fire without any warning. It was terrible. There were so many people lying on the ground. Others were running in panic…. This road, this very road, was full of blood." [3]

Media blackout

The Indian government was accused of a media blackout in Kashmir. [14] A local news outlet, Kashmir Affairs, reported that soon after news of the massacre went out, the Indian government barred independent local and international media from entering the town. On 23 October 1993, when a large number of local and foreign media people converged on the town, the army used violence and fired into the air to stop them from visiting the old side of the town, Kashmir Affairs also reported. [10]

Human Rights Act

The Bijbehara massacre followed the September 1993 passage of the Human Rights Act [15] by the Indian Parliament, adopted under the pressure of persistent allegations of human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, as well as in other areas of armed conflict in India. [ citation needed ] The law established the NHRC, which began operations in October 1993 and promptly took up the Bijbehara massacre. However, it soon became apparent that the Commission would not be able to challenge the armed forces' effective immunity from prosecution under Indian law. [16]

Enquiry Commission indicts BSF

The government of India ordered a magisterial inquiry into the killings and withdrew the BSF unit stationed in Bijbehara. [ citation needed ] Director General Prakash Singh, at the time the BSF Director General, ordered a commissioner to investigate the massacre.[ citation needed ] The local media, including KashmirWatch.com, reported that Kashmiris saw such inquiries as escapism, an 'eyewash'. Numerous enquiries in the past did not produce results that pleased local people. [17]

The Enquiry Magistrate's report was submitted to the government on 13 November 1993. It concluded that "firing upon the procession was absolutely unprovoked and the claim made by the security forces that they were forced to retaliate against the firing of militants for self-defence is baseless and concocted". The Enquiry Magistrate's report further stated that "The security personnel have committed [the] offence out of vengeance and their barbarous act was deliberate and well planned". The report indicted the Deputy Commandant of the BSF, JK Radola, for "tacit approval given by him to the indiscriminate and un-provoked firing." [18]

The report recommended "the immediate dismissal of the accused persons who committed this dastardly act". It further recommended that "this should be further followed up with the initiation of criminal proceedings against them and every effort should be made to ensure that justice is done and [the] maximum possible punishment under the law of the land is awarded to such malignant and sick minded individuals." [18]

Recommendations by National Human Rights Commission

On 1 November 1993, the Commission, called for reports on the incident from the Defence and Home affairs ministries and the Government of J&K. [19]

The Ministry of Defence denied that the army was involved. The Minister for Home Affairs sent a report to the commission based on the Magisterial Inquiry. The commission asked for copies of the testimony given by six witnesses. On 17 January 1994, the commission concluded "...that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated under the Border Security Force Act against 14 members of the Force, and further that, on the basis of a Magisterial Inquiry, steps may be initiated to launch prosecutions...". The commission also recommended that "immediate interim compensation" be paid to the victims' families and "a thorough review should be undertaken by government of the circumstances and conditions in which Units of the Border Security Force are deployed and expected to operate in situations involving only civilian population[s]".[ citation needed ]

Acquittals

By 1996, the General Security Force Court had conducted a nonpublic trial which acquitted the accused men. [7] The NHRC attempted to review the court files, but was refused access.

On 12 November 1996, three years after the NHRC issued its recommendations, A.K. Tandon, then director general of the BSF, told the NHRC that "a General Security Force Court trial was conducted in respect of the twelve BSF personnel involved in the said incident," but that results of the trial were "being withheld for the time being". The BSF had initially claimed that it had taken action against the responsible officials, but the only information available about this concerns one sub-inspector, who had been found not guilty. [7]

On 16 March 1998, the NHRC, while acknowledging the BSF report, said that it wanted to review the proceedings of the General Security Force Court before taking any final position in the matter. The NHRC has the right to examine transcripts of trials to ensure that genuine attempts have been made to secure convictions. The Ministry of Home Affairs refused to supply the trial records, stating in a letter on 5 May 1998, the "inability of the government of India to show records of the GSFC to any authority other than those provided under the Border Security Force Act". [16]

The NHRC subsequently tried several times to examine the proceedings of the trial. In its annual report in 1998–99, the NHRC noted that it was "deeply disturbed":

"The Commission is yet to satisfy itself that justice has fully been done in regard to the tragic loss of life that occurred in Bijbehara, in respect of which incident it had made specific recommendations. The Commission is determined to see this case through to its logical conclusion. At the end of the year, it was awaiting the records of those proceedings and was contemplating moving a Writ Petition before the Supreme Court if it were denied full access to the records that it had sought". [20]

On 8 February 1999, the NHRC told the government to preserve all related documents and then appealed to the Supreme Court "to issue a writ to make available to the petitioner the relevant records of the courts martial conducted in respect of the armed forces personnel involved in the said incident". The writ petition was later withdrawn by the NHRC, observers said this was probably because the verdict would have gone against the commission due to the restrictions imposed under Section 19 of the Human Rights Protection Act, 1993. [21]

See also

Notes and references

  1. ↑ Gossman, Patricia (1995). "An International Human Rights Perspective". Asian Affairs: An American Review. 22 (1): 65–70. doi:10.1080/00927678.1995.9933697. : "For example, [the National Human Rights Commission] report on the October 1993 massacre of forty-three civilians in Bijbehara, Kashmir, called for the prosecution of fourteen members of the BSF."
  2. ↑ 25 Years of Bijbehara Massacre: A Tale of Bloodbath, Kashmir Times, 23 October 2018: "The brutal killing of 51 civilians in the massacre is referred to as Bijbehara massacre."
  3. 1 2 "Everyone Lives in Fear - Patterns of Impunity in Jammu and Kashmir" (PDF). Human Rights Watch. 1 September 2006. Retrieved 2 October 2014.
  4. ↑ "Amnesty International Report 1994 - India". Amnesty International. 1 January 1994. Retrieved 10 April 2009.
  5. ↑ "Rising Kashmir". www.risingkashmir.com. Retrieved 25 July 2019.
  6. ↑ "October 22 1993 Bijbehara bloodbath Lastupdate:- Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:…". archive.is. 24 October 2014. Archived from the original on 24 October 2014. Retrieved 28 December 2019.
  7. 1 2 3 4 Varadarajan, Siddharth; Joshi, Manoj (21 April 2002). "BSF record: Guilty are seldom punished". Times of India. Retrieved 11 March 2018.
  8. ↑ "Chronology of Event: February 1991 - November1994". Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 1 March 1995. Retrieved 10 April 2009.
  9. ↑ "NHRC, Annual Report 1999-2000". National Human Rights Commission of India. Archived from the original on 10 September 2008. Retrieved 10 April 2009.
  10. 1 2 3 4 Shibli, Murtaza. "13th Anniversary of Bijbehara Massacre: 22 October 1993". Kashmir Affairs. Archived from the original on 9 May 2008. Retrieved 13 April 2009.
  11. ↑ Syed, Basharat (22 September 2007). "HC directs govt to pay relief to Bijbehara massacre victim's kins". Kashmir Times. Retrieved 11 April 2009.[ permanent dead link ]
  12. ↑ Gargan, Edward A. (23 October 1993). "KASHMIR CLASHES KILL AT LEAST 25". New York Times. Retrieved 10 April 2009.
  13. ↑ "Human Rights Watch World Report 1994 - India". Human Rights Watch. 1 January 1994. Retrieved 11 April 2009.
  14. ↑ Haider, Sajjad. "Kashmir Perspective: Media in Conflict Zones". Kashmir Affairs. Archived from the original on 21 January 2010. Retrieved 14 April 2009.
  15. ↑ National Human Rights Commission Text of Act Archived 25 January 2010 at the Wayback Machine 1993, retrieved 3 March 2010
  16. 1 2 "Everyone Lives in Fear". Human Rights Watch. 11 September 2006. Archived from the original on 20 April 2009. Retrieved 10 April 2009.
  17. ↑ Syed, Yasir (19 March 2009). "Probes on HR abuse eyewash, say kins of victims". Kashmir Times/Kashmir Watch. Retrieved 11 April 2009.[ permanent dead link ] KashmirWatch.com
  18. 1 2 Enquiry Magistrate report, number EN/BFC/93/23-24, unable to locate online reference
  19. ↑ "Firing by Security Forces in Bijbehara, Jammu & Kashmir". National Human Rights Commission Of India. 1993–94. Archived from the original on 10 April 2009. Retrieved 19 April 2009.
  20. ↑ "Section 3.6, Annual Report, 1998-1999". National Human Rights Commission. Archived from the original on 26 April 2009. Retrieved 19 April 2009.
  21. ↑ "Holy Cows, Chained Watchdog and a Banana Republic". AsianCenter for Human Rights. 28 January 2004. Archived from the original on 19 March 2005. Retrieved 19 April 2009.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Border Security Force</span> Indian border police organisation for Indo-pakistani and Indo-bangladeshi Borders

The Border Security Force (BSF) is India's border guarding organisation at its borders with Pakistan and Bangladesh. It is one of the seven Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) of India, and was raised in the wake of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 "for ensuring the security of the borders of India and for related matters".

Armed Forces Act (AFSPA), 1958 is an act of the Parliament of India that grants special powers to the Indian Armed Forces to maintain public order in "disturbed areas". According to the Disturbed Areas Act, 1976 once declared 'disturbed', the area has to maintain status quo for a minimum of 3 months. One such act passed on 11 September 1958 was applicable to the Naga Hills, then part of Assam. In the following decades it spread, one by one, to the other Seven Sister States in India's northeast. Another one passed in 1983 and applicable to Punjab and Chandigarh was withdrawn in 1997, roughly 14 years after it came to force. An act passed in 1990 was applied to Jammu and Kashmir and has been in force since.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir</span> Ongoing separatist militancy in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir

The insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir, also known as the Kashmir insurgency, is an ongoing separatist militant insurgency against the Indian administration in Jammu and Kashmir, a territory constituting the southwestern portion of the larger geographical region of Kashmir, which has been the subject of a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan since 1947.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kashmir conflict</span> Territorial conflict in South Asia

The Kashmir conflict is a territorial conflict over the Kashmir region, primarily between India and Pakistan and also between China and India in northeastern portion of the region. The conflict started after the partition of India in 1947 as both India and Pakistan claimed the entirety of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. It is a dispute over the region that escalated into three wars between India and Pakistan and several other armed skirmishes. India controls approximately 55% of the land area of the region that includes Jammu, the Kashmir Valley, most of Ladakh, the Siachen Glacier, and 70% of its population; Pakistan controls approximately 30% of the land area that includes Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan; and China controls the remaining 15% of the land area that includes the Aksai Chin region, the mostly uninhabited Trans-Karakoram Tract, and part of the Demchok sector.

Human rights in India is an issue complicated by the country's large size and population as well as its diverse culture, despite its status as the world's largest sovereign, secular, democratic republic. The Constitution of India provides for fundamental rights, which include freedom of religion. Clauses also provide for freedom of speech, as well as separation of executive and judiciary and freedom of movement within the country and abroad. The country also has an independent judiciary as well as bodies to look into issues of human rights.

The Sopore massacre refers to the killing of at least 43 civilians by the Indian Border Security Force (BSF) who were travelling on a bus from Bandipur to Sopore in Kashmir on 6 January 1993.

Papa II was an interrogation centre in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, operated by the Border Security Force (BSF) from the start of the Kashmir insurgency in 1989 until it was shut down in 1996.

The Gawkadal massacre was named after the Gawkadal bridge in Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India, where, on 21 January 1990, the Indian paramilitary troops of the Central Reserve Police Force opened fire on a group of Kashmiri protesters in what has been described by some authors as "the worst massacre in Kashmiri history". At least 50 people were killed. According to survivors, the actual death toll may have been as high as 280. The massacre happened two days after the Government of India appointed Jagmohan as the Governor for a second time in a bid to control the mass protests by Kashmiris.

The Chattisinghpora, Pathribal, and Barakpora massacres refer to a series of three closely related incidents that took place in the Anantnag district of Jammu and Kashmir between 20 March 2000 and 3 April 2000 that left up to 49 Kashmiri civilians dead.

The 1993 Lal Chowk fire refers to the arson attack on the main commercial centre of downtown Srinagar, Kashmir, that took place on 10 April 1993. The fire is alleged by government officials to have been started by a crowd incited by militants, while civilians and police officials interviewed by Human Rights Watch and other organisations allege that the Indian Border Security Forces (BSF) set fire to the locality in retaliation for the burning of an abandoned BSF building by local residents. Over 125 civilians were killed in the conflagration and the ensuing shooting by BSF troops.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lal Chowk</span> Place in Jammu and Kashmir, India

Lal Chowk is a city square in Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India.

The Kunan Poshspora incident was an alleged mass rape that occurred on 23 February 1991 when unit(s) of the Indian security forces, after being fired upon by militants, launched a search operation in the twin villages of Kunan and Poshpora, located in Kashmir's remote Kupwara District. The residents of the neighbourhood stated that militants had fired on soldiers nearby, which prompted the operation. Some of the villagers claimed that many women were raped by soldiers that night. The first information report filed in the police station after a visit by the local magistrate reported the number of women alleging rape as 23. However, Human Rights Watch asserts that this number could be between 23 and 100. These allegations were denied by the army. The government determined that the evidence was not sufficient and issued a statement condemning the allegations as terrorist propaganda.

The Zakura And Tengpora Massacre was the killing of protesters calling for the implementation of a United Nations resolution regarding the plebiscite in Kashmir at Zakura Crossing and Tengpora Bypass Road in Srinagar on 1 March 1990, in which 26 people were killed and 14 injured by Indian forces. It led Amnesty International to issue an appeal for urgent action on Kashmir.

Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir range from mass killings, enforced disappearances, torture, rape and sexual abuse to political repression and suppression of freedom of speech. The Indian Army, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), and Border Security Personnel (BSF) have been accused of committing severe human rights abuses against Kashmiri civilians. According to Seema Kazi, militant groups have also been held responsible for similar crimes, but the vast majority of abuses have been perpetrated by the armed forces of the Indian government.

Human rights abuses in Kashmir have been perpetrated by various belligerents in the territories controlled by both India and Pakistan since the two countries' conflict over the region began with their first war in 1947–1948, shortly after the partition of British India. The organized breaches of fundamental human rights in Kashmir are tied to the contested territorial status of the region, over which India and Pakistan have fought multiple wars. More specifically, the issue pertains to abuses committed in Indian-administered Kashmir and in Pakistani-administered Kashmir.

On 7 April 2015, Andhra Pradesh Police shot twenty suspected woodcutters in the Seshachalam forest in Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh, India. Red Sanders Anti-Smuggling Task Force DIG Kantha Rao said that the smugglers attacked the team with sickles, rods and axes. Asked if the attack could have been quelled without such fatalities, Rao said, "We gave them several warnings but they did not stop attacking us. There were over a hundred of them." Asked how many of his men were grievously injured, he said, "Nobody is seriously hurt from our side. Their superior training saved their lives."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016–2017 Kashmir unrest</span> Violent uprising in Jammu and Kashmir, India

The 2016–2017 unrest in Kashmir, also known as the Burhan aftermath, refers to violent protests in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, chiefly in the Kashmir Valley. It started after the killing of militan leader Burhan Wani by Indian security forces on 8 July 2016. Wani was a commander of the Kashmir-based Islamist militant organisation Hizbul Mujahideen.

The Kashmir conflict has been beset by large scale usage of sexual violence by multiple belligerents since its inception.

The 1990 Hawal Massacre was named after the Hawal area of Srinagar, Kashmir, where, on 21 May 1990, the Indian paramilitary troops of the Central Reserve Police Force opened fire on the peaceful funeral procession which was carrying the body of Mirwaiz Moulana Muhammad Farooq who was assassinated by unidentified gunmen at his Nageen Residence. The funeral procession was taking the body from SKIMS, Soura to Mirwaiz Manzil, Rajouri Kadal.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.